Delhi District Court
State vs Sapna on 4 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI BANSAL
LD. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02,
DWARKA COURTS, S-W DISTRICT, NEW DELHI.
In the matter of: -
State Vs. 1. Sapna
W/o Sh. Rahul
R/o H. No. 3, Perna Basti,
Rewla Khanpur, New Delhi.
2. Rohtash @ Bagdi
S/o Sh. Raghudass Swami
R/o Village Faipana,
Tehsil Nauhar, District
Hanuman Garh, Rajasthan.
3. Vikas @ Viki @ Luddoo
S/o Sh. Ram Singh
R/o VPO Mandhothi,
Pana Pachosia, District Jhajjar,
Haryana.
4. Amit @ Chhotu @ Pandit
S/o Sh. Jagdish
R/o VPO Aasauda, District
Jhajjar, Haryana.
Sessions Case No. 441449/16.
FIR No. 287/16.
PS Chhawla.
CNR No. DLSW01-008281-2016.
Charge-sheet filed u/s U/s 302/201/120B/34
IPC.
Charge(s) framed against accused 120B/302 r/w/s 120B IPC.
Sapna
Charge(s) framed against accused 120B/302/34 IPC.
Rohtash @ Bagdi
FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 1 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:57 +0530
Charge(s) framed against accused 120B/302/34 IPC.
Vikas @ Viki @ Luddoo
Charge(s) framed against accused 120B/302/34 IPC.
Amit @ Chhotu @ Pandit
Date of institution of case 24.10.2016.
Date of case received to Sessions 27.10.2016.
Court
Date of arguments 20.08.2025
Date of judgment 04.09.2025.
Decision Acquittal.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons are facing trial for the offence punishable u/s 302/201/120B/34 IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Raju gave his statement, which is as under: -
"I live with my family at the above address and stay at home. We are four brothers and four sisters. I am the eldest, youngest to me is Pintu, third is Rahul and the youngest is Mahesh and we have four sisters, all of whom are married. We four brothers are also married. On 11.07.2016, I received information from Police Station Kanjhawala that my brother Rahul is admitted in RML Hospital in a burnt condition. On this, I alongwith my brother reached Emergency of RML Hospital. My brother Rahul was found badly injured. On 10.07.2016, at around 11.00 pm, my brother Rahul was taken away by two boys on motorcycle and wife of Rahul namely Sapna sent him with those two persons. My brother told me that someone had burnt them. He crawled a little further and extinguished the fire. He reached a temple a little further and FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 2 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:57 +0530
there was a water tap there. The priest of the temple saw him drinking water. Since he was burnt, the priest called 100. The police brought him to RML Hospital and got him admitted there. During treatment, my brother died on 17.07.2016. Then the police got my brother's postmortem done in Sanjay Gandhi Hospital on 18.07.2016 and handed over the dead body to us. We cremated my brother in Revla Khanpur Village. My brother Rahul got married to Sapna in 2013. Sapna's parental home is at Bahadurgarh, Haryana. Sapna used to come and go to her parental home. She used to use a mobile phone whose number was 9599011506. After the cremation, our family sat in mourning. Sapna was also sitting among the family but Sapna was getting repeated calls on her phone, after which she would get up and go out and talk and after talking she would come back and sit. I got suspicious, so I and my brother Mahesh told Sapna that we have come to know everything, so what is the matter of getting repeated calls. Sapna said there is no problem. We started suspecting Sapna, so my brother Mahesh put Sapna's SIM card in his Samsung Smart Phone on 23.07.2016 at around 8.00 o'clock and put the phone on Auto Recording Mode so that any call that comes gets recorded and gave the phone to Sapna. On 24.07.2016, at 10.00 am, we checked the phone and saw the recording. On checking we found that from 11.00 pm on 23.07.2016, to 10.00 am on 24.07.2016, three calls came and all three were recorded. When I and brother Mahesh sat and listened to the recording, we came to know that Sapna had called two boys Vicky @ Laddu and FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 3 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:52 +0530
Vikas, who are friends, to her house. On 10.07.2016, at 11.00 pm, those two boys took our brother Rahul on a motorcycle on the pretext of giving him some work in front of us and they burnt our brother to death. After the recording, Sapna also told us everything clearly. We had a slight doubt earlier too, which has turned into belief today. Today, we have informed you about this incident. These three Sapna, Vicky @ Laddu and Vikas conspired and took Rahul from his home and burnt him to death with the intention of killing him by pouring petrol on him in Kanjhawala area. ... ... ..."
3. On the aforesaid complaint, present FIR was got registered u/s 302/201/120B/34 IPC.
4. During investigations of the case, statement of witnesses were recorded. On the basis of investigation, accused persons were charge-sheeted for offences punishable u/s 302/201/120B/34 IPC.
5. Vide order dated 28.03.2017, charge for the offences punishable u/s 120B/302 r/w/s 120B IPC was framed against accused Sapna and charge for the offences punishable u/s 120B/302/34 IPC was also framed against accused Vikas @ Vicky @ Laddoo, Amit @ Chhotu and Rohtash @ Bagdi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. To prove its case, prosecution examined 29 witnesses.
7. PW1 HC Hardeep Singh deposed that on 14.9.2016, he was posted as Assistant Draftsman. On that day he was called by the official of PS Chhawla. He reached at PS Chhawla from where he alongwith Inspector Harish Chander, another staff went to Shukal Dham, Jain Mandir, Shukal Vihar, Village FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 4 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:55 +0530
Sawda, Nizampur Road, Delhi, and also at Ram Sabha Land, Village Sawda, Delhi. He took measurements and prepared rough notes at the instance of Inspector Harish Chander for scaled site plan. PW1 further deposed that on 15.09.2016, he prepared scaled site plan of both the above places which are Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B and after preparing scaled site plan, he destroyed the rough notes and measurement. This witness was cross-examined by ld. defence counsel.
8. PW2 Anil Kumar deposed that about three years ago, in the morning hours, he was going to Shukal Jain Mandir in Village Sawda for saying prayer. Many public persons gathered outside the mandir, inside the compound of mandir. He was informed by the public that one person is lying unconscious. He made a call from his mobile no. 9868632216 to the police at 100 number. After some time, PCR came there and took the person but he had not seen said person.
9. Since, PW2 resiled from his previous statement, he was cross examined by ld. Additional PP for State, wherein he denied the suggestions put to him on behalf of State.
10. PW3 Raju deposed that he is a shopkeeper by profession.
They are four brothers and four sisters. He is eldest one. Pintu is second eldest brother and Rahul is third youngest brother. All his sisters are married. Rahul was also married. Accused Sapna is wife of Rahul (since deceased). On 11.07.2016, he received information that his younger brother Rahul is admitted in RML Hospital in burnt condition. He alongwith his brother Mahesh went to the RML Hospital. His brother Rahul was alive but was in a very bad shape, who told FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 5 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:56 +0530
them that he has been burnt by someone. He (Rahul) told them that in the night of 10.07.2016, around 10.00 to 11.00 pm, Vikas, Ladoo, Rohtash and one more person whose name he does not recollect, came at calling of accused Sapna at his house. Sapna told Rahul that these people will ensure job for him. He (Rahul) further told that they took him near a temple inside a village. He (Rahul) also told that he was burnt by some boys. The boys who were called by accused Sapna burnt him. Rahul told that somehow he doused the fire and reached near a temple and started drinking water. Pujari of the said temple saw him drinking water who also observed his burnt condition. Pujari called at 100 number. Police came at the spot and took him to RML Hospital. Rahul was being treated in RML Hospital but he expired during treatment on 17.07.2016. Postmortem of deceased Rahul was got conducted in Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and his dead body was handed over to them after postmortem by police officials. Thereafter, Rahul was cremated. They all were in mourning for number of days. During these days, they observed that number of calls on mobile phone of accused Sapna used to come and she used to go to attend them in isolated place. They started doubting something fishy. On 23.07.2016, his brother Mahesh culled out SIM card from the mobile phone of accused Sapna and put the same in his mobile and also put the same on auto recording mode. In the morning of 24.07.2016, they checked calls received on number of accused Sapna and found that 3 calls were received. After listening to the recording, they were almost sure that accused FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 6 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:55 +0530
Sapna got his brother Rahul killed. He made complaint Ex.PW3/A in the police station. The mobile on which calls received on SIM card belonging to accused Sapna was taken into possession by police vide memo Ex.PW3/B. Thereafter, accused Sapna was arrested.
11. PW3 further deposed that on 30.07.2016, SHO had brought three boys for identifying as to whether they were the same boys alongwith whom his deceased brother Rahul went on 10.07.2016 out of which they identified two boys. PW3 identified accused Amit and accused Vikas produced through video-conferencing, but failed to recollect their names. PW3 further stated that police told them the name of third boy as accused Rohtash who joined other accused on the way as per police. He identified the dead body of his brother Rahul vide memo Ex.PW3/C.
12. PW3 died a natural death due to which he was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsels for the excused person.
13. PW4 Mahesh deposed that on 11.07.2016, a phone call was received from PS Kanjhawala that his brother namely Rahul has been found in burnt condition and is admitted in RML Hospital. He alongwith his brothers went to RML Hospital where they found Rahul in burnt condition. Rahul told them that on 10.07.2016, two boys who took him from his house on pretext of work at instance of accused Sapna burnt him after taking him to a village near Kanjhawala. He (Rahul) further told that somehow he escaped and doused the fire and reached at a mandir. On reaching the mandir, he started drinking water from a tap in the mandir where pujari of said FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 7 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:56 +0530
mandir saw him and made call at 100 number. Police came and took him to RML Hospital. Thereafter, Rahul expired on 17.07.2016 while he was admitted in hospital. Postmortem of deceased Rahul was conducted in Sanjay Gandhi Hospital on 18.07.2016. After handing of dead body of his brother Rahul, they brought him to their house where he was cremated. PW4 further deposed that on 23.07.2016, when relatives and near and dear ones were present in their house, accused Sapna wife of deceased, was going in and outside to listen to mobile calls she was receiving whereupon they had suspicion upon her. At about 8.00-9.00 pm, they brought out the SIM card of accused Sapna from her mobile and inserted the same in his mobile phone make Samsung model J2 after putting the same on auto call recording and handed over the same to accused Sapna. On 24.07.2016, he and his brother Raju checked the mobile given by them to accused Sapna and found that during night she received three calls. In those calls, Sapna was talking with accused Vikas and Amit. Thereafter, they made a call at 100 number whereupon police came and arrested accused Sapna. PW4 identified the SIM card as Ex.P-1. PW4 on being asked leading question by ld. Additional PP for State stated that he had handed over Ex.P-1 to IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B. This witness also admitted the suggestion that accused Vikas @ Laddu and Amit took his deceased brother Rahul on a motorcycle in night of 10.07.2016 around 11.00 pm. There used to be frequent quarrel between deceased Rahul and accused Sapna regarding which they had complained to family members of accused Sapna number of FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 8 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:58 +0530
times. Accused Sapna used to instigate deceased Rahul for fight. PW4 was cross-examined by ld. defence counsel.
14. PW5 Ravinder @ Binder deposed that he is running a shop of repairing motorcycle in his village Aasauda Pana Todran. About 8-9 years ago from recording of his evidence, he had purchased one motorcycle, from Sriom who was his co- villager. After repairing the same, he had sold away the said vehicle to one Sandeep. After about 6 months of the said sale to Sandeep, he again handed over the said bike to him for repairing and then he sold away the said bike to Amit @ Chotte. Sandeep told him to sell off the bike as he was not paying the repairing charges i.e. about Rs.4-5 thousand. No agreement or documentation was done by him in respect of the above said sale and purchase. Only RC was handed over to the buyer. Sriom was also lodged in a jail in some case. PW5 on being asked leading question by ld. Additional PP for State, admitted that the motorcycle number was DL4SBH4751. PW5 was cross-examined by ld. defence counsel.
15. PW6 Sahid deposed that he is running a salon with name and style of Sameer Gents Parlor. In October 2016, one police official came to him and showed him photocopy of his aadhar card, which was bearing signatures of his name in English but they were not his signatures. He further stated that he is illiterate and cannot read and write in English. Police official inquired about one Vikas @ Vikki @ Laddoo, he told him that he does not know any person with that name nor had given his ID to anybody neither purchased SIM for anybody. IO FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 9 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:54 +0530
recorded his statement in this regard. PW6 proved the
photocopies of aadhar card as Ex.PW6/A (2 pages).
16. PW7 Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd., deposed that on the request of the IO vide letter dated 21.09.2016, he provided CDR, CAF and certificate u/s 65(b) Indian Evidence Act in respect of mobile numbers 8607007107 and 9728831717 for the period of 10.07.2016 till 24.07.2016. CDR and CAF of 9728831717 are proved as Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B. Photocopy of aadhar card of one Amit S/o Jagdish was submitted at the time of submission of customer application form. Photocopies of aadhar card is proved as Ex.PW7/C and Ex.PW7/D. CDR and CAF of 8607007107 is proved as Ex.PW7/E and Ex.PW7/F. Photocopy of aadhar card of one Shahid S/o Kallan was submitted at the time of submission of customer application form, photocopies of aadhar card is proved as Ex.PW6/A (2 pages). PW7 further stated that certificate u/s 65(b) Indian Evidence Act in respect of mobile numbers 8607007107 and 9728831717 for the period of 10.07.2016 till 24.07.2016 is proved as Ex PW7/G.
17. PW8 Sanjay Singh, Nodal Officer, Aircel Ltd., stated that he is deposing on behalf of the Nodal Officer Shishir Malhotra and he can identify his (Shishir Malhotra) signatures on the documents as he has seen signing and writing during course of his official duties. On the request of the IO, concerned Nodal Officer provided CDR, CAF Cell ID Chart and certificate u/s 65(b) Indian Evidence Act in respect of mobile number 7210228395 for the period of 10.07.2016 till FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 10 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:54 +0530
24.07.2016. CDR and CAF of 7210228395 bears signatures of concerned nodal officer and seal of the company at point A and is proved as Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B. Photocopy of aadhar card of one Shahid S/o Kallan bears signatures of concerned nodal officer and seal of the company at point A and is proved as Ex.PW8/C. PW8 further stated that as per the CAF of number 7210228395, name of applicant was Dinesh Kumar S/o Ghaseeta Lal. Certificate u/s 65(b) Indian Evidence Act in respect of mobile number 7210228395 for the period of 10.07.2016 till 24.07.2016 bears signatures of concerned Nodal Officer and seal of the company at point A which is proved as Ex.PW8/D. This witness was cross- examined by ld. defence counsel.
18. PW9 Rakesh Kumar, Record Clerk, Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, deposed that he has brought the original record in respect of patient Rahul and has seen the death summary of the patient signed by Dr. Shobith Gupta. He can identify his signatures as he has worked with him during course of his official duties. Dr. Shobith Gupta has left the services of hospital, whose signatures are appearing at point A on the death summary Ex.PW9/A. PW9 further stated that he has also seen copy of MLC of the patient dated 11.07.2016 who was admitted to the hospital with 60% superficial burns which is prepared by Dr. Himanshu Agarwal. He can identify his signatures as he has worked with him during course of his official duties. Dr. Himanshu Agarwal has left the services of hospital, whose signatures are appearing at point A on the FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 11 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:54 +0530
MLC Ex.PW9/B. This witness has been cross-examined by ld. defence counsel.
19. PW10 Rajiv Vashisht, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., deposed on behalf of the then Nodal Officer Chander Shekhar. On the request of the IO of this case, concerned Nodal Officer provided CDR, CAF, Cell ID Chart and certificate u/s 65(b) Indian Evidence Act in respect of mobile number 9599011506 for the period of 10.07.2016 till 24.07.2016. CDR along with Cell ID Chart and CAF of 9599011506 bears signatures of concerned nodal officer and seal of the company at point A, which is proved as Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B. Photocopy of aadhar card of one Vikas Dalal S/o Ram Singh bears signatures of concerned nodal officer and seal of the company at point A which is proved as Ex.PW10/C. Certificate u/s 65(b) Indian Evidence Act in respect of mobile number 9599011506 is proved as Ex.PW10/D. PW10 was cross-examined by ld. defence counsel.
20. PW11 ACP Mukhtiar Singh deposed that on 24.07.2016, DD No. 20A was marked to SI Sant Ram. He went through the said DD Ex.PW11/A. On receiving the said DD, he along with Const. Sant Ram and Const. Ravi reached at House No. 3, Prerna Basti, Prem Nagar, Rewla Khanpur, Delhi, where one Raju S/o Yaad Ram met them and told that his brother Rahul was murdered by his bhabhi Sapna and her two accomplishes about a week back and he (Raju) further informed that dead body of his brother was recovered by police official of PS Kanjhawla from a vacant plot and then FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 12 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:56 +0530
he (Raju) made a call to police. To verify the facts told by Raju, he sent SI Sant Ram to PS Kanjhawla from where the said fact was confirmed. SI Sant Ram came back to the spot and recorded the statement of complainant Raju on 24.07.2016 and prepared rukka, by the time of preparing rukka the date has changed to 25.07.2016. SI Sant Ram handed over the rukka to Const. Ravi for registration of FIR. Const. Ravi went to police station Chhawla and got registered the FIR No. 287/16 and came back to the spot and handed over the original rukka alongwith copy of FIR to him (PW11) for further investigation. He prepared site plan Ex.PW11/B at the instance of the complainant and thereafter, the case was transferred to Inspector Anil Chauhan.
21. PW12 Rajeev Ranjan, Nodal Officer, Tata Tele Services Ltd., deposed that vide letter dated 21.09.2016, IO asked about details of mobile number 7206408211 and 7404404838 from 10.07.2016 to 24.07.2016. Vide his reply dated 07.10.2016 Ex.PW12/A, he submitted to IO that mobile number 7404404838 was not active during the requisite period and has proved CDR, CAF, Cell ID Chart and certificate u/s 65(b) Indian Evidence Act in respect of mobile number 7206408211 for the period of 10.07.2016 till 24.07.2016. PW12 further depose that as per CAF Ex.PW12/B, the number was issued to one Deepak Kumar. CDR is proved as Ex.PW12/C and Cell ID Chart of 7206408211 is proved as Ex.PW12/D. Certificate u/s 65(b) Indian Evidence Act in respect of mobile numbers 7206408211 for the period of 10.07.2016 till 24.07.2016 is proved as Ex.PW12/E. FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 13 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:53 +0530
22. PW13 ASI Jagdish Prasad deposed that on the intervening night of 24-25.07.2016, he was assigned the duties of Duty Officer. On that date, he received rukka from Const. Ravi sent by SI Sant Ram and gone through the rukka and made his endorsement on the rukka, which is proved as Ex.PW13/A. Thereafter, he registered the present FIR. Copy of FIR and original rukka were handed over by him to IO Inspector Mukhtiyar Singh for further investigation. Copy of FIR is proved as Ex.PW13/B. He also issued certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act which is proved as Ex.PW13/C.
23. PW14 SI (Retired) Sant Ram Bhardwaj deposed that on 24.07.2016, DD No. 20A Ex.PW11/A was marked to him. He alongwith Const. Ravi reached at Rewla Basti, Prem Nagar, Rewla Khanpur, where complainant Raju met them and gave statement Ex.PW3/A, which was attested by him at point B. Inspector Mukhtiyar Singh, ATO and ACP, Najafgarh, also reached at the spot. He made inquires at the spot about Rahul and thereafter, he went to PS Kanjhawala and inquired about Rahul from the then SHO. SHO informed that on 11.07.2016, one Rahul was admitted in RML Hospital in burnt condition from Kanjhawala. SI Manoj was carrying out the proceedings to that effect and on 17.07.2016, said Rahul succumbed to his injuries and after the postmortem on 18.07.2016, dead body of Rahul was handed over to his family members for cremation. SI Manoj told him that the inquest papers were deposited in the hospital and he (SI Manoj) assured him (PW14) to handover all the documents alongwith postmortem report to him. Thereafter, he came FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 14 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:56 +0530
back to the spot, where Mahesh (brother of Rahul) met him and produced Samsung Duos mobile phone of golden colour, which was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B. Mahesh informed him that Sapna wife of deceased Rahul was not having remorse on the death of her husband Rahul. He (Mahesh) further told him that there is recording in the mobile phone in which Sapna was talking to one Vicky @ Laddu and conspiring with him to kill his brother. He prepared a rukka Ex.PW14/A on the statement of Raju mentioning therein all the said facts and handed over to Const. Ravi for registration of FIR. Const. Ravi went to police station and got registered present FIR. Further investigation of this case was handed over to Inspector Mukhtiyar Singh.
24. PW14 further stated that on 26.07.2016, he joined the investigations of this case with Inspector Anil Kr. Chauhan, the then SHO, and searched for accused Sapna, who was found at Prerna Basti, Shiv Mandir, Bus Stand Prem Nagar, Rewla Khanpur, near her house and she was apprehended. On interrogation, she admitted her guilt. Thereafter, accused Sapna was arrested in this case vide arrest memo Ex.PW14/B. She was personally searched by W-PSI Annu Dagar vide personal search memo Ex.PW14/C. She made a disclosure statement Ex.PW14/D which was recorded by Inspector Anil Kr. Chauhan. On 29.07.2016, he again joined the investigation of this case. On that day, he alongwith IO alongwith other police staff, accused Sapna and Mahesh (brother of deceased) were also with them and they searched FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 15 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:50 +0530
for accused Vikas @ Vicky @ Laddu and went to his village Mandhoti, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana, where accused Vikas @ Vicky @ Laddu was apprehended from his house and was interrogated. Thereafter, accused Vikas @ Vicky @ Laddu was arrested in this case vide arrest memo Ex.PW14/E. He was personally searched vide personal search memo Ex.PW14/F and Ex.PW14/F-1. Details of personal search and recovered articles are mentioned therein. Same were taken into police possession after sealing the same in to a plastic box with the seal of "AK". He made a disclosure statement Ex.PW14/G. PW14 further stated that he again joined investigation of this case on 31.07.2016 and on that day, accused Rohtash @ Bagdi was arrested in this case from Tikri Boarder, Bahadurgarh, near a tea shop, vide arrest memo Ex.PW14/H, accused Rohtash was personally searched vide personal search memo Ex.PW14/I. Details of personal search and recovered articles are mentioned therein. Same were taken into police possession after sealing the same in to a plastic box with the seal of "AK". Accused Rohtash made a disclosure statement Ex.PW14/J. Accused Rohtash got recovered one motorcycle from outside his house which was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/K. One mobile phone was recovered from his possession, same was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/L. PW14 was cross-examined by ld. defence counsel.
25. PW15 ASI Krishan Kumar deposed that on 29.07.2016, he alongwith SI Santram, SHO Anil Kumar Chauhan and FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 16 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:54 +0530
informer went to village Mandothi. At the entrance of the village, informer signaled towards accused Vikas. On the instruction of SHO, he apprehended accused Vikas, who was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW14/E. Accused Vikas was personally searched vide personal search memo Ex.PW14/F and Ex.PW14/F-1. Details of personal search and recovered articles are mentioned therein. Same were taken into police possession after sealing the same in to a plastic box with the seal of "AKC". He made a disclosure statement Ex.PW14/G. He again joined investigation of this case on 30.07.2016. On that day, accused Amit Kumar @ Chhotu was apprehended in this case from village Asoda, Bahadurgarh, vide apprehension memo Ex.PW15/A. Accused Amit was brought to the police station. Accused Amit Kumar and Vikas pointed out to the place of occurrence and at their instance IO prepared a pointing out memo Ex.PW15/B. After that they again came back to the police station. On 18.10.2016, he went alongwith IO for giving the voice sample of accused Vikas and Sapna. After their recording a cassette was handed over to the IO. IO seized it vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/C. This witness was cross-examined by ld. defence counsel.
26. PW16 Inspector (Retired) Harish Chander deposed that in the year 2016, investigation of this case was under him from 03.09.2016. On 14.09.2016, he alongwith his staff went to the place of occurrence and got prepared a scaled site plan from draftsman HC Hardeep Singh. He recorded the statement of relevant witnesses. On 23.09.2016, he alongwith staff got inspected the scene of crime and FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 17 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:50 +0530
photographed it from crime team. He recorded the statement of relevant witnesses. On 18.10.2016, on production warrants of accused Sapna and Vikas @ Vicky a voice sample were prepared at FSL Rohini and cassettes were prepared and the same were taken into possession in pullindas sealed with seal of 'HCR' vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/C. Seal was handed over to HC Krishan Kumar. CAF/CDR of recovered mobiles were collected and PCR forms were also collected. Statement regarding ownership of recovered motorcycle was recorded. Pullindas containing voice samples were deposited in the FSL for opinion. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed before the court. This witness was cross-examined by ld. defence counsel.
27. PW17 Annu Dagar (Ex-Sub Inspector) deposed that on 26.07.2016, she alongwith IO Inspector Anil Kr. Chauhan and other police staff reached at bus stand Prem Nagar, Rewla Khanpur, near Shiv Mandir, where they apprehended one of the accused i.e. Sapna, who was interrogated, wherein she had admitted her involvement in the present case. She was arrested by the IO vide arrest memo Ex.PW14/B. She was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW14/C. Disclosure statement of accused Sapna was also recorded by the IO, which is Ex.PW14/D. This witness was cross-examined by ld. defence counsel.
28. PW18 HC Jai Prakash deposed that on 10.07.2016, on receiving DD No. 24B, which was marked to SI Manoj, he alongwith SI Manoj reached at the spot i.e. Jain Mandir, Kanjhawala, where it was found that one person, who was in FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 18 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:53 +0530
burnt condition, was already taken to RML Hospital by PCR officials. Thereafter, he alongwith SI Manoj had gone to RML Hospital, where one person was found admitted. They came to know his name as Rahul. Doctor had declared him unfit for statement. His relatives were informed. PW18 was cross-examined by ld. defence counsel.
29. PW19 ASI Rajbala deposed that on 24.07.2016, he was posted at PS Chhawla as DD Writer from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm. On that date, he recorded DD No. 20A Ex.PW11/A at 12.06 pm.
30. PW20 ASI Sunil Kumar deposed that on 17.10.2016, according to instructions of IO, he went to verify the address of telephone no. 7210228395 issued in the name of Dinesh Kumr S/o Ghasitey Lal R/o H. No. 25, Tikri Kalan, Delhi, which was being used by accused Rohtash and telephone no. 7206408211 issued in the name of Deepak Kr. Methew S/o Brahma Methew R/o H. No. 114, Village Parnala, District Jhajjar, which was being used by accused Vikas @ Vicky. Both the aforesaid addresses were not found existing. The accused persons have got issued the aforesaid phone numbers by using the IDs of different persons. PW20 was cross- examined by ld. defence counsel.
31. PW21 ACP (Retired) Harish Chander Pathak deposed that on 19.02.2016, he was posted as Nodal Officer, at CPCR/PHQ, ITO, New Delhi. On that day, he issued 2 PCR forms no. 11Jul161460124 and 24Jul161380153, which are proved as Ex.PW21/A and Ex.PW21/B. He also issued certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act which is proved as Ex.PW21/C. FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 19 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:52 +0530
32. PW22 Inspector Manmohan Yadav deposed that on 24.07.2018, he collected the FSL result from MHC(M), prepared a supplementary charge-sheet qua the FSL result and filed the same in the Court.
33. PW23 SI Kaptan Singh deposed that on 11.07.2016, he was posted as Incharge, PCR, on Lebra-34 and his duty hours were from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm. During the same, at about 8.00 am, he received a call from Control Room informing that one person was lying at Skul Jain Mandir, Savda Road, Ghevra, in burnt condition. On receiving this information, he reached at the spot, where they found a person lying on the side of the road. He was alive. On asking, he disclosed his name Rahul S/o Yadram R/o Rewla. Rahul informed him (PW23) that in the night 2-3 persons burnt him. They immediately took him to RML Hospital and got admitted there. SI Manoj reached at the hospital. Thereafter, after giving the brief facts, which they collected, they left the hospital. PW23 was cross-examined by ld. defence counsel.
34. PW24 Lal Chand deposed that he was owner of motorcycle make Bajaj Pulsor bearing registration no. DL4SBH4751 and on 20.11.2010, he sold the said motorcycle to Gajram S/o Roop Ram R/o 2-B/2, P-Blcok, Prem Nagar, Najafgarh and also handed over the documents of said motorcycle to him (Gajram). He did not get transfer the said motorcycle in the name of Gajram as he knew him. During investigation, he handed over copy of affidavit and photocopy of ration card of Gajram to police, which are proved as Ex.PW24/A and Ex.PW24/B. FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 20 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:56 +0530
35. PW25 Gajram deposed that he does not remember the registration number of motorcycle, which he bought from Lal Chand S/o Kanwal Singh about 10-12 years back. Said motorcycle was sold by him to one person of Ashauda Village. PW25 on being asked leading question by ld. Additional PP for State stated that he cannot say whether the registration number of the said motorcycle was DL4SBH4751 make Bajaj Pulsor. He also does not remember that the name of the buyer of the motorcycle was Sriom.
36. Since PW25 did not support the case of the prosecution on some material aspect, he was cross-examined by ld. Additional PP for State. During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he is not disclosing the registration number of the said motorcycle and the name of the buyer intentionally to save the accused persons from legal punishment. However, he admitted that his statement was recorded by the police on 10.10.2016 and that he stated to the police registration number of the said motorcycle as DL4SBH4751 make Bajaj Pulsor and that he sold the said motorcycle to Sriom resident of Ashauda Village. He further stated that earlier he cannot tell the same in his examination in chief as he could not recollect the registration number of the said motorcycle as DL4SBH4751 make Bajaj Pulsor and the name of buyer as Sriom. PW25 was cross-examined by ld. defence counsel.
37. PW26 Inspector Manoj deposed that on 10.07.2026, he was on my night emergency duty from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am next FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 21 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:49 +0530
day. In the morning of 11.07.2016, he received DD No. 24B Ex.PW26/A. He alongwith Const. Jai Prakash reached at Skul Jain Mandir, where he came to know that one injured person was taken to RML Hospital by PCR van. He alongwith Const. Jai Prakash reached at RML Hospital, where vide MLC No. D-152780/16, one boy, aged about 20- 25 years, whose name later on he came to know as Rahul S/o Yadram, was found admitted who was declared unfit for statement by the doctor. He informed the family members of the injured. During treatment, said injured Rahul succumbed to his injuries on 17.07.2016. He received this information vide DD No. 24B dated 17.07.2016, Ex.PW26/B. On 18.07.2016, postmortem on the dead body of deceased Rahul was got conducted at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital vide PM Report No. 690/16 and the dead body was handed over to his family members. During the aforesaid proceedings, he prepared inquest papers i.e. identification statement of Raju S/o Yadram Ex.PW3/C, identification statement of Pintu S/o Yadram Ex.PW26/C. He also recorded statement of Raju S/o Yadram in detail, which is proved as Ex.PW26/D and handed over postmortem report and inquest papers to the IO. PW26 was cross-examined by ld. defence counsel.
38. PW27 Noman Ansari deposed on behalf of Vivek Kumar, Jr. Forensic/Assistant Chemical Examiner, FSL, Rohini, New Delhi, as Vivek Kumar had already left the services of FSL, Rohini, New Delhi, and his present whereabouts are not with their office. He stated that he has seen report no. FSL/2016/CFU/8131 dated 12.06.2018 and certificate u/s FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 22 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:55 +0530
65B (iv)(c) of Indian Evidence Act, which are bearing the signatures of Vivek Kumar and his seal at point A. The said report is proved as Ex.PW27/A and certificate is proved as Ex.PW27/B. This witness was cross-examined by ld. defence counsel.
39. PW28 V. Lakshmi Narasimhan, Assistant Director (Physics), FSL, Rohini deposed that on 13.06.2018, he has received 3 sealed parcels alongwith specimen seal from Computer Forensic Unit, FSL, Delhi, as per internal forwarding note. The parcel 1 was found containing one DVD of Sony Corporation. The DVD was found containing relevant audio files. The name of the files, the 'speaker starts with', and the 'speaker marked as' as per his report. The parcel 2 was sealed with the seal of "HCR" and on opening the same, it was found containing one audio cassette, which was found containing specimen voice sample. The speaker (Sapna) of the specimen voice sample was marked as exhibit S-1 in the laboratory. The parcel 3 was sealed with the seal of "HCR" and on opening the same, it was found containing one audio cassette, which was found containing specimen voice sample. The speaker (Vikas @ Vicky) of the specimen voice sample was marked as exhibit S-2 in the laboratory. After examination of the exhibits, he prepared his detailed report Ex.PW28/A. The result of examination and his opinion is as per his report Ex.PW28/A. After the examination, the parcels and the report in sealed conditions with the seal of "VLN FSL DELHI" were forwarded to Computer Forensic Unit, FSL, Delhi. PW27 was cross-examined by ld. defence counsel.
FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 23 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:54 +0530
40. PW29 ACP Anil Kr. Chauhan deposed that on 26.07.2016, investigation of this case was handed over to him from Inspector Mukhtiyar Singh. During investigation, he alongwith SI Sant Ram Bhardwaj and W-SI Anu Dagar reached at Prem Nagar-2, Perna Basti, New Delhi, where accused Sapna was apprehended, interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW14/B. Accused Sapna was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW14/C. During interrogation, accused Sapna made disclosure statement Ex.PW14/D. Accused Sapna was produced before the Court and her two days PC remand was obtained vide application Ex.PW29/A. During investigation on 27.07.2016, he alongwith police team reached at Metro Construction site, Tikri Boarder, where main guard Kuldeep Singh was met and complete identity of accused Vikas @ Vicky S/o Ram Singh and accused Amit @ Chhotu S/o Jagdish was established. Thereafter, they reached at Village Mandoti, Haryana, and met Ram Singh (father of accused Vikas), who informed that accused Vikas and his friend Amit were not available. Thereafter, they reached at PS Kanjhawala, Delhi, and obtained the inquest papers of deceased Rahul from Record Mohrar and was instructed to keep in safe custody the rojnamcha containing in inquest details, in original till final decision. On 28.07.2016, accused Sapna was produced before the Court and requested for voice sample of accused Sapna vide application Ex.PW29/B which was allowed. On 29.07.2016, a secret information was received regarding presence of accused Vikas at Village Mandoti, Haryana.
FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 24 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:49 +0530
Immediately, he alongwith staff reached there and apprehended, interrogated and arrested accused Vikas vide arrest memo Ex.PW14/E. Accused Vikas was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW14/F. During interrogation, accused Vikas made disclosure statement Ex.PW14/J. Mobile phone of accused Vikas make Karbon with 5 sims, 2 in the phone and 3 others were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/F.
41. PW29 further deposed that on 30.07.2016, on the pointing of accused Vikas, JCL Amit was apprehended and his father Jagdish told that the police that JCL Amit was a minor, so JCL Amit was taken into custody vide apprehension memo Ex.PW15/B. Social report of JCL Amit was prepared, which is proved as Ex.PW29/C. Version of JCL Amit was recorded, vide Ex.PW29/D. During investigation, JCL Amit and accused Vikas pointed out the place where accused persons poured petrol and set blazed deceased Rahul. He prepared pointing out memos. Pointing out memo of accused Vikas is proved as Ex.PW15/B and pointing out memo of JCL Amit is proved as Ex.PW29/E. Thereafter, JCL Amit and accused Vikas led the police party to Prem Nagar-2, Perna Basti, Delhi, from where they had taken deceased Rahul on motorcycle on 10.07.2016. Thereafter, he prepared pointing out memo of JCL Amit to this effect, which is on record and is proved as Ex.PW29/F. JCL Amit was produced before Ld. JJB in muffled face and accused Vikas was produced before Ld. MM in muffled face. He moved an application for judicial TIP of accused Vikas, but accused refused to join the FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 25 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:56 +0530
judicial TIP. The application to this effect is proved as Ex.PW29/G. He obtained the copy of the order on the application. Thereafter, he moved an application Ex PW 29/G-1 for 2 days PC remand of accused Vikas, which was allowed by the Court. He moved an application for providing the copy of judicial TIP of accused Vikas which is proved as Ex.PW29/G-2. He also moved an application Ex.PW29/G-3 for judicial TIP of JCL Amit before Ld. JJB before his declaration as major, but he (JCL Amit) refused to join the judicial TIP. On 31.07.2016, accused Vikas led the police party to Baba Haridas Colony, Tikri Boarder, and on his pointing out, accused Rohtash was apprehended, interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW14/H. Accused Rohtash was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW14/I. During interrogation, accused Rohtash made disclosure statement Ex.PW14/J. Mobile phone of accused Rohtash was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW29/H. Thereafter, accused Rohtash got recovered motorcycle bearing registration no. DL4SBH4751 from nearby to his house. The motorcycle was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/A. He prepared the site plan of the spot of recovery of motorcycle Ex.PW29/I. During investigation, accused Rohtash pointed out the place, where accused persons poured the petrol over the deceased and set blazed deceased Rahul. He prepared the pointing out memo Ex.PW29/J to this effect. On 01.08.2016, during investigation, accused Vikas pointed out the petrol pump from where they had purchased petrol in a bottle. He FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 26 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:51 +0530
prepared the pointing out memo to this effect Ex.PW29/K. Accused Vikas and Rohtash were produced before the Ld. MM. He moved an application for judicial TIP of accused Rohtash vide application Ex.PW29/L, but accused Rohtash refused to join the TIP proceedings. He collected the copy of the order of the Court. He also moved an application for providing copy of order regarding accused Rohtash Ex.PW29/L-1. He also moved an application Ex.PW29/M for voice sample of accused Vikas, which was allowed. The said application was allowed by the Court. During investigation, JCL Amit was declared major by Ld. JJB. Accused Amit was got produced before Ld. MM in muffled face. He moved an application for judicial TIP of accused Amit, but he (accused Amit) refused to join the TIP proceedings. He collected the copy of the order of the Court. During investigation, he recorded statement of witnesses, who joined in the investigation. After his transfer, he handed over the file to MHC(R).
42. PW-29 further stated that during investigation, he has also examined the petrol pump owner from where the accused persons purchased the petrol and set ablaze the deceased after pouring the petrol. The petrol pump owner gave in writing Ex.PW29/N that CCTV footage is not available, in his presence. PW29 identified the motorcycle as Ex.P-29/I, mobile phone with battery and SIM as Ex.P-29/2 (collectively). PW29 also identified the one mobile phone make Karbonn of black and red colour with battery and 5 sims no. 89911282011602417261H-1 of mobile no.
FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 27 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:55 +0530
9728831717; 89911282011602260141H-1 of mobile no. 8607007107; 89910311110112738468 of mobile no. 7404404838; 89910311110075376561 of mobile no. 8529921706; and 89910311110117200969 of mobile no. 7206408211 as Ex.P-29/3 (colly). PW29 further stated that in his earlier examination in chief recorded today i.e. 03.12.2024 he had mentioned that mobile phone make Celkon was recovered from accused Amit inadvertently, whereas the said mobile phone was recovered from accused Rohtash @ Bagdi. PW29 was cross-examined by ld. defence counsel.
43. In their statement recorded u/s 294 CrPC, accused persons namely Sapna, Rohtash, Vikas and Amit admitted TIP of accused Vikas as Ex.PX-1 and TIP of accused Amit as Ex.PX-2.
44. Statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C of accused persons were recorded, wherein the accused persons were briefed on all the incriminating ocular and documentary evidence to which they denied and further deposed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.
45. I have heard State through Sh. V.K. Swami, Ld. Additional PP for State, Sh. Rohit Singh, ld. counsel for accused Sapna, Sh. Ravinder Kumar, ld. counsel for accused Rohtash from the office of CLADC, Sh. Anirudh Yadav, ld. counsel for accused Vikas and Ms. Manju, ld. counsel for accused Amit. I have also perused entire material on record.
46. Ld. Additional PP for State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 28 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:57 +0530
prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story and have corroborated each other's version. To substantiate his submissions, he argued that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has proved the complete chain of circumstances against the accused persons. He also argued that the subsequent conduct of accused Sapna and her audio conversation with accused Vikas establishes the guilt of accused persons. It is also submitted that PW3 and PW4 after hearing the audio recording between accused Sapna and accused Vikas, had lodged the complaint, upon which present FIR was lodged. He also argued that the testimony of prosecution witnesses is of sterling quality and hence should be relied upon. He also argued that the prosecution has proved the ingredients of all the offences under which charges have been framed against the accused persons and hence, accused persons should be convicted under all these Sections.
47. Ld. Counsels for accused persons argued that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons. To substantiate their point, ld. Counsels for accused persons argued that the audio recording is not admissible in evidence as the audio recording was never heard by PW3, PW4 and PW29, as per their testimony recorded before the Court. It is also submitted that the accused persons were never identified by deceased Rahul. The last seen theory propounded by the prosecution remained unproved. It is argued that the motive of the accused persons for commission of crime also remained unproved. It is further argued that there is no FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 29 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:53 +0530
evidence on record to show that accused Sapna was in relationship with accused Vikas. It is also stated that the disclosure statement of the accused persons are confessional in nature and are inadmissible in evidence. They also argued that there is no eye witness of alleged incident. They further argued that the chain of circumstances is not complete against the accused persons. Ld. Counsels for accused persons also argued that since the ingredients of alleged offences have not been proved by the prosecution and hence, the accused persons should be acquitted under all the Sections under which charges have been framed against them.
48. In the present case, charges under Sections 302/34 IPC, 120B/34 IPC, have been framed against the accused persons. These Sections have been elaborated as under: -
Section 302 IPC provides punishment for the commission of offence of murder which has been defined U/s 300 IPC.
300 Murder Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or Secondly- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or Thirdly- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or Fourthly-If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 30 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:51 +0530
Exception 1 When culpable homicide is not murder.
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person my mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the following provisos:-
First-That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
Secondly- That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of the public servant.
Thirdly-That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
Explanations: Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence amounting to murder is a question of fact.
Exception 2: Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm then is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
Exception 3: Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or adding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.
Exception 4: Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without pre meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 31 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:51 +0530
Explanation : It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
Exception 5: Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.]
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
49. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced, perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions of law. I have also considered the judgments relied upon by ld. Additional PP for State as well as ld. counsels for accused persons.
50. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is established principle of law that a witness may lie but not the circumstances. In the present case, there is no eye witness of FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 32 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:51 +0530
the alleged incident of commission of murder of deceased Rahul. As per the story of prosecution, PW2 was the person, who had spotted deceased Rahul in a burnt condition and had thereafter, called the police officials. However, PW2 in his testimony recorded before the Court had turned hostile and stated that he had not seen deceased Rahul in a burnt condition himself, rather he was told by one of the public person present at the spot. He admitted that he had called the police officials. Otherwise also, just because PW2 had seen the deceased in burnt condition, would not tantamount to the fact that he was an eye witness, who had witnessed the incident and had seen the culprits. Therefore, the present case has to be classified as a case based upon circumstantial evidence.
51. For a case to be proved by way of circumstantial evidence, first of all the prosecution has to prove that deceased Rahul was murdered. In the present case, there is no eye witness of the alleged incident. None of the prosecution witnesses have deposed that they had seen deceased Rahul being murdered by someone. It is the case of the prosecution that on the intervening night of the incident i.e., 10.07.2016-11.07.2016 at around 11 pm, Accused no. 3 Vikas and Accused no.2 Rohtash had picked up deceased Rahul from his house at the instance of Accused No.1 Sapna, after which deceased Rahul was burnt alive by pouring petrol on him by accused no.2, accused no.3 and accused no.4. There is no eyewitness to the incident, however, PW-2 who was the Pujari of temple had seen the deceased Rahul in the burnt condition in the morning FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 33 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:49 +0530
of 11.07.2016, whereafter he had called the police. PW2 had turned hostile before the court and stated that he had not seen deceased Rahul in burnt condition but was told by one of the public person that one person is lying unconscious and thereafter he had made a phone call to police. Be that as it may be, there is no eyewitness who has witnessed the incident and the culprits who have killed the deceased Rahul. Deceased Rahul was alive when he was taken to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital for treatment. PW 23 in his testimony has stated that deceased Rahul had told him that in the night 2-3 persons burnt him but he did not disclose the name of the persons who had burnt him. The deceased Rahul had succumbed to death on 18.07.2016 but without identifying the culprits/accused persons, who are responsible for the same. Thus, the prosecution has successfully proved that deceased Rahul was murdered but who had murdered deceased Rahul is to be seen in light of circumstantial evidence placed on record.
52. The guilt of the accused can also be proved through the circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence has to be appreciated as per the established principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The standard of proof required for conviction in case of circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances relied upon in support of conviction must be fully established and the chain of evidence proved by the prosecution must be so complete as not to leave any FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 34 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:55 +0530
reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.
53. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as 'Sharad Bridhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra cited as (1984) 4 SCC 116' has laid down the five golden principles for appreciation of circumstantial evidence and has termed the same as Panchsheel of the Proof of Case based on circumstantial evidence. The said five golden principles are as follows: -
(i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be and not merely 'may be' fully established.
(ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypotheses of the guilt of accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypotheses except that the accused is guilty.
(iii) The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency.
(iv) They should exclude every possible hypotheses except the one to be proved.
(v) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all probability the act must have been done by the accused.
54. Thus, before recording the conviction of accused persons, the abovesaid five conditions must be satisfied. The prosecution has to establish its case on the basis of abovesaid five FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 35 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:51 +0530
golden principles and to secure conviction of accused persons, the prosecution must fulfill the following requirements: -
(i) The circumstances from which the inference of the guilt of the accused is to be drawn must be firmly established.
(ii) The established circumstances must be of such definite tendency that points out towards the guilt of accused.
(iii) The chain of the circumstances must be so complete and there should not be any snap in the chain of circumstances.
(iv) The chain of circumstances must be so complete and incapable of any other hypotheses then that the guilt of the accused and same should also be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and must exclude every other possible hypotheses except with the hypotheses pointing out towards the guilt of the accused.
55. The law relating to circumstantial evidence, as explained in several decisions including Sharad Birdichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia Vs. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 SCC 156, Harishchandra Ladaku Thange Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 2957 and Vithal Eknath Adlinge Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2067, is fairly well settled.
FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 36 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:52 +0530
56. Reference can be made to the case of Sanatan Naskar and Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 8 SCC 249, where it was observed as follows: -
"27. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that it is a case of circumstantial evidence as there was no eyewitness to the occurrence. It is a settled principle of law that an accused can be punished if he is found guilty even in cases of circumstantial evidence provided, the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt complete chain of events and circumstances which definitely points towards the involvement and guilt of the suspect or accused, as the case may be. The accused will not be entitled to acquittal merely because there is no eyewitness in the case. It is also equally true that an accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence subject to satisfaction of the accepted principles in that regard."
57. In Gagan Kanojia Vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 13 SCC 516 , the Supreme Court opined: -
"9. Indisputably, charges can be proved on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, when direct evidence is not available. It is well settled that in a case based on a circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove that within all human probabilities, the act must have been done by the accused. It is, however, necessary for the courts to remember that there is a long gap between 'may be true' and 'must be true'. Prosecution case is required to be covered by leading cogent, believable and credible evidence. Whereas the court must raise a presumption that the accused is innocent and in the event two views are possible, one indicating to his guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the defence available to the accused should be accepted, but at the same time, the court must not reject the evidence of the prosecution, proceeding on the basis that they are false, not trustworthy, unreliable and made on flimsy grounds or only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. The prosecution case, thus, must be judged in its entirety having regard to the totality of the circumstances. The approach of the court should be an integrated one and not truncated or isolated. The court should use the yardstick of probability and appreciate the intrinsic value of the evidence brought on records and analyze and assess the same objectively."
FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 37 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:57 +0530
58. It can thus clearly be seen that it is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The Court held that it is a primary principle that the accused 'must be' and not merely 'may be' proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved'. It has been held that the facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. It has further been held that the circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. It has been held that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused.
59. It is settled law that suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
60. In view of the aforesaid principles governing the case based on the circumstantial evidence, let us turn to the case in hand. Now, it has to be examined as to whether accused persons who faced the trial are perpetrators of this crime. The FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 38 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:53 +0530
incriminating circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused persons are: -
(i) Disclosure statement of the accused persons.
(ii) Last seen theory.
(iii) Audio recording between accused Sapna and accused Vikas.
(iv) FSL report matching the voice recording of accused Sapna and accused Vikas.
(v) Motive for the crime.
61. The above incriminating circumstances, in the light of material on record and the evidence produced during trial are dealt accordingly.
Disclosure Statement and their admissibility
62. It is a settled principle of law that a confessional statement made to a police officer is not admissible in evidence and only the discovery led by such statement is admissible. This was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Aghnoo Naghesia Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119" wherein it was held as under: -
"A little reflection will show that the expression "confession" in ss. 24 to 30 refers to the confessional statement as a whole including not only the admissions of the offence but also all other admissions of incriminating facts related to the offence. Section 27 partially lifts the ban imposed by ss. 24. 25 and 26 in respect of so much of the information whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact discovered in consequence of the information, if the other conditions of the section are satisfied. Section 27 distinctly contemplates that an information leading to a discovery may be a part of the confession of the accused and thus, fall within the purview of ss. 24, 25 and 26 Section 27 thus shows that a FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 39 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:56 +0530
confessional statement admitting the offence may contain additional information as part of the confession. Again, s. 30 permits the Court to take into consideration against a co- accused a confession of another accused affecting not only himself but the other co-accused. Section 30 thus shows that matters affecting other persons may from part of the confession.
If the first information report is given by the accused to a police officer and amounts to a confessional statement, proof of the confession is prohibited by s. 25. The confession includes not only the admission of the offence but all other admissions of incriminating facts related to the offence contained in the confessional statement. No part of the confessional statement is receivable in evidence except to the extent that the ban of s. 25 is lifted by."
63. It will be useful to advert to the exposition in the case of Vasanta Sampat Dupare Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 1 SCC 253, in particular, paragraphs 23 to 29 thereof. The same read thus: -
"23. While accepting or rejecting the factors of discovery, certain principles are to be kept in mind. The Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 has held thus: (IA p. 77) "... it is fallacious to treat the 'fact discovered' within the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person in custody that 'I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house' does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant.
FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 40 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:51 +0530
But if to the statement the words be added 'with which I stabbed A', these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant."
64. In Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra, (1976) 1 SCC 828; (1976) 1 SCR 715, while dealing with the ambit and scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Court held that:
(SCC pp. 831-32, paras 11-13) "11. Although the interpretation and scope of Section 27 has been the subject of several authoritative pronouncements, its application to concrete cases is not always free from difficulty. It will therefore be worthwhile at the outset, to have a short and swift glance at the section and be reminded of its requirements.
The section says:
'27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.--Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.'
12. The expression 'provided that' together with the phrase 'whether it amounts to a confession or not' show that the section is in the nature of an exception to the preceding provisions particularly Sections 25 and 26. It is not necessary in this case to consider if this section qualifies, to any extent, Section 24, also. It will be seen that the first condition necessary for bringing this section into operation is the discovery of a fact, albeit a relevant fact, in consequence of the information received from a person accused of an offence. The second is that the discovery of such fact must be deposed to. The third is that at the time of the receipt of the information the accused must be in police custody. The last but the most important condition is that only 'so much of the information' as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. The rest of the information has to be excluded. The word 'distinctly' FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 41 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:55 +0530
means 'directly', 'indubitably', 'strictly', 'unmistakably'.
The word has been advisedly used to limit and define the scope of the provable information. The phrase 'distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered' is the linchpin of the provision. This phrase refers to that part of the information supplied by the accused which is the direct and immediate cause of the discovery. The reason behind this partial lifting of the ban against confessions and statements made to the police, is that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given by the accused, it affords some guarantee of truth of that part, and that part only, of the information which was the clear, immediate and proximate cause of the discovery. No such guarantee or assurance attaches to the rest of the statement which may be indirectly or remotely related to the fact discovered.
13. At one time it was held that the expression 'fact discovered' in the section is restricted to a physical or material fact which can be perceived by the senses, and that it does not include a mental fact (see Sukhan v. Emperor, AIR 1929 Lah 344; Ganu Chandra Kashid v. Emperor, AIR 1932 Bom 286). Now it is fairly settled that the expression 'fact discovered' includes not only the physical object produced, but also the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this (see Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor; Udai Bhan v. State of U.P., AIR 1962 SC 1116 ; (1962) 2 Cri LJ 251 ; 1962 Supp (2) SCR
830)." (emphasis in original)
65. In Aftab Ahmad Anasari Vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2010) 2 SCC 583, after referring to the decision in Pulukuri Kotayya, the Court adverted to seizure of clothes of the deceased which were concealed by the accused. In that context, the Court opined that (Aftab Ahmad Anasari case,SCC p. 596, para 40) "40. ... the part of the disclosure statement, namely, that the appellant was ready to show the place where he had concealed the clothes of the deceased is clearly admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act because the same relates distinctly to the discovery of the clothes of the deceased from that very place. The contention that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the clothes of the deceased were recovered from the house of the sister of the FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 42 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:53 +0530
appellant pursuant to the voluntary disclosure statement made by the appellant, the prosecution has failed to prove that the clothes so recovered belonged to the deceased and therefore, the recovery of the clothes should not be treated as an incriminating circumstance, is devoid of merits."
66. In State of Maharashtra v. Damu, (2000) 6 SCC 269 it has been held as follows: (SCC p.283, para 35) "35. ... It is now well settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of a fact as envisaged in [Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872]. The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor is the most quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the 'fact discovered' envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect."
67. 52.6 The similar principle has been laid down in State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471, State of Punjab Vs. Asar Mohammad & Ors. Vs. State Of U.P. ABC 2019 (I) January 2019 Gurnam Kaur, (2009) 11 SCC 225, Aftab Ahmad Anasari Vs. State of Uttarancha, (2010) 2 SCC 583, Bhagwan Dass Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 6 SCC 396, Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1 and Rumi Bora Dutta Vs. State of Assam, (2013) 7 SCC 417.
68. In the instant case, no discovery has taken place at the instance of accused persons Sapna, Vikas and Amit and accordingly, the disclosure statement of accused persons are not admissible in evidence, in view of the aforesaid law laid down. The recovery of bike at the behest of accused Rohtash by itself does not point to the guilt of the accused persons for murder of deceased Rahul. There is no evidence on record to FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 43 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:57 +0530
link the recovered bike bearing registration no.
DL4SBH4751 is related to the crime in question or the said bike was used for the commission of the offence.
Last seen theory
69. As per the story of the prosecution PW3 and PW4 in their previous statements dated 24.07.2016 (Ex. PW3/A) and 25/07/2017 before the police has stated that the they had seen deceased Rahul going alongwith two accused persons who had picked up deceased Rahul from the residence at the instance of accused Sapna, for securing a job. However, both PW3 and PW4 had not corroborate on the aforesaid aspect. PW3 in his examination in chief has not specifically stated that he had seen the deceased Rahul leaving alongwith the accused persons but has stated that on 30.07.2016 he had identified accused Amit and Vikas as he had seen the deceased Rahul leaving the home with them. Due to natural death of PW3 he remained unexamined by the accused persons and therefore, his testimony cannot be relied upon to prove the factum of last seen theory. Also, PW4 had resiled from his previous statement before this court and stated that they deceased Rahul has not left the home during his presence. Thus, the story of prosecution on this aspect falls flat on its face.
Audio recording between accused Sapna and accused Vikas
70. The case of the prosecution is based upon an audio recording between accused Sapna and co-accused Vikas, but to the surprise of this court, such audio conversation is relied upon by the prosecution without the same being heard by any FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 44 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:50 +0530
prosecution witness. None of the prosecution witness has deposed before this court that they have heard the recording. PW3 in his testimony has stated that he had heard the recording alongwith PW4 but PW4 in his testimony never said that he had heard the incriminating recording. He only states that PW3 had told him about the contents. The IO of the present case i.e., PW 29 in his deposition states that he had not heard the recording. There is no transcript on record of the audio conversation. Ideally, the IO of the case was duty bound to hear the recording, prepare a transcript and thereafter, use it in evidence. This was not done by the IO and without doing the same he had retrieved the audio conversation and sent the same for FSL. In the entire process, few things remain unestablished i.e, authenticity of the audio recording, no tampering with the electronic evidence and chain of custody. Without all these safeguards the electronic evidence cannot be taken into evidence. There is no witness to identify the voice or the contents of the recording. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Laddi Vs. State of Haryana (2013) wherein it was held as under: -
"The following guidelines were laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for admissibility of tape recorded conversation: -
1) The voice of the speaker must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who recognize his voice. Where the maker has denied the voice it will require very strict proof to determine whether or not it was really the voice of the speaker.
FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 45 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:53 +0530
2) The accuracy of the tape recorded
statement has to be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence directly or circumstantial.
3) Every possibility of tampering with or erasure of a part of the tape recorded statement must be ruled out otherwise it may render the said statement out of context and, therefore, inadmissible.
4) The statement must be relevant according to the rules of Evidence Act.
5) The recorded cassette must be carefully sealed and kept in safe or official custody.
6) The voice of the speaker should be clearly audible and not lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbance.
The crucial question is with regard to the identification of the taped voice. Proper identification of such voice is a sine qua non for the use of such tape recording, therefore, the time, place and accuracy of the recording must be proved by a competent witness and the voice must be properly identified.
The importance of having a transcript of the tape-recorded conversation cannot be under-estimated because the same ensures that the recording was not tampered with subsequently. In the case of Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari Vs. Brijmohan Ramdas Mehta, AIR 1975 SC 1788, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the value and use of such transcript and expressed the view that transcripts is certainly corroborative because it goes to confirm what the tape record contained. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that such transcripts can be used by a witness to refresh his memory under Section 159 of the Evidence Act and their contents can be brought on record by direct oral evidence in the manner prescribed by Section 160 of the Evidence Act."
FSL report matching the voice recording of accused Sapna and accused Vikas FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 46 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:57 +0530
71. The prosecution has examined PW27 and PW28 to prove the FSL report i.e, Ex.PW27/A and Ex.PW27/B. Even if the voice of accused Sapna and accused Vikas matches with the retrieved data, the contents of the audio recording remains unproved and therefore, by virtue of Ex.PW27/A and Ex.PW27/B, the electronic evidence cannot be proved. Motive for the crime.
72. Motive, plays a key role in the commission of any crime and its evaluation in the form of its impact upon the facts which constitutes and present the existence, non-existence, nature and extent of criminal liability in a person accused of committing an offence is a process which is foundational in ascertaining the truth with respect to the allegations in a criminal trial. Motive is a mental state, which is always locked in the inner compartment of the brain of the accused and it is only through other factual presentation of the witnesses, such mental state can be pulled out from such space and can be established in the process of fair criminal trial.
73. First of all the prosecution has to prove that deceased Rahul was murdered by pouring petrol upon him. In the present case, there is no eye witness of the alleged incident. The story of prosecution is based upon hypothesis that accused Sapna and accused Vikas had relationship which each other and when deceased Rahul came to know about the same, accused persons had killed him. There is no eye witness to depose the same. In fact, the alleged affair between accused Sapna and FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 47 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:52 +0530
accused Vikas is not established, as no witness has deposed on the above said lines.
74. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that in a case based upon circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance. However, it is not as if motive alone becomes the crucial link in the case to be established by the prosecution and in its absence the case of prosecution must be discarded. But, at the same time, complete absence of motive assumes a different complexion and such absence definitely weighs in favour of the accused person.
75. In view of the above discussion, in the considered opinion of this Court so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, prosecution has miserably failed to establish the motive fact which was presented on its behalf as a crucial link in the chain of circumstances forming the foundation of complete allegations. This Court is cognizant of the fact that there is no such principle or rule of law where, if the prosecution fails to prove the motive for commission of the crime, it must necessarily result in acquittal of the accused. But, at the same time, absence of motive to commit the crime coupled with lack of eye witness testimony becomes a significant fact against the prosecution case and in favour of the accused persons. In the present case, as already noted, there is no eye witness to the alleged crime and the case is purely based on circumstantial evidence. Hence, the fact of motive to commit the alleged crime remained not proved on record.
76. In the instant case, the police officials have failed to perform their duty as they have not carried out investigation in fair and FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 48 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:52 +0530
proper manner. The police officials ought to have registered an FIR as soon as they found out about the burnt body of deceased Rahul, however, the criminal law was not set into motion until a complaint was lodged by PW3 i.e. EX PW3/A. In fact, the conduct of the complainant PW3 and PW4 is also questionable. PW3 and PW4 were the brothers of deceased Rahul and as per their testimonies deceased Rahul had told them that he was burnt by some strangers at the instance of accused Sapna, still no complaint was filed by them until 24.07.2016 and infact he had given a statement to police that he do not want any investigation in the case. Thus, the testimony of PW3 and PW4 are not reliable and full of material contradictions especially on the aspect of the last seen theory, audio recording conversation, identification of accused persons.
77. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sharad Birdichand Sarda (Supra), this Court is of considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the circumstances from which the guilt of accused persons can be established. The fact established by the prosecution are not consistent with the hypotheses of the guilt of accused persons and the circumstances are not conclusive in nature. The chain of circumstances proved by the prosecution is not complete to prove that in all probabilities the alleged offences have been committed only by the accused persons and none else.
78. It is established principle of law that if two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be accepted. The benefit of doubt must always go to the accused FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 49 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:50 +0530
as the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
79. The Hon'ble Apex court in Rang Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1209 has held as follows: -
"The timetested rule in that acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person. Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the accused. A criminal court cannot afford to deprive lib- erty of the appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of certainty that the appellants were the real culprits."
80. In yet another decision in State of U.P. Vs. Ram Veer Singh and Another reported in 2007(6) Supreme 164 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: -
"The golden thread which runs through the web of adminis- tration of justice in criminal cases is that if two view are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admis- sible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to reappreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not."
81. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence produced before court. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of accused, charged with the FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 50 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:52 +0530
commission of a crime, a criminal court has to ensure that facts constituting such crime are proved beyond the scope of any reasonable doubt. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts and merits. Definite doubts or lacunae in the case of the prosecution may result in benefit of doubt being given to the accused and consequential acquittal.
82. As far as the present case is concerned, as already noted the same is based on circumstantial evidence and it is settled principle of law that in a case which is hinged upon circumstantial evidence complete chain of circumstances has to be spelt out by the prosecution and even if one link in the chain is either missing or broken, the accused must get the benefit thereof. In the considered opinion of this Court, none of the circumstances relied by the prosecution have been proved beyond the standard of reasonable doubt and thus all the accused persons who have faced trial are entitled for benefit thereof.
CONCLUSION
83. In the light of above discussions, it is held that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the circumstances that would lead to the only hypothesis of the guilt of the accused persons Sapna, Rohtash @ Bagdi, Vikas @ Viki @ Luddoo and Amit @ Chhotu @ Pandit.
84. It is therefore held that prosecution has failed to establish charge against accused persons. Accordingly, accused peresons Sapna, Rohtash @ Bagdi, Vikas @ Viki @ Luddoo and Amit @ Chhotu @ Pandit stands acquitted in this case.
FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 51 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:54 +0530
Their personal bonds are canceled and sureties are discharged. Documents, if any, be returned to the sureties. Case property, if any, be released to rightful owners. Accused persons are directed to furnish bonds in terms of Section 437- A CrPC (481 BNSS) in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each within one week from today.
85. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(SHIVALI BANSAL) Announced in the open ASJ-02, DWARKA COURTS, Court on 04.09.2025. S-W DISTRICT, NEW DELHI FIR No. 287/16. Page No. 52 of 52.
PS Chhawla. State Vs. Sapna & Others.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.09.04
14:38:50 +0530