Delhi District Court
State vs Vinod Kumar on 29 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHISHEK GOYAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
FIR No.: 471/2017
PS.: Kashmere Gate
Under Section(s): 302 IPC
State Vs. Vinod Kumar
(a) SC Case No. 212/2018
(b) CNR No. DLCT01-003912-2018
(c) Date of commission 17.11.2017 at around 03:00 p.m.,
of offence at Sukha Ped parking, near Petrol
Pump.
(d) Name of the Daya Shanker, S/o. Shri. Shambhu
complainant Nath Shukla, R/o. B-67/2, Gali
No. 6, Shastri Park, North East
Delhi.
(e) Name of the Vinod Kumar, S/o. Shri. Patram,
accused persons, R/o. Village Arjansar, PS.
parentage and Mahajan, District Bikaner,
residence Rajasthan.
(f) Plea of the accused The accused pleaded 'not guilty'
persons
(g) Final Order Accused Vinod Kumar is acquitted
of the charge(s) levelled against
him.
(h) Date of institution 22.03.2018
of case
(i) Date when judgment 07.03.2026
was reserved
(j) Date when judgment 29.04.2026
was pronounced
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION:
1. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution is that on 17.11.2017, on receipt of PCR Call by ASI Adesh Kumar vide DD No. 21A, whist being on emergency duty, the concerned police officials reached near Metro Gate No. 1 Parking, Kashmere Gate, where it was determined that the victim had been shifted to Trauma Centre Hospital in a PCR van (दिनांक SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 1 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2026.04.29 16:36:59 +0530 17/11/17 को ASI Adesh Kr. No 308/N को दौराने Emergency duty DD No.21A मिलने पर मय हमराही Ct मलखान No.1611/N जाय मौका मैट्रो गेट न० 1 के पास पार्किं ग में पहुंचे जहाँ पर पता चला कि मजरूब को PCR की गाडी ट्रामा सेंटर अस्पताल ले गयी है।). Consequently, the concerned police official reached at Trauma Centre, where one unknown person was determined to be under treatment vide MLC No. 15139/2017. Notably, under the said MLC, the concerned Doctor had inter alia noted the said victim's alleged history as being, "...found injured lying unconscious near K. Gate around 30 mins. back as told by B/B..."
(तो ASI Adesh Kr. मय हमराही Ct मलखान No.1611/N ट्रामा सेंटर पहुंचे जहाँ पर ASI साहब ने MLC No.15139/17 नाम पता unknown हासिल की जिस पर डाक्टर साहब ने A/H/O found injured unconscious near K. Gate around 30 mints back तहरीर फरमाया). However, the concerned Doctor is stated to have opined at that point in time that the victim was not in a position to give his statement. Congruently, the concerned police official(s) made endeavor to search for the eyewitness(es) of the incident, however, to no avail. Thereafter, the concerned police officials returned at the aforesaid spot and after rigorous search, the complainant namely, Daya Shankar, S/o. Sh. Shambhu Nath Shukla (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant'), was found present at the spot, i.e., Sukha Ped parking, near Gate No. 1, Kashmere Gate Metro (hereinafter referred to as the 'spot'), and he/the complainant tendered his statement.
2. Markedly, under his statement, the complainant inter alia proclaimed that at the relevant point in time, he was residing at B-67/2, Gali No. 6, Shastri Park, North-East Delhi and was a permanent resident of Vill. Jasawan, Handia, Uttar Pradesh. Correspondingly, the complainant proclaimed under his complaint that he had been working in the Sukha Ped parking area for around 20-25 (twenty-twenty five) years and that even on the said date, he was present on his duty, in the said parking SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 2 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29 16:37:29 +0530 area and that Roadway buses as well as other private buses were plying/commuting to and fro, from the said parking (में सुखा पेड पार्किं ग में करीब 20-25 साल से काम करता हूँ और आज भी में रोज की तरह अपनी पार्किं ग में Duty पर था तो रोज की तरह रोज़वेज व प्राइवेट बसे पार्किं ग में आ रही थी). Further, as per the complainant, at around 06:00 a.m., one bus of Bikaner Depot, Rajasthan Roadways bearing registration no. RJ-07PA-9877 (hereinafter referred to as the 'bus/roadways bus'), reached in the said parking and that the driver as well as the conductor of the said bus, were present inside the said bus (जो समय करीब 6:00AM गाडी No. RJ07PA9877 बिकानेर डिपो राजस्थान रोडवेज की बस भी पार्किं ग में आयी और ड्राईवर कं डक्टर गाडी में ही हाजिर थे). At around 03:00 p.m., as per the complainant, when he went inside the said parking, he heard loud noises/shouts from the said bus and when he/the complainant entered the said bus, he noted that the complainant and the driver of the bus were quarreling with each other (समय करीब 3:00PM पर जब में पार्किं ग में अंदर गया तो गाडी No.9877 उपरोक्त से जोर जोर से चिल्लाने की आवाज आ रही थी तो मैं गाडी के अंदर गया तो ड्राईवर व कं डक्टर आपस में झगड रहे थे। ). Congruently, it was avowed by the complainant that he tried to intervene, however, the driver of the said bus, hit the conductor, namely, Manoj with an iron rod on his head, whereupon the said conductor sustained injury(ies) and started to bleed (मैने बीच बचाव भी किया पर ड्राईवर ने कं डक्टर मनोज के सिर में लोहे की राह उठाकर मार दी जिससे कं डक्टर मनोज को सिर में चोट लगी और खून बहने लगा). Thereafter, the said driver of the bus, namely, Vinod is avowed to have fled from the spot and he/the complainant made a call to the police at 100 number, whereupon a PCR van reached at the spot and took Manoj to the Hospital (तो ड्राईवर विनोद गाडी से उतर कर भाग गया तो मैने 100 न० पर काल कर दी तो कु छ देर बाद PCR की गाडी मनोज को अस्पताल ले गयी). REGISTRATION OF FIR AND INVESTIGATION:
3. Notably, on the basis of the complainant's statement and other material received by the concerned police officials, SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 3 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29 16:37:41 +0530 tehrir/rukka was prepared and handed over by ASI Adesh Kumar to Ct. Malkhan for the registration of FIR. Consequently, Ct. Malkhan got the instant FIR bearing no. 471/2017 for the offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), registered, and the investigation ensued. Notably, during the ongoing investigation, Crime Team reached at the spot and inspected the crime scene as well as took photographs thereof. Thereafter, the report of the Crime Team was obtained by ASI Adesh Kumar (इसी दौरान मौका पर Crime Team को भी बुलवाया गया। Crime Team ने मौका का निरीक्षण किया व Photograph किये ।ASI Adesh Kr. ने Crime Team की Report हासिल की). Correspondingly, during the course of ensuing investigation, the concerned police officials conducted enquiries from the persons in the vicinity of the spot, manager of Bikaner Depot at Rajasthan Roadways, as well as the family members of the deceased (इसके बाद मुल्जिम की तलाश की और आस-पास लोगों से पूछताछ अमल में लायी पर कोई पता सुराग नहीं चला, इसके बाद मजरूब की पहचान के लिये राजस्थान रोडवेज के विकानेर डिपो में मैनेजर को सम्पर्क किया और बस के मालिक व मजरूब के भाई महेश व इसकी पत्नी को फोन पर सम्पर्क किया). Consequently, the identity of the victim was determined to be Manoj Bangarwa, S/o. Shri Ram, R/o. Village Gudda Gondji, Udaipurvati, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the 'victim/deceased'). However, it was determined that during the course of treatment in the Hospital, the victim succumbed to his injuries on 20.11.2017 (इसके बाद दिनांक 20/11/17 को दौराने इलाज मनोज की मृत्यु हो गयी). Thereafter, postmortem examination of the deceased was got conducted by the concerned police officials and the body of the deceased was handed over to the deceased's family members.
4. Significantly, during the course of ongoing investigation, in order to determine the complete identity of the SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 4 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date:
GOYAL 2026.04.29
16:37:53
+0530
perpetrator of offence/accused, notice was issued to the owner of the bus, namely, Shri. Parvinder, whereupon the particulars of the accused were determined to be Vinod Kumar, S/o. Shri. Patram, R/o. Village Arjansar, PS. Mahajan, District Bikaner, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused'). Subsequently, the concerned police officials reached at the accused's house on 03.12.2017, however, the accused was not found present at the said address. Subsequently, on 07.12.2017, accused's father along with the accused reached at PS. Kashmere Gate, whereupon the accused was arrested in the present case (दिनांक 07/12/17 को पतराम S/o. बुद्धराम R/o. गाँव अर्जनसर PS महाजन जिला बीकानेर राजस्थान अपने बेटे विनोद के साथ थाना कश्मीरी गेट आया और अपने बेटे विनोद को पेश किया जिसको स्टाफ की मदद से हिरासत में लिया). Correspondingly, statement/disclosure statement of the accused was recorded wherein he/the accused is asserted to have admitted to the commission of offence. Concomitantly, pointing out memo of the place of incident was prepared at the instance of the accused. Further, the concerned police officials recorded the statements of various witnesses, submitted the specimen collected for the opinion from the concerned Doctors, etc. FILING OF CHARGESHEET AND COMMITTAL:
5. Markedly, upon conclusion of aforenoted investigation, chargesheet came to be filed by the concerned Investigating Officer/IO before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-03/Ld. MM-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts.
Correspondingly, the Ld. MM vide order dated 06.03.2018, took cognizance of offence(s), specified under the chargesheet and listed the matter for scrutiny of documents and compliance of provisions under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Produce, 1973/Cr.P.C. Subsequently, on conclusion/compliance of the SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 5 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2026.04.29 16:38:01 +0530 provisions under Section 207 Cr.P.C., Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Courts vide order dated 19.03.2018, passed an order of committal of the present case before the Ld. Predecessor Judge, routed via Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts inter alia noting, as under;
"...The present case is under Section 302 IPC which is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Therefore, the case file be committed to the court of Ld. District Judge & Sessions Judge (Headquarter), Delhi for ***. Production officials are directed to produce the accused before the court of Ld. District Judge & Sessions Judge (Headquarter), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on ***"
(Emphasis supplied) FILING OF SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGESHEET AND CHARGE FRAMING:
6. Relevantly, upon the matter being so listed before the Ld. Predecessor Judge and on arguments on charge, having been addressed by/on behalf of the accused as well as by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Ld. Predecessor Judge vide order dated 24.05.2018, directed framing of charges under Section 302 IPC against the accused inter alia under the following observations;
"...Arguments are heard. Record is perused. The version of the prosecution is that on 17.11.2017 at 3:00 p.m. at Sukha Ped Parking near Petrol Pump, within the jurisdiction of PS Kashmere Gate, the accused committed the murder of one Manoj by assaulting on his head by an iron rod. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The court is not supposed to meticulously examine and assess in detail the material placed on record by the prosecution to assess whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused. Strong suspicion, at the initial stage of framing of charge, is sufficient to frame charge. Reference is made to the SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 6 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2026.04.29 16:38:12 +0530 judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Superintendent and Remembrance of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja AIR 1980 SC 52, State of Delhi Vs. Gyan Devi AIR 2001 SC 40, State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh AIR 1977 SC 2018 and Soma Chakravarty Vs. State AIR 2007 SC 2149. The material on record discloses that a prima facie case for the offence under Section 302 of IPC is made out against accused Vinod Kumar. Charge ought to be framed against the accused for the said offence.
Charge is framed against accused Vinod Kumar separately. Charge is read over and explained to accused. Accused pleads not guilty and claims trial. Put up for PE on ***"
(Emphasis supplied)
7. Further, it is apposite to reproduce the charges, as framed by the Ld. Predecessor Judge, against the accused on 24.05.2018, pursuant to the aforesaid order, as under;
"...I, ***, Addl. Sessions Judge-III (Central), Delhi do hereby charge you Vinod Kumar, S/o. Sh. Patram as under:
That on 17.11.2017 at 3:00 p.m. at Sukha Ped Parking near Petrol Pump, within the jurisdiction of PS Kashmere Gate, you committed the murder of one Manoj by assaulting on his head by an iron rod and thereby you committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, within my cognizance. And, I hereby direct that you be tried by this Court for the aforesaid offence***"
(Emphasis supplied)
8. Relevantly, the upon the aforesaid charges having been read out and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, leading to the initiation of evidence on behalf of the prosecution/prosecution evidence/PE. Apposite here to further note that during the course of proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court, supplementary chargesheet, inter alia containing the FSL Report dated 26.03.2018, came to be filed before the Ld. Predecessor Judge on 14.11.2018, which was directed to be SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 7 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29 16:38:37 +0530 tagged along with the main chargesheet by the Ld. Predecessor Judge, pursuant to order of even date. Apposite here to reproduce the relevant extracts of order dated 14.11.2018 of the Ld. Predecessor Judge, as under;
"...IO/Inspector Balashankaram has filed supplementary chargesheet. The same is taken on record.
IO/Inspector Balashankaram submits that no new accused has been indicted through the present supplementary chargesheet. He submits that the FSL report is intended to be filed through the present supplementary chargesheet.
It is requested in the supplementary chargesheet that the names of PWs Poonam Sharma, Asstt. Director, Biology and IO/Inspector U. Balashankaram, PS Kashmere Gate may be added to the list of witnesses.
Request is allowed. The names of the said persons shall be added to the list of witnesses. In this behalf, endorsement shall also be made on the list of witnesses.
Let the supplementary chargesheet be tagged to the main chargesheet. Copy of the supplementary chargesheet is supplied to the accused. Put up for PE on ***"
(Emphasis supplied) PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
9. Notably, during the course of trial proceedings, prosecution examined 22 (twenty two) witnesses/prosecution witnesses/PWs, who inter alia deposed in their respective testimonies, regarding the following;
Prosecution Particulars of Description (in brief)
witness no. the witness
PW-1 Dr. Bharat Junior Resident at Sushruta Trauma
Yadav Centre at relevant point in time.
Deposed inter alia regarding an
unknown person being brought to
Sushruta Trauma Centre on
17.11.2017, where he/unknown
person was examined vide MLC
no. 15139/17 by Dr. Sneh Tanwar.
SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 8 of 62
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
Date:
GOYAL 2026.04.29
16:38:47
+0530
PW-2 Ct. Malkhan Testified inter alia regarding him
Singh reaching at the spot along with ASI
Adesh Tyagi on 17.11.2017, and
thereafter, accompanying the said
ASI to Trauma Centre. PW-2
further inter alia deposed regarding the complainant being found at the spot by him/PW-2 and ASI Adesh as well as of the recording of the complainant's statement by ASI Adesh Tyagi. PW-2 further avowed regarding him getting the FIR registered at the instance of ASI as well as participating in the investigation, inter alia during the the seizure as well as accused person's arrest proceedings.
PW-3 Dr. Vinay Deposed inter alia regarding him Kumar Singh conducting the postmortem examination of the deceased on receipt of inquest papers from ASI Adarsh Tyagi as well as proved his report/postmortem examination report.
PW-4 Sh. Daya Complainant in the present case, Shankar who inter alia deposed regarding him being present on duty as parking attendant at Sukha Ped parking, near Gate No. 1, Kashmere gate on 17.11.2017 and of the bus bearing registration no.
RJ-07PA-9877 reaching at the said spot; of him seeing the conductor of the said bus in an injured state on the footstep of the said bus at around 03:00-04:00 p.m., whist that of the driver of the said bus being found missing from the spot. PW-4 further inter alia testified regarding the police officials' reaching at the spot and recording his/PW-4's statement as well as preparing the site plan. PW-4 further duly identified the accused before the Court. Notably, PW-4 was found resiling from his earlier statement, given to the police officials, and was consequently, cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
PW-5 Sh. Jagdish Deposed inter alia regarding him Nagar being present at Sukha Ped parking, sometime in the year 2017, and of SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 9 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2026.04.29 16:38:56 +0530 him noting that the conductor of a bus of Bikaner Depot, which was parked adjacent to his vehicle, coming out of his bus in an injured state, somewhere at around 03:00 p.m./04:00 p.m. PW-5 further deposed of the said victim being transferred to Hospital in PCR van, whilst the driver of the said vehicle/bus was not found present at the spot at that point in time.
Notably, PW-5 was found resiling from his earlier statement, given to the police official and was consequently, cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
PW-6 Sh. Sanjeev Deposed inter alia regarding him Yadav reaching at ISBT, Delhi at around 06:00 a.m. in Rajasthan Roadways bus, bearing registration no. RJ-20- PB-0433, along with Jagdish Nagar.
PW-6 further deposed that the said bus was parked at Sukha Ped parking near Metro Gate No. 1 and that he went to the market at around 02:00 p.m., on the said day from said parking, having returned only at 05:15 p.m. PW-6 also asserted that he had not seen any incident.
Notably, PW-6 was found resiling from his earlier statement, given to the police official and was consequently, cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
PW-7 HC Mahender Duty Officer at the relevant point in Singh time. Testified inter alia regarding him, registering the instant FIR on 17.11.2017, on receipt of rukka from Ct. Malkhan, sent by ASI Adesh Kumar.
PW-8 Ms. Poonam Assistant Director (Biology), FSL, Sharma Rohini. Deposed inter alia regarding her conducting forensic/DNA analysis of the samples received at FSL Rohini on 16.01.2018. PW-8 further proved her report/Biological Analysis of the case property as Ex. PW8/A. PW-9 SI Nagender One of the members of Crime Giri Team inter alia proclaimed of him reaching the spot, Sukha Ped parking in front of Metro Station SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 10 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29 16:39:05 +0530 Gate No. 1 along with Crime Team, inspecting the crime scene, as well as preparing report Ex. PW9/A in respect of analysis of crime scene.
PW-10 Sh. Kirpal Singh Deposed inter alia regarding him Nehra reaching at Trauma Centre at around 07:30 p.m. on 17.11.2017, on receipt of call on his mobile phone from his brother-in-law (jija), Mahesh Kumar, regarding Manoj's sustaining injury. PW-10 further deposed that upon reaching the Hospital, he found that the victim/Manoj was admitted in ICU and was unable to speak or respond or even recognize him/PW-10. The witness further proved the dead body identification memos of the deceased/victim as well as dead body handing over memo.
PW-11 Sh. Mahesh Brother of the deceased/victim.
Kumar Testified inter alia regarding him/PW-11's receiving information of victim's hospitalization from his sister-in-law, Indira, whereupon he/PW-11 went to Trauma Centre, Kashmere Gate and found the victim, admitted in ICU. PW-11 further deposed that the victim had informed him, in the presence of Haushiar Singh and their mother, regarding the accused's troubling him/the deceased. However, as per PW-11, before any action could be taken by the deceased, the present incident took place. PW-11 further proved the dead body identification and dead body handing over memos.
PW-12 Sh. Ram Father of the deceased who inter Bangadwa alia avowed regarding him being informed of the incident and of hospitalization of the victim.
PW-12 further deposed that he reached at Trauma Centre and subsequently identified the body of the deceased. PW-12 further inter alia deposed that on 15.11.2017, the deceased had approached him and informed him that the driver of his bus was involved in illegal activities, which may affect SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 11 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29 16:39:14 +0530 victim's job. Consequently, as per PW-12, he requested Mr. Soni, Bikaner Depot Manager, to change the duty of the victim, however, to no avail as the duty for 16.11.2017 had already been assigned.
PW-13 Sh. Mahesh Conductor in Rajasthan Roadways Kumar at relevant point in time. Deposed inter alia regarding a quarrel between the deceased and the accused on 16.11.2017, wherein the deceased was protesting regarding illegal luggage being loaded in the bus and proclaiming to the accused that he/the deceased would make a complaint against him/the accused.
PW-13 further proclaimed that the accused responded by avowing, "let us see who will return from Delhi on the next day".
Correspondingly, as per PW-13, he came to know on 17.11.2017 that the victim got injury in a scuffle and that he/the victim was in Trauma Centre, whereupon he/PW-13 reached at the said Hospital and stayed there for two days, on the direction of the officials of Rajasthan Roadways.
However, the deceased succumbed to his injuries.
PW-14 HC Ajay Kumar One of the members of Crime Team. Deposed inter alia regarding him reaching at the spot, Sukha Ped parking in front of Metro Station Gate No. 1 on 17.11.2017 along with SI Nagender and Ct. Vikram and of him/PW-14's taking photographs of the crime scene.
PW-15 Sh. Ganesh Proved the original duty chart from Singh 13.11.2017 to 17.11.2017 and log book of flying squad from March, 2017 to January, 2018 of Bikaner Depot as Ex. PW15/A. PW-16 HC Anil MHC(M) in PS. Kashmere Gate at relevant point in time. Deposed inter alia regarding him handing over of various samples along with sample seal, RC No. 9/21/18 and forwarding letter to Ct. Virender to deposit in FSL Rohini, at the instructions of IO on 16.01.2018.
SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 12 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.04.29 16:39:24 +0530 PW-17 Sh. Hoshiyar Elder brother of the deceased, who Singh inter alia proclaimed of being informed by the deceased on
15.11.2017, regarding the driver of his bus, namely, Vinod, bringing illegal articles in the bus and of a consequent quarrel on the victim's objecting to the same. PW-17 further deposed that he was informed of victim's sustaining injury on 17.11.2017, whereupon the deceased left for heavenly abode, after three days thereafter.
PW-18 SI Raghunath MHC(M) at relevant point in time.
Prasad Deposed inter alia regarding the deposit of various articles in malkhana by ASI Adesh Kumar and proved various entries in this regard.
PW-19 ASI Adesh Deposed inter alia regarding him Kumar responding to DD No. 21A and reaching the spot along with Ct.
Malkhan. Correspondingly, testified that he reached at the Trauma Centre from the spot where the MLC of the victim was obtained and subsequently on him/PW-19's returning the spot, complainant was found, whose statement was recorded. PW-19 further deposed regarding the initial investigation conducted by him in the present case.
PW-20 SI Satish Kumar Conducted part investigation in the present case, which was eventually handed over to Inspector U. Balashankaram for further investigation.
PW-21 Sh. Ravinder Deposed inter alia regarding him working as rickshaw puller in the area of Mori Gate and Kashmere Gate and of obtaining food for the conductor and driver of bus bearing registration no. RJ****5877 as well as himself. PW-21 further deposed that he was with the driver and conductor of the said bus till 12:00 noon, after they had consumed food and thereafter, he/PW-21 left from the spot. Correspondingly, as per PW-21 when he returned to the spot, he noted that the door of the SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 13 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.04.29 16:39:33 +0530 said bus was locked and lights were off and on knocking the door of the said bus, was informed that a quarrel had ensued between the driver and conductor. Notably, PW-21 was found resiling from his earlier statement given to the police officials, and was consequently, cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
PW-22 Insp. U. Bala Investigating Officer/IO.
Shankaram Conducted further investigation in the present case, prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the concerned Court. PW-22 also deposed of him filing the supplementary chargesheet in the instant case.
9.1. Pertinent to note here that the aforenoted witnesses/prosecution witnesses further exhibited/proved/attested the following documents, during the course of their respective deposition(s);
Exhibit Description of the Proved
no./Material Exhibit(s)/Article(s)/Material by/Exhibited
Object no. Object(s) by/Attested by
Ex. PW1/A MLC bearing no. 15139/17 of the PW-1/Dr.
victim/deceased. Bharat Yadav
Ex. PW1/B Initial Assessment Card of the PW-1/Dr.
deceased/victim Bharat Yadav
Ex. PW2/A Site plan of the place of incident. PW-2/Ct.
Malkhan Singh
Ex. PW2/B Seizure memo of sum of Rs. 119/- PW-2/Ct.
(Rupees One Hundred and Malkhan Singh
Nineteen only) in Trauma Centre.
Ex. PW2/C Seizure memo of one iron PW-2/Ct.
rod/wheel pana, seized from the Malkhan Singh
vehicle/bus bearing registration no. RJ-07PA-9877.
Ex. PW2/D Seizure memo of one black colour PW-2/Ct.
bag, seized from bus bearing Malkhan Singh registration no. RJ-07PA-9877.
Ex. PW2/E Pointing out memo, prepared at the PW-2/Ct.
instance of the accused. Malkhan Singh Ex. PW2/F Seizure memo of clothes, blood PW-2/Ct.
sample and sample seal, collected Malkhan Singh in Trauma Centre.
Ex. PW2/G Seizure memo of blood sample and PW-2/Ct.
SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 14 of 62
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29
16:39:41
+0530
earth control, seized from bus Malkhan Singh
bearing registration no.
RJ-07PA-9877.
Ex. PW2/H Seizure memo of one pair of PW-2/Ct.
sandals (chappals), seized from bus Malkhan Singh
bearing registration no.
RJ-07PA-9877.
Ex. PW2/I Seizure memo of blood sample PW-2/Ct.
from the spot/from bus bearing Malkhan Singh
registration no. RJ-07PA-9877.
Ex. PW2/J Seizure memo of blood sample in PW-2/Ct.
gauze piece, collected/seized in the Malkhan Singh Mortuary.
Ex. PW2/K Seizure memo of keys of bus PW-2/Ct.
bearing registration no. Malkhan Singh RJ-07PA-9877.
Ex. PW2/L Arrest memo of the accused. PW-2/Ct.
Malkhan Singh Ex. PW2/M Personal search memo of the PW-2/Ct.
accused. Malkhan Singh
Ex. PW2/N Disclosure statement of the PW-2/Ct.
accused. Malkhan Singh
Ex. P1 Iron rod seized by the IO in the PW-2/Ct.
present case. Malkhan Singh
Ex. P2 Beer can, seized by the IO in the PW-2/Ct.
present case. Malkhan Singh
Ex. PW3/A Inquest papers. PW-3/Dr. Vinay
(Colly.) Kumar Singh
Ex. PW3/B Postmortem examination report no. PW-3/Dr. Vinay
1703/17, of the deceased. Kumar Singh
Ex. PW4/A Complaint of the complainant. PW-4/Sh. Daya
Shankar
Ex. PW7/A Copy of FIR No. 471/2017, under PW-7/HC
(OSR) Section 308 IPC (present FIR) Mahender Singh
Ex. PW7/B Endorsement on rukka. PW-7/HC
Mahender Singh
Ex. PW7/C Certificate under Section 65B of the PW-7/HC
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Mahender Singh
(hereinafter referred to as the
'Evidence Act/IEA') in respect of
registration of FIR.
Ex. PW8/A FSL report dated 26.03.2018, PW-8/Ms.
regarding Biological analysis of Poonam Sharma case property.
Ex. PW9/A Crime Visit Report by District PW-9/SI Mobile Crime Team, North Nagender Giri District.
Ex. PW10/A Dead body identification memos. PW-10/Sh.
and Kirpal Singh
Ex. PW10/B Nehra;
PW-11/Sh.
SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 15 of 62
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
GOYAL
ABHISHEK
Date:
GOYAL 2026.04.29
16:39:51
+0530
Mahesh Kumar;
and PW-12/Sh.
Ram Bangadwa
Ex. PW10/C Dead body handing over memo. PW-10/Sh.
Kirpal Singh
Nehra
Ex. PW14/A Photographs of the crime scene PW-14/HC Ajay
(Colly.) (eight in number). Kumar
Ex. PW14/B Negatives of the photographs taken PW-14/HC Ajay
by the Crime Team at the spot. Kumar
Ex. PW15/A Copy of Duty Chart from PW-15/Ganesh
(4 pages) 13.11.2017 to 17.11.2017. Singh Ex. PW15/B Attested copies of log-sheet from PW-15/Ganesh (3 pages) March 2017 to January 2018. Singh Ex. PW16/A Copy of RC No. 9/21/18 (OSR). PW-16/HC Anil Ex. PW16/B Copy of acknowledgement of case PW-16/HC Anil acceptance.
Ex. PW18/A Copy of relevant page of register PW-18/SI no. 19, containing entry at Serial Raghunath No. 2745. Prasad Ex. PW18/B Copy of relevant page of register PW-18/SI no. 19, containing entry at Serial Raghunath No. 2749. Prasad Ex. PW18/C Copy of relevant page of register PW-18/SI no. 19, containing entry at Serial Raghunath No. 2779. Prasad Ex. PW19/A DD No. 21A, dated 17.11.2017, PS. PW-19/ASI Kashmere Gate. Adesh Kumar Tyagi Ex. PW19/B Tehrir, prepared on the basis of PW-19/ASI statement of complainant. Adesh Kumar Tyagi Ex. PW19/C Seizure memo of the bag recovered PW-19/ASI from the diggi of bus in question. Adesh Kumar Tyagi Ex. MO-1 Earth control, lifted from the spot PW-19/ASI near the bus. Adesh Kumar Tyagi Ex. MO-2 Pair of sandals of make Sparx, PW-19/ASI recovered from the bus in question. Adesh Kumar Tyagi Ex. MO-3 Bus bearing registration no. PW-19/ASI RJ-07PA-9877. Adesh Kumar Tyagi Ex. PW21/A Statement recorded in terms of the PW-21/Sh.
provisions under Section 161 Rajinder Cr.P.C.
9.2. Notably, the aforenoted prosecution witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined by/on behalf of the accused.
SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 16 of 62
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29
16:40:00
+0530
EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED:
10. Apposite to note here that upon conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused, in terms of the provisions under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 27.05.2024, wherein the accused denied his involvement in the present case and proclaimed that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. Correspondingly, it was proclaimed by the accused under his said statement that on the relevant day, he had parked his bus in the parking and went to market to purchase goods for himself. As per the accused, he left his bus with the conductor and when he returned, he came to know that the conductor was injured by some unknown person as well as, shifted to Hospital. Further, as per the accused, police officials met him at the spot and after interrogation, relieved him/the accused, after receiving the keys of the bus from him. Correspondingly, it was avowed by the accused that he also informed about the same to Bikaner Depot, telephonically and left the spot. Notably, the relevant extracts from the accused's statement dated 27.05.2024, recorded in terms of the provisions under Section 313 Cr.P.C., are reproduced as under;
"...Q. 4: It is in evidence against you that PW-2/Ct. Malkhan Singh further deposed that thereafter, he/PW-2 and ASI Adesh Tyagi went to Trauma Centre where one unknown injured person was found admitted and the Doctor told the IO that the said person was not in a position to speal and in an unconscious condition. It is further in evidence that as per PW-2, ASI Adesh Tyagi made efforts to trace eyewitness of the incident, however, no one was found. It is further in evidence that as per PW-2, however, no one was found, and the Doctor handed over Rs. 119/- to ASI Adesh Tyagi and told that the said amount was found in the pocket of the injured person. It is further in evidence that as per PW-2, Doctor further told that no proof of identity was found with the injured person. What do you have to say?
SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 17 of 62
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29
16:40:08
+0530
Answer: The police officials met me at the spot and I informed about the incident which I came to know from the public persons.
*** *** *** Q. 13: It is in evidence against you that PW-4/Daya Shankar deposed that in November, 2017, he was residing at House No. B-67/2, Gali No. 6, Shastri Park, Delhi and, was working as parking attendant at parking, known as Sukhaped/सुखापेड parking near Gate No. 1, Kashmere Gate Metro Station, Delhi. It is further in evidence that as per PW-4, on 17.11.2017, he was on duty at the parking and private buses as well as roadways buses were coming in the parking. It is further in evidence that as per PW-4, at around 06:00 a.m., one bus bearing registration No. RJ-07-PA-9877 of Bikaner Depot, Rajasthan came to parking. It is further in evidence that as per PW-4, driver and conductor were present in the said bus. It is further in evidence that as per PW-4, between 03:00 p.m. to 04:00 p.m., he/PW-4 heard noise of many public persons, including the driver and conductor of other persons. It is further in evidence that as per PW-4, they/said persons were saying that blood was oozing out, upon which, PW-4 immediately went to the spot and saw that the conductor of the said bus was sitting on the footsteps of the bus in injured condition. It is further in evidence that as per PW-4, blood was oozing out from his/said conductor's head and the driver of the bus was not present there. What do you have to say? Answer: It is a matter of record. However, I was not present at the spot when the said incident happened.
*** *** *** Q. 15: It is in evidence against you that PW-4/Daya Shankar further deposed that he was standing at a distance of twenty or twenty five feet from the place of the incident and the driver as well as the conductor of the said bus were present in the bus the whole day. It is further in evidence that PW-4 correctly identified you, as the driver of the said bus, namely, Vinod Kumar, in Court. What do you have to say?
Answer: It is incorrect as after parking the bus, I went to nearby market to purchase goods for myself and when I returned I came to know about the incident that the conductor was taken to the hospital.
*** *** *** Q. 31: It is in evidence against you that PW-12/Ram Bangadwa volunteered that his son, Manoj Kumar had come to him/PW-12 on SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 18 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29 16:40:16 +0530 15.11.2017, in morning hours, and informed him that he/Manoj Kumar was working in contractual bus. It is further in evidence that as per PW-12, Manoj Kumar further informed him/PW-12 that the diver of the contractual bus was involved in illegal activities, and it might affect his/Manoj Kumar's job. What do you have to say?
Answer: It is incorrect.
Q. 32: It is in evidence against you that PW-12/Ram Bangadwa deposed that he/PW-12 met, Mr. Soni, Bikaner Depot Manager and requested him to change the duty of Manoj from the aforesaid bus as the driver of the aforesaid bus was troubling him/Manoj. It is further in evidence that as per PW-12, Mr. Soni had made a telephonic call to someone and informed PW-12 that duty of Manoj had already scheduled for 16.11.2017 and that he/Mr. Soni would change the duty of Manoj after the aforesaid duty. It is further in evidence that as per PW-12, thereafter, he/PW-12 came to know that his son was injured by the diver of the aforesaid bus on 17.11.2017. In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-12 deposed that he had stated the said facts to the police. What do you have to say?
Answer: It is incorrect.
*** *** *** Q. 34: It is in evidence against you that PW-13/Sh. Mahesh Kumar deposed that Mr. Manoj Bangadwa was also working as a conductor in Rajasthan Roadways, Bikaner Depot and that they had reached Bikaner Deport on the aforesaid day at around 05:30 p.m. It is further in evidence that as per PW-13, when he was going towards his home, after depositing cash in the office of Roadways, he/PW-13 saw that Mr. Manoj Bangadwa and Mr. Vinod Kumar, who was working as Driver on contract basis, were quarrelling verbally with each other. It is further in evidence that as per PW-13, he/PW-13 went close to them and heard their talks. As per PW-13, Mr. Manoj Bhandadwa was saying to Mr. Vinod Kumar, "you have brought illegal luggage in the bus previous day and Sardar Seher flying squad had also made a remark in this regard." What do you have to say?
Answer: It is incorrect.
Q. 35: It is in evidence against you that PW-13/Sh. Mahesh Kumar deposed that Mr. Manoj Bangadwa was saying that on the said day, the office was closed and that he/deceased Manoj Bangadwa SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 19signed Digitally of 62 by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date:
GOYAL 2026.04.29
16:40:27
+0530
would lodge a complaint against Mr. Vinod Kumar on the following/next day, after returning from Delhi. It is further in evidence that as per PW-13, Manoj also stated that he would get the illegal luggage transportation by Vinod Kumar stopped through the officials of Roadways. It is further in evidence that as per PW-13, Vinod Kumar replied to Manoj, "let us see who will return from Delhi on the next day". What do you have to say?
Answer: It is incorrect.
Q. 36: It is in evidence against you that PW-13/Sh. Mahesh Kumar deposed that on 17.11.2017, he/PW-13 was reaching Delhi in Roadways bus as conductor and when he/PW-13 had reached Gurgaon, he/PW-13 received information from Traffic Manager that Mr. Manoj Bangadwa got injured in a scuffle and that he was in Trauma Centre. It is further in evidence that as per PW-13, immediately after leaving the bus at Sarai Kale Khan bus terminal, he/PW-13 reached Taruma Centre, where he/PW-13 found Manoj in an unconscious condition. It is further in evidence that as per PW-13, he/PW-13 remained in the Trauma Centre for two days and Manoj expired in the hospital. It is further in evidence that PW-13, correctly identified you, as Mr. Vinod Kumar, in Court. What do you have to say?
Answer: It is a matter of record. However, I informed the Bikaner Depot about the incident when I came to know about the same.
*** *** *** Q. 71: It is in evidence against you that PW-21/Sh. Rajinder Tiwari deposed that the number of the said bus was RJXXXX5877 and that he could not recollect the complete registration number of the said bus. It is further in evidence that as per PW-21, he used to bring food for the said persons and he/PW-21 as well as the conductor used to pay for the said food. It is further in evidence that on the aforesaid 17 th day of month in 2017, at around 10:00 a.m., he/PW-21 went to the aforesaid parking and met the aforesaid driver and conductor in the aforesaid bus. It is further in evidence that as per PW-21, Manoj gave him/PW-21, money and he/PW-21 brought food for all of them and it took around 1-1 ½ hour. What do you have to say?
Answer: It is incorrect.
Q. 72: It is in evidence against you that PW-21/Sh. Rajinder Tiwari deposed that at around 12:00 noon, he left their bus/the aforesaid bus and the aforesaid driver SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 20 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29 16:40:37 +0530 and conductor slept in the said bus and he/PW-21 closed the door by leaving them. It is further in evidence that he/PW-21 returned to his work and at around 04:00 p.m., he/PW-21 received a call from Bikaner, through one of his acquaintances, as he was not carrying the phone. It is further in evidence that as per PW-21, the caller was Narender taxiwala and he told him/PW-21 to bright goods form Chawri Bazar in his rickshaw. What do you have to say?
Answer: It is incorrect.
*** *** *** Q. 77: Why was this case registered against you? Answer: I have been falsely implicated in the present case by the police officials under the pressure of the relatives of the deceased/conductor just to solve the case.
Q. 78: Why have the PWs deposed against you? Answer: They are interested witnesses and they deposed under the pressure of the police. Q. 79: Do you want to lead any evidence in your defence?
Answer: No. Q. 80: Do you want to say anything else?
Answer: On that day, I parked the bus in the parking and went to the market to purchase goods for myself and I left the bus with the conductor and when I returned I came to know that the conductor was injured by some unknown person and was taken to hospital. Police officials met me at the spot and after interrogation, they relieved me after receiving the keys of the bus from me. I also informed about the same to the Bikaner Depot telephonically and I left the spot. I have been falsely implicated in the present case as no quarrel had ever taken place between me and the deceased/conductor."
(Emphasis supplied) 10.1. As aforenoted, the accused opted not to lead any evidence in support of his defence, leading to the closure of accused's/his defence evidence and the matter was listed for arguments.
CONTENTIONS OF STATE:
11. Ld. Addl. PP for the State outrightly submitted that from the material placed on record and, in particular, from the SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 21 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29 16:40:47 +0530 testimonies of various prosecution witnesses, role, complicity as well as active involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence alleged against him stands proved. As per the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, there are clear evidence of motive on the part of the accused to commit the offence in the instant case, besides the accused and the victim were last seen in proximity to each other. In this regard, it was further argued that soon after the commission of the offence, the accused was nowhere to be found at the vicinity of the place of occurrence, besides there were both, compelling reasons and opportunity to the accused to commit the offence in the instant case. Ld. Addl. PP for the State further submitted that PW-13/Sh. Mahesh Kumar explicitly proclaimed regarding the prior quarrel between the accused and the deceased, besides the said facts also finds corroboration from the depositions of PW-11/Sh. Mahesh Kumar; PW-12/Sh. Ram Bangadwa and PW-17/Sh. Hoshiyar Singh. Correspondingly, it was proclaimed by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that mere hostility of PW-4/Sh. Daya Shankar, PW-5/Sh. Jagdish Nagar and PW-6/Sh. Sanjeev Yadav would not be sufficient to belie the case put forth against the accused, in as much as the extract of depositions of said witnesses, corroborated with other material can still be considered by this Court, while reaching at the finding of accused's guilt. It was further contended by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that despite an extensive and thorough cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, the defence has not been able to rebut their avowals, clearly, indicating towards the only inference of guilt of the accused persons. Further, as per the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the accused, despite being afforded an opportunity to lead evidence, deliberately opted not to lead any evidence/witness in his support. Correspondingly, it was argued that the accused committed the SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 22 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.04.29 16:40:55 +0530 murder of the deceased in a pre-planned manner, owing to past dispute and acting in furtherance of the threat articulated by him against the deceased, establishing both mens rea as well as actus reus against the accused. Accordingly, Ld. Addl. PP for the State reiterated that from the material, evidence and documents, placed on record the charge levelled against the accused stand duly proved, making him liable for the offences/charges levelled against him.
11.1. Ld. Counsel for the victims/legal representatives/LRs of the deceased, while supplementing the arguments of Ld. Addl. PP for the State, submitted that from the facts and circumstances brought forth, ingredients of the offence under Section 302 IPC are proved beyond a pale of doubt in the instant case. In this regard, Ld. Counsel vehemently asserted that there is not only strong motive on the part of the accused to commit the offence in the instant case, rather, the prior and subsequent conduct of the accused is relevant in terms of the provisions under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. As per the Ld. Counsel, the witnesses have all consistently deposed that the accused fled from the scene of crime, immediately after the commission of the offence as well as last seen with the deceased, prior to him being found in an injured state. However, despite the same, it was asserted that no explanation is forthcoming by/from the accused regarding his conduct or him being last seen with the deceased.
Even otherwise, the accused has failed to even adduce a single witness or belie the cogent testimonies of various prosecution witnesses under their cross examination. Congruently, as per the Ld. Counsel, the accused acted in a pre-conceived and planned manner, while withdrawing from Bikaner along with the deceased and immediately fleeing from the incident spot, after commission SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 23 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.04.29 16:41:03 +0530 of the incident. In this regard, Ld. Counsel further submitted that the conduct of the accused, while seen in conjunction with the medical records of the deceased, is sufficient to attribute necessary mens rea for the commission of the said offence. In fact, it was further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that no explanation/defence has been put forth by the accused, besides no evidence led, so as to belie the evidence brought on record against him. Even otherwise, the 'so called' defence of the accused is extremely flimsy, concocted, after thought and unworthy of credence. Ergo, it was entreated by the Ld. Counsel for the victims that from the material, document and evidence brought on record, ingredients of offence under Section 302 IPC are unambiguously proved against the accused, making him liable to be convicted of the said offence/charge.
CONTENTIONS OF DEFENCE/ACCUSED:
12. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that from the material placed on record, ingredients of no offence, leave aside the offence/charge under Section 302 IPC are made out against the accused. In this regard, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that none of the prosecution witnesses, deposed of having witnessed the incident in question and the material witnesses of the prosecution, i.e., PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 have all turned hostile. In as much as PW-4 and PW-5 are concerned, Ld. Counsel for the accused asserted that the said witnessed denied of having witnessed the deceased and the accused quarrel with each other, besides, even PW-6 asserted that he was not present at the spot of occurrence, at the time of alleged commission of offence. It was further submitted that the prosecution made no endeavor to bring any evidence against the accused either in the form of CCTV footage or forensic/scientific SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 24 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.04.29 16:41:12 +0530 evidence so as to unambiguously bring home the charge, levelled against him. In as much as depositions of PW-11, PW-12 and PW-17 are concerned, it is the case of the accused that all the said witnesses have deposed against the accused, out of malice/ill will.
Even otherwise, as per the Ld. Counsel, depositions of the said witnesses cannot be relied, as evidence of related witnesses. Ld. Counsel for the accused further submitted that even the investigation has not been properly and fairly conducted in the instant case. In fact, as per the Ld. Counsel, the IO has conducted the entire investigation, solely to falsely implicate the accused in the instant case, out of motivation and owing to collusion between the family members of the deceased and police officials/IO. Ergo, it was argued by the Ld. Counsel that not only has the prosecution been able to prove its allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, rather, the manner in which the investigation has been conducted reeks heavily of malice against him. Consequently, Ld. Counsel for the accused entreated that the accused be acquitted of the charge(s)/allegations levelled against him.
APPEARANCE:
13. The arguments of Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Ld. Counsel for the accused and that of Ld. Counsel for the victims/LRs of the deceased have been heard as well as the record(s), including the testimonies of various witnesses, documents, material, and evidence placed on record (oral and documentary evidence) as well as the written submissions filed, thoroughly perused.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
14. Before proceeding with the determination of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court deems it prudent to SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 25 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29 16:41:21 +0530 reproduce the relevant provisions under law/IPC as under;
"299. Culpable homicide-Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
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 2ndly-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 3rdly-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 4thly- 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.*** *** *** ***
302. Punishment for murder-Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
*** *** ***
304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder-Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death;
or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death."
(Emphasis supplied) SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 26 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29 16:41:30 +0530
15. Appositely, this Court outrightly notes that it is a settled law1, persistently avowed by superior courts that in the scheme of Penal Code/IPC, 'culpable homicide' is genus, whilst 'murder' is its specie. Ergo, it is quite fathomable that though, all murders are culpable homicide, however, not vice versa.
Consequently, in cases where homicide is proved2, courts are, required to then determine whether such homicide would be covered within the ambit of Section 299/304 IPC, as culpable homicide or whether the same would amount to the offence of murder, as specified/defined under Section 300 IPC, punishable under Section 302 IPC. Apposite in this regard to outrightly make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya, (1976) 4 SCC 382, wherein the Hon'ble Court, unambiguously noted in an akin context, as under;
"12. In the scheme of the Penal Code, "culpable homicide" is genus and "murder" its specie. All "murder" is "culpable homicide" but not vice-versa. Speaking generally, "culpable homicide" sans "special characteristics of murder", is "culpable homicide not amounting to murder". For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of this generic offence, the Code practically recognises three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what may be called, "culpable homicide of the first degree".
This is the greatest form of culpable homicide, which is defined in Section 300 as "murder". The second may be termed as "culpable homicide of the second degree". This is punishable under the first part of Section 304. Then, there is "culpable homicide of the third degree". This is the lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is, also, the lowest among the punishments provided for the three grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable under the second part of Section 304.
*** *** ***
21. From the above conspectus, it emerges that whenever a court is confronted with the question 1 Hukum Singh v. State of M.P., 2022 SCC Online MP 1578.
2Chunni Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 955.
SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 27 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.04.29 16:41:40 +0530
whether the offence is "murder" or "culpable homicide not amounting to murder", on the facts of a case, it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of such causal connection between the act of the accused and the death, leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to "culpable homicide" as defined in Section
299. If the answer to this question is prima facie found in the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of Section 300 of the Penal Code, is reached. This is the stage at which the court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four clauses of the definition of "murder" contained in Section 300. If the answer to this question is in the negative the offence would be "culpable homicide not amounting to murder", punishable under the first or the second part of Section 304, depending, respectively, on whether the second or the third clause of Section 299 is applicable. If this question is found in the positive, but the case comes within any of the exceptions enumerated in Section 300, the offence would still be "culpable homicide not amounting to murder", punishable under the first part of Section 304, of the Penal Code..."
(Emphasis supplied)
16. Here, this Court deems it further pertinent to make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anbazhagan v. State, 2023 SCC Online SC 857, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while carrying out an exhaustive review of the provisions and judicial precedents, determining whether in a given case, culpability under the provisions under Sections 299/304 IPC or that under Sections 300/302 IPC would be attracted, summarized the law, as under;
"66. Few important principles of law discernible from the aforesaid discussion may be summed up thus:-
(1) When the court is confronted with the question, what offence the accused could be said to have committed, the true test is to find out the intention or knowledge of the accused in doing the act.SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 28 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL
ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2026.04.29 16:41:51 +0530 If the intention or knowledge was such as is described in Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300 of the IPC, the act will be murder even though only a single injury was caused. To illustrate:'A' is bound hand and foot. 'B' comes and placing his revolver against the head of 'A', shoots 'A' in his head killing him instantaneously. Here, there will be no difficulty in holding that the intention of 'B' in shooting 'A' was to kill him, though only single injury was caused. The case would, therefore, be of murder falling within Clause (1) of Section 300 of the IPC. Taking another instance, 'B' sneaks into the bed room of his enemy 'A' while the latter is asleep on his bed. Taking aim at the left chest of 'A', 'B' forcibly plunges a sword in the left chest of 'A' and runs away. 'A' dies shortly thereafter. The injury to 'A' was found to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. There may be no difficulty in holding that 'B' intentionally inflicted the particular injury found to be caused and that the said injury was objectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This would bring the act of 'B' within Clause (3) of Section 300 of the IPC and render him guilty of the offence of murder although only single injury was caused.
(2) Even when the intention or knowledge of the accused may fall within Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300 of the IPC, the act of the accused which would otherwise be murder, will be taken out of the purview of murder, if the accused's case attracts any one of the five exceptions enumerated in that section. In the event of the case falling within any of those exceptions, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, falling within Part 1 of Section 304 of the IPC, if the case of the accused is such as to fall within Clauses (1) to (3) of Section 300 of the IPC. It would be offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case is such as to fall within Clause (4) of Section 300 of the IPC. Again, the intention or knowledge of the accused may be such that only 2nd or 3rd part of Section 299 of the IPC, may be attracted but not any of the clauses of Section 300 of the IPC. In that situation also, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC. It would be an offence under Part I of that section, if the case fall within 2nd part of Section 299, while it would be an offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case fall within 3rd part of Section 299 of the IPC.
(3) To put it in other words, if the act of an accused person falls within the first two clauses of cases of culpable homicide as described in Section 299 of the SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 29 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29 16:41:59 IPC it is punishable under the first part of Section
304. If, however, it falls within the third clause, it is punishable under the second part of Section 304. In effect, therefore, the first part of this section would apply when there is 'guilty intention,' whereas the second part would apply when there is no such intention, but there is 'guilty knowledge'.
(4) Even if single injury is inflicted, if that particular injury was intended, and objectively that injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the requirements of Clause 3 rdly to Section 300 of the IPC, are fulfilled and the offence would be murder.
(5) Section 304 of the IPC will apply to the following classes of cases: (i) when the case falls under one or the other of the clauses of Section 300, but it is covered by one of the exceptions to that Section, (ii) when the injury caused is not of the higher degree of likelihood which is covered by the expression 'sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death' but is of a lower degree of likelihood which is generally spoken of as an injury 'likely to cause death' and the case does not fall under Clause (2) of Section 300 of the IPC, (iii) when the act is done with the knowledge that death is likely to ensue but without intention to cause death or an injury likely to cause death.
To put it more succinctly, the difference between the two parts of Section 304 of the IPC is that under the first part, the crime of murder is first established and the accused is then given the benefit of one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, while under the second part, the crime of murder is never established at all. Therefore, for the purpose of holding an accused guilty of the offence punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC, the accused need not bring his case within one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC.
(6) The word 'likely' means probably and it is distinguished from more 'possibly'. When chances of happening are even or greater than its not happening, we may say that the thing will 'probably happen'. In reaching the conclusion, the court has to place itself in the situation of the accused and then judge whether the accused had the knowledge that by the act he was likely to cause death.
(7) The distinction between culpable homicide (Section 299 of the IPC) and murder (Section 300 of the IPC) has always to be carefully borne in mind while dealing with a charge under Section 302 of the SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 30 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29 16:42:06 +0530 IPC. Under the category of unlawful homicides, both, the cases of culpable homicide amounting to murder and those not amounting to murder would fall. Culpable homicide is not murder when the case is brought within the five exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC. But, even though none of the said five exceptions are pleaded or prima facie established on the evidence on record, the prosecution must still be required under the law to bring the case under any of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC to sustain the charge of murder. If the prosecution fails to discharge this onus in establishing any one of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC, namely, 1stly to 4thly, the charge of murder would not be made out and the case may be one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as described under Section 299 of the IPC.
(8) The court must address itself to the question of mens rea. If Clause thirdly of Section 300 is to be applied, the assailant must intend the particular injury inflicted on the deceased. This ingredient could rarely be proved by direct evidence. Inevitably, it is a matter of inference to be drawn from the proved circumstances of the case. The court must necessarily have regard to the nature of the weapon used, part of the body injured, extent of the injury, degree of force used in causing the injury, the manner of attack, the circumstances preceding and attendant on the attack.
(9) Intention to kill is not the only intention that makes a culpable homicide a murder. The intention to cause injury or injuries sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause death also makes a culpable homicide a murder if death has actually been caused and intention to cause such injury or injuries is to be inferred from the act or acts resulting in the injury or injuries.
(10) When single injury inflicted by the accused results in the death of the victim, no inference, as a general principle, can be drawn that the accused did not have the intention to cause the death or that particular injury which resulted in the death of the victim. Whether an accused had the required guilty intention or not, is a question of fact which has to be determined on the facts of each case.
(11) Where the prosecution proves that the accused had the intention to cause death of any person or to cause bodily injury to him and the intended injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, then, even if he inflicts a single injury SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 31 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date:
GOYAL 2026.04.29
16:42:13
+0530
which results in the death of the victim, the offence squarely falls under Clause thirdly of Section 300 of the IPC unless one of the exceptions applies. (12) In determining the question, whether an accused had guilty intention or guilty knowledge in a case where only a single injury is inflicted by him and that injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the fact that the act is done without premeditation in a sudden fight or quarrel, or that the circumstances justify that the injury was accidental or unintentional, or that he only intended a simple injury, would lead to the inference of guilty knowledge, and the offence would be one under Section 304 Part II of the IPC..."
(Emphasis supplied)
17. Correspondingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 444, explicated the divergence of culpability under Sections 299/304 IPC and Sections 300/302 IPC, and the manner of ascertaining 'intention' in a given case, noted as under;
"29. Therefore, the court should proceed to decide the pivotal question of intention, with care and caution, as that will decide whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II. Many petty or insignificant matters -- plucking of a fruit, straying of cattle, quarrel of children, utterance of a rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations and group clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There may be no premeditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality. At the other end of the spectrum, there may be cases of murder where the accused attempts to avoid the penalty for murder by attempting to put forth a case that there was no intention to cause death. It is for the courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under Section 302, are not converted into offences punishable under Section 304 Part I/II, or cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, are treated as murder punishable under Section 302. The intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, among other, circumstances: (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii) whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body;
SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 32 of 62
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29
16:42:22
+0530
(iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury;
(v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any premeditation; (vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger; (viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation;
(ix) whether it was in the heat of passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; (xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be several other special circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw light on the question of intention. Be that as it may."
(Emphasis supplied) APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
18. Therefore, being wary of the aforenoted legal principles, judicial dictates and the rival contentions of the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Ld. Counsel for the victims/LRs of the deceased as well as that of Ld. Counsel for the accused, this Court would proceed with the determination of the merits of the instant case. In particular and outrightly to the effect as to, 'whether from the material placed on record, culpability under Section 302 IPC can be attracted against the accused, namely, Vinod Kumar in the present case?' Conspicuously, in order to deal with the said aspect, this Court deems it pertinent to incipiently note that in order to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution primarily relied upon the testimonies of the complainant/PW-4/Daya Shankar; PW-5/Jagdish Nagar and PW-6/Sanjeev Yadav. As aforenoted, the basis of the case put forth against the accused is the complaint, stated to be tendered by the complainant/PW-4, wherein he inter alia proclaimed of having witnessed the alleged incident, i.e., of accused's inflicting injury on the deceased. However, during the course of his deposition in Court, PW-4 inter alia proclaimed that SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 33 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29 16:42:30 +0530 on 17.11.2017, he was working on his duty as parking attendant at Sukha Ped (सूखापेड़) parking, near Gate no. 1, Kashmere Gate Metro Station, Delhi. Correspondingly, as per PW-4, private buses and roadways buses were plying in the said parking and that at around 06:00 a.m., one bus with registration no. RJ-07PA-9877 of Bikaner Depot, Rajasthan came to parking. Further, as per PW-4, driver and conductor were present in the said bus and that between 03:00 p.m.-04:00 p.m., he/PW-4 heard noise of several public persons, including driver and conductor of other buses, proclaiming that blood was oozing out. Consequently, as per PW-4, he immediately went to the spot and saw that the conductor of the aforesaid said bus was sitting on the footsteps of the bus in an injured state. PW-4 further avowed that blood was oozing out from the head of the said conductor, however, the driver of the said bus was not present at the spot. Thereafter, police officials is asserted to have reached at the spot and his/PW-4's statement (Ex. PW4/A) was recorded by the said police officials. It was further proclaimed by PW-4 that he had seen the driver and conductor in the morning, when the driver had parked the bus in the parking and that the driver of the bus, which was parked adjacent to the aforesaid bus informed him/PW-4 that the driver and conductor of the said bus were quarrelling with each other. PW-4 further testified that he had shown the spot to the police, whereupon the IO prepared the site plan, Ex. PW2/A. PW-4 also asserted that he was standing at a distance of twenty or twenty five feet from the place of incident and that the driver as well as the conductor of the said bus were present in the bus, the whole day. Needless to mention that PW-4 duly identified the accused in court.
19. Quite evidently, PW-4 was found resiling from his earlier statement/complaint, tendered to the police officials in so SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 34 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2026.04.29 16:42:38 +0530 far as it pertained to him having witnessed the alleged incident of the accused's inflicting injury on the deceased. Consequently, PW-4 was cross-examined by/on behalf of State, in terms of the provisions under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ('Evidence Act' for short). Relevantly, during the course of his said cross-examination, PW-4 proclaimed, as under;
"Cross-examination by Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
I did not state to the police in my statement that at about 03.00 p.m. when I went inside parking I heard noise of quarrel and when I entered bus bearing registration no. RJ 07 PA 9877 I saw that driver and conductor of the said bus were quarreling. (Confronted with portion A to A of statement Ex.PW4/A where it is so recorded.) I did not state to the police in my statement that I intervened in the quarrel but accused Vinod Kumar lifted an iron rod and gave a blow on the head of conductor Manoj due to which blood started oozing out from the head of Manoj and accused Vinod ran away from the spot. (Confronted with portion B to B of statement Ex.PW4/A where it is so recorded). It is correct that I called police by dialing 100 number. PCR van came. Manoj was shifted to the hospital. It is correct that I know accused Vinod very well as he used to meet me daily. I have studied upto 9th standard. I can read Hindi. Police had not forced me to give statement and to sign the same. I had made my statement Ex.PW4/A voluntarily and without any coercion or pressure. I had signed my statement out of my free will. I never complained to SHO or any senior officer of police against the investigating officer that I had been wrongly shown as eye-witness of this case. It is wrong to suggest that I had seen accused Vinod quarreling with deceased Manoj. It is wrong to suggest that when I intervened in the quarrel accused Vinod gave a blow of iron rod on the head of Manoj in my presence and caused injuries to him. Once, father of accused Vinod had met me after the incident. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely as I have been won over by the family members of the accused."
(Emphasis supplied)
20. Correspondingly, reference is further made to the deposition of PW-5/Jagdish Nagar, who inter alia testified that SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 35 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29 16:42:44 +0530 sometime in the year, 2017, he was working as driver in Rajasthan Roadways on contract basis and used to drive bus from Kota to Delhi. PW-5 further asserted that on the date of incident, he came to Delhi from Kota with conductor, namely, Sanjeev Kumar Yadav and parked his bus at Sukha Ped parking at around 06:00 p.m. Further, as per PW-5, after taking refreshment, he slept in his bus and woke up at around 11:30 a.m., and after taking lunch, he/PW-5 again slept. It was further avowed by PW-5 that when he woke up at around 03:00-04:00 p.m., conductor of his bus had gone to the market and saw that the conductor of a bus, which was of Bikaner depot and parked adjacent to PW-5's bus, came out of the bus. As per PW-5, blood was oozing out from the head of the said driver and several public persons had gathered there. After some time, as per PW-5, police reached at the spot and the injured person/conductor was shifted to Hospital by PCR van. At that time, as per PW-5, the driver of the said bus was not present at the spot, however, PW-5 expressed inability to depose of the whereabouts of the said driver or anything else about the present case. Congruently, as per PW-5, his statement was recorded by the police official at around 06:00 p.m. Appositely, PW-5 was also cross examined by/on behalf of the State, as found resiling from his earlier statement, wherein PW-5 asserted, as under;
"Cross-examination by Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
It is wrong to suggest that police had recorded my statement. I cannot admit or deny whether the said incident had taken place on 17.11.2017. I did not state to the police in my statement that I woke up after hearing quarrel between driver and conductor of the said bus and I saw that blood was oozing out from the head of conductor and the driver of the bus ran away from the spot. (Confronted with portion A to A of statement Mark PW5/1 where it is so recorded.) It is wrong to suggest that I had seen the driver and conductor in the bus. It is wrong to suggest that driver SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Digitally Page 36 of 62 signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29 16:42:52 +0530 of the said bus had run away from the spot after causing injuries to the conductor. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely as I have been won over by the accused."
(Emphasis supplied)
21. Here, this Court deems it further pertinent to make a reference to the deposition of PW-6/Sanjeev Yadav, who inter alia proclaimed that he was working as a conductor in Rajasthan Roadways at the relevant point in time and that on 17.11.2017, he was on duty at bus bearing registration no. RJ-20PB-0433. Correspondingly, PW-6 asserted that on the said day, he along with driver, Jagdish Nagar reached at ISBT, Delhi at around 06:00 a.m., where the said bus was parked at Sukha Ped parking near Metro Gate No.1, Mori Gate, Delhi. Thereafter, as per PW-6, he and driver Sh. Jagdish Nagar slept in the bus and at around 02:00 p.m., he/PW-6 went to market. PW-6 further avowed that upon return to the said parking at around 05:15 p.m., he saw that a crowd had gathered, however, neither incident took place in his presence, nor did he see any person running from the spot or an injured state. Needless to mention that even PW-6 was cross examined by/on behalf of State, as he was found resiling from his earlier statement to the police official. Markedly, upon being so cross-examined, PW-6, asserted, as under;
"XXXXXX by Sh. *** Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for State.
It is correct that police had recorded my statement. I did not state before police in my statement that at about 3:00 p.m. I heard some noise from a bus of Bikaner Depot and when I got down from my bus, I saw that one person had run away from there (Confronted with portion A to A of statement Mark PW6/1 where it is so recorded).
I did not state before police in my statement that one person was sitting on the footstep of the bus and blood was oozing out from his head (Confronted with portion B to B of statement Mark PW6/1 where it is so recorded.) SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 37 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2026.04.29 16:43:00 +0530 I did not state before police in my statement that on enquiry I came to know that the name of the person who had run away from the spot war Vinod and he was the driver of the bus and injured person was the conductor of the bus. (Confronted with portion C to C of statement Mark PW6/2 where it is so recorded). It is wrong to suggest that I had heard some noise from the bus of Bikaner Depot. It is wrong to suggest that I had seen accused Vinod running away from the spot. It is wrong to suggest that the injured person was the conductor of the bus and I had seen him in injured condition. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. It is wrong to suggest that I know accused Vinod Kumar as I used to meet him regularly in the parking area. It is wrong to suggest that I have deposed falsely at the instance of accused Vinod Kumar who is known to me."
(Emphasis supplied)
22. Conspicuously, from a conscientious perusal of the depositions of PW-4/Daya Shankar; PW-5/Jagdish Nagar and PW-6/Sanjeev Yadav, it is noted that none of the said witnesses, have supported the case of the prosecution, in so far as it related to either witnessing the incident in question or that of even seeing the accused, flee for the spot. Needless to reiterate that despite being thoroughly cross examined by/on behalf of the State, nothing has emerged under their said cross-examination, so as to support the prosecution's case/version regarding the said facts. Ergo, under circumstances, Ld. Counsel for the accused, has vehemently argued that the depositions of PW-4, PW-5, and PW-6 ought to be discarded in their entirety, as testimonies of hostile witnesses. However, in order to appreciate the said contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused, this Court deems it pertinent here to make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C. Muniappan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while being confounded with a similar conundrum, remarked, as under;
"82. In State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra, SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 38 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2026.04.29 16:43:08 +0530 (1996) 10 SCC 360] this Court held that (at SCC p.
363, para 7) evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused but required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence can be relied upon. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Balu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 543], Gagan Kanojia v. State of Punjab, (2006) 13 SCC 516], Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P.,(2006) 2 SCC 450], Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh, (2007) 13 SCC 360] and Subbu Singh v. State, (2009) 6 SCC 462.
83. Thus, the law can be summarised to the effect that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence.
*** *** ***
85. It is settled proposition of law that even if there are some omissions, contradictions and discrepancies, the entire evidence cannot be disregarded. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution's witness. As the mental abilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details of the incident, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses. Vide Sohrab v. State of M.P., (1972) 3 SCC 751, State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, (1985) 1 SCC 505, Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217, State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2007) 12 SCC 381, Prithu v. State of H.P., (2009) 11 SCC 588, State of U.P. v. Santosh Kumar, (2009) 9 SCC 626 and State v. Saravanan, (2008) 17 SCC 587."
(Emphasis supplied)
23. Quite evidently, it is seen from above, as also persistently avowed3 by superior courts, the evidence of hostile witness(es) cannot be discarded, in its entirety, rather, relevant 3 Selvamani v. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, MANU/SC/0403/2024.
SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 39 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2026.04.29 16:43:17 +0530
parts thereof, which are admissible in law, can still be used by the prosecution or the defence. Consequently, with such understanding, this Court would proceed with the evaluation of the other material brought forth on record.
24. Germane for the purpose(s) of present discourse, to make a reference to the deposition of PW-12/Shri Ram Bangadwa, father of the deceased, who inter alia avowed in his testimony that on 15.11.2017, in the morning hours, deceased, Manoj Kumar, informed him/PW-12 that he was working in a contractual bus and that the driver of the said contractual bus was involved in illegal activities, which might affect the deceased's job. Congruently, PW-12 asserted that he met with Mr. Soni, Manager at Bikaner Depot and requested him to change the duty of his/PW-12's son, Manoj Kumar/deceased from the said bus, asserting the deceased was being troubled by the bus driver. Further, as per PW-12, Mr. Soni made a telephonic call to someone and informed him/PW-12 that the duty of the deceased was already scheduled for 16.11.2017 and that he/Mr. Soni would change the duty hours of the deceased, post the said duty. However, before that, as per PW-12, he heard the news of deceased's injury on 17.11.2017. Relevantly, upon being cross examined by/on behalf of the accused, PW-12 inter alia asserted, as under;
"XXXXXX by Sh. ***, Advocate for the accused Vinod Kumar.
I had stated the aforesaid entire facts to the police (confronted with statement mark PW-12/D1 where the facts regarding conversation between the witness and his son and Mr. Soni are not recorded to which witness stated that he had not seen the statement mark PW-12/D1 during investigation nor it was read over to him by the IO). It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
(Emphasis supplied) SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 40 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29 16:43:35 +0530
25. Conspicuously, reference is further made to the depositions of PW-11/Mahesh Kumar, one of the brothers of the deceased, who inter alia avowed that his brother, namely, Manoj/deceased, told him, in the presence of PW-11's other brother, Haushiar Singh and their mother that Vinod was troubling the deceased. Congruently, PW-17/Hoshiyar Singh, brothers of the deceased, also proclaimed that on 15.11.2017, deceased, Manoj Kumar came to house and informed during dinner that the driver of his bus, namely, Vinod Kumar brought articles in bus and when he/the deceased objected to the same, Vinod fought with the deceased. Consequently, as per PW-17, he advised the deceased, to make a complaint against Vinod Kumar in the office, in case he repeated his conduct. Here, this Court deems it pertinent to further make a reference to the deposition of PW-13/Mahesh Kumar, conductor in Rajasthan Roadways, Bikaner Depot at the relevant point in time, who inter alia deposed that on 16.11.2017, he left Delhi at around 06:00 a.m. for Bikaner in Rajasthan Roadways bus as conductor. Further, as per PW-13, at around 12:10 pm, they reached Jhunjunu Depot and at around 12:30 pm, when they were leaving Jhunjunu Depot for Bikaner Depot, the deceased was with him/PW-13 in the bus, as the deceased was proceeding for Bikaner. PW-13 further testified that the deceased was also working as a conductor in Rajasthan Roadways, Bikaner Depot at that point in time. Further, as per PW-13, they reached at Bikaner Depot at around 05:30 p.m. and when he/PW-13 was proceeding for his home, he saw that the deceased and Vinod Kumar/accused, who worked as driver on contract basis were quarrelling with each other. Consequently, as per PW-13, when he went close to the accused and the deceased, he saw that the deceased was saying to the accused, "you have brought illegal luggage in the bus previous SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 41 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.04.29 16:43:42 +0530 day and Sardar Seher flying squad had also made a remark in this regard". Correspondingly, PW-13 proclaimed that the deceased threatened to lodge a complaint against the accused on the following day, after returning from Delhi and that he/the deceased would get accused's illegal activities stopped, with the assistance of the officials of Roadways. Thereupon, as per PW-13, accused replied to the deceased by proclaiming, "let us see who will return from Delhi on the next day". Correspondingly, as per PW-13, on 17.11.2017, he received information of deceased's injury and reached at Trauma Center, Delhi, where he/PW-13 remained there for two days on the directions of officials of Rajasthan roadways, before the deceased left for heavenly abode. Needless to mention, PW-13 correctly identified the accused during the course of his deposition.
26. Here, it is further pertinent to make reference to the cross examination of PW-13/Mahesh Kumar by/at the behest of the accused, wherein PW-13 testified, as under;
"XXXXXX by Sh. ***, Advocate for the accused Vinod Kumar.
It is wrong to suggest that no altercation took place between the accused and deceased Mr. Manoj Bangadwa on 16.11.2017 in my presence. Police did not record any statement of any person in hospital in my presence. Police did not record my statement in hospital. Police visited the hospital in the present case in my presence when I was in hospital.
I did not give my statement to the police of my own in hospital. It is wrong to suggest that I had given a false statement to the police at instance of family members of the deceased. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
(Emphasis supplied)
27. Relevantly, in light of the testimonies of PW-12/Shri Ram Bangadwa; PW-11/Mahesh Kumar; PW-17/Hoshiyar Singh and PW-13/Mahesh Kumar (conductor), it has been vehemently SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 42 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29 16:43:50 +0530 argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that sufficient material has been brought on record, to establish motive on the part of the accused to commit the offence against the deceased. As aforenoted, it has been strenuously contended by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as by Ld. Counsel for the victims that the impelling reason for the commission of offence by the accused in the instant case, was the past dispute over the accused's act of bringing illegal articles in the bus in question to which, the deceased had objected as well as threatened to lodge a complaint against the accused. However, before this Court proceeds with the evaluation of the arguments raised in this regard, this Court deems it pertinent to note here that the law is trite 4 that the existence of a strong motive, when the eyewitnesses are not convincing, cannot by itself result in conviction of an accused. In fact, the superior courts have untiringly declared that even in the cases where motive is established against an accused, same may, though, be an important circumstantial evidence, however, cannot be a substitute of a conclusive proof of commission of crime. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 11 SCC 255, wherein the Hon'ble Court unambiguously, observed, as under;
"92. Thus, even if it is believed that the appellant- accused had a motive to commit the crime, the same may be an important circumstance in a case based on circumstantial evidence but cannot take the place as a conclusive proof that the person concerned was the author of the crime. One could even say that the presence of motive in the facts and circumstances of the case creates a strong suspicion against the appellant-accused but suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot be a substitute for proof of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court rightly disbelieved motive to commit the crime as the evidence in this regard is absolutely hearsay in 4 Subhash Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2025) 8 SCC 440.
SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 43 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2026.04.29 16:43:57 +0530 nature." (Emphasis supplied)
28. Contemporaneously, this Court deems it pertinent to make a reference to the deposition of PW-21/Rajinder, who proclaimed under his testimony that he was working as rickshaw- puller in the area of Mori Gate and Kashmere Gate, Delhi. Correspondingly, as per PW-21, on the 17th month of the year, 2017, in winter season, private bus of Bikaner used to come at about 06.00 a.m. at the Sukha Ped parking in front of Kashmere Gate Metro Station at around 10:00 a.m. and he used to wake up the conductor, namely, Manoj and driver, namely, Vinod of the said bus, if they were sleeping in the said bus. PW-21 also proclaimed that the number of the said bus was 'RJXXXX5877', however, he could not recollect the entire number thereof. Congruently, PW-21 avowed that he used to bring food of the said driver, conductor, and himself, which was paid by the said conductor. Markedly, PW-21 further asserted under his testimony that on the said day, at around 10:00 a.m., he went to the said parking and met with the said driver and conductor in the aforesaid bus. Further, as per PW-21, Manoj gave him money and he/PW-21 brought food for all of them, which took around 1 - 1½ hour. At about 12:00 noon, as per PW-21, he left the bus and the said driver as well as conductor slept in the said bus and he/PW-21 closed the door by leaving them. Thereafter, he/PW-21 returned to his work, however, at around 04:00 p.m., as per PW-21, he received a phone call from Bikaner, through one of his acquaintances, namely, Narender taxiwala, who told PW-21 to get goods from Chawri Bazar in his rickshaw. Consequently, as per PW-21, he went to Chawri Bazar and delivered the same in a bus at parking no. 18, in front of Novelty Cinema, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. Thereafter, as per SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 44 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29 16:44:04 +0530 PW-21, he parked his rickshaw on patri and locked it with a chain. At about 06:00 p.m., when he/PW-21 went to Sukha Ped parking in front of Kashmere Gate Metro Station, Gate No. 1, he/PW-21 saw that the gate of the aforesaid bus was closed and lights thereof, were off. PW-21 also avowed that he knocked the door and one driver of another bus asked him not to knock the door. Congruently, PW-21 asserted that the said driver informed PW-21 that a quarrel had taken place between driver and conductor. Thereafter, as per PW-21, when he was on his way out of the parking, he saw two police officials and he/PW-21 informed the said police officials about the aforesaid facts. Needless to mention that PW-21 duly identified the accused in the Court.
29. Appositely, PW-21 was found resiling from his earlier statement to the police officials and was consequently, cross examined by/on behalf of the State, wherein PW-21, avowed, as under;
"XXXXXX by Mr. ***, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
It is correct that on that day, I alongwith the aforesaid conductor and driver had consumed liquor before having lunch. (Vol.: Vinod had lunch before us and we had lunch later.) It is wrong to suggest that in the meantime, an altercation had taken place between driver and conductor on some issue and a scuffle took place between them, however, I intervened and I left the bus to bring some articles. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated the aforesaid facts to the police. (Confronted with portion X to X of statement Ex.PW21/A where it is so recorded.) It is wrong to suggest that on that day when I returned to the bus I saw that the conductor and driver of the bus were fighting and during fight, accused, namely, Vinod picked an iron rod (which is used to unbolt the tyre) and hit on the head of Manoj many times due to which head of Manoj started bleeding and Vinod ran away after getting down from the bus and PCR van took Manoj to hospital.
It is wrong to suggest that I had stated the aforesaid facts to the police. (Confronted with portion SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 45 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29 16:44:11 +0530 Y to Y of statement Ex.PW21/A where it is so recorded.) It is wrong to suggest that I had seen the quarrel between the accused and the conductor, namely, Manoj. It is wrong to suggest that I can identify the iron rod used by the accused to hit Manoj as I have seen the incident. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely regarding the aforesaid facts as I have been won over by the accused."
(Emphasis supplied)
30. Quite evidently, PW-21 has not supported the case of the prosecution in so far as it relates to him/PW-21's witnessing the alleged quarrel between the accused and the deceased or of him even intervening in the said alleged dispute, is concerned, despite a thorough and vigorous cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. However, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has vehemently asserted that the deposition of PW-21 is still relevant in so far as it relates to establishing the factum of accused and the deceased being 'last seen together', before the commission of offence. In this regard, this Court deems it pertinent to outrightly note that the law is trite5 that conviction of an accused, cannot be based solely on the ground that such an accused was last seen with the deceased. Correspondingly, the superior courts have further painstakingly and persistently declared6 that the 'last seen theory' comes into play, only where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Surender Prashad v. State, 2014 SCC Online Del 234, wherein the Hon'ble Court explicated the law in this regard, in the following terms;
5Rambraksh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2016) 12 SCC 251.
6Bodhraj v. State of J & K., (2002) 8 SCC 45.
SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 46 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.04.29 16:44:19 +0530
"17. Last seen evidence does not by itself necessarily leads to an inference that the accused committed the crime unless the same is duly supported by other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence unerringly pointing out the guilt of the accused. The theory of last seen together evidence is thus held to be not of universal application based on which the conviction of accused can be sustained. It shall also be noted that the last seen evidence is only a relevant evidence to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence; however the conviction cannot be solely based on this piece of evidence. Dealing with the principle of last seen evidence, the Hon'ble Apex Court in very recent case of Rishi Pal v. State of Uttarakhand, reported in 2013 (2) ACR 147, held as under:
*** *** ***
18. It is also a settled legal position that where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and deceased were last seen together and when the deceased was found dead is so small that there can be no possibility of any person other than the accused, becomes impossible, the court should look for some other corroboration taking such last seen evidence as an important evidence in the whole chain of circumstantial evidence. However, where in a case there is a long gap and possibility of any other person coming in between exists, the reliability itself on this piece of evidence becomes difficult and before placing any reliance the court must satisfy itself by other positive evidence to conclude that there was no possibility of any other person entering into such a gap."
(Emphasis supplied)
31. Apropos the present discourse, reference is further made to the deposition of PW-1/Dr. Bharat Yadav, who inter alia deposed that on 17.11.2017, while he was posted as Junior Resident at Sushruta Trauma Centre, one unknown injured person was brought to the said Hospital at around 03:30 p.m. PW-1 further asserted that he along with Dr. Sneh Tanwar attended the said patient, provided him with the medical treatment and well as examined him against MLC No. 15139/17 (Ex. PW1/A). Correspondingly, PW-1 avowed that the said MLC was prepared by Dr. Sneh Tanwar in his presence and thereafter, the said patient SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 47 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date:
GOYAL 2026.04.29
16:44:35
+0530
was referred to neuro surgery department and general surgery department. Apposite here to note that as per the said MLC, the said patient was admitted in the Hospital with alleged history of being, "...found injured lying unconscious near K. Gate around 30 min. back as told by B/B...", besides it was also recorded that the patient had sustained, "... nasal bleed (+) (R) ear bleed (+) oral bleed (+)... (1) L/W over (L) parietal region (star shaped) ~ 5cm*4cm*2cm... (2) Incised wound over (R) fronto-temporo- parietal region ~ 8cm*2cm*1cm... (3) L/W over (R) parieto- temporal region ~ 2cm*1cm... (4) L/W over occipital region ~ 4cm*2cm*1cm (y shaped)... (5) (L) eye-periorbital swelling (+) bluish discoloration (+)... (6) L/W over (R) parieto-tempro occipital region ~ 4cm*1cm...".
32. Conspicuously, for a comprehensive analysis of the material brought forth, this Court further deems it pertinent to make a reference to the deposition of PW-3/Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh, who testified that on 20.11.2017, he was present in the mortuary of Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital and on the said day, ASI Adesh Tyagi submitted eleven inquest papers (Ex. PW3/A (Colly.)) for conducting post-mortem of the deceased. Further, as per PW-3 on the examination of the deceased, he noted the external injuries, i.e., "(1) Stitched Lacerated wound, 9 stitches 9 x 0.1 cm present at right side of head at right parieto-temporal region, 7.5 cm. above left eye. Margins are abraded and bruised; (2) Stitched lacerated wound, 4 stitches 5 x 0.1 cm present at 4 cm above right ear right parietal region. Margins are abraded; (3) Stitched lacerated wound, 3 stitches 4 x 0.1 cm present at 8cm back right ear over occipital region. Margins are abraded; (4) Stitched lacerated wound, 8 stitches 8 x 0.1 cm present at 8 cm above left ear over temporal region. Margins are abraded; (5) SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 48 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date:
GOYAL 2026.04.29
16:44:44
+0530
Lacerated wound, 4 x 0.5 cm present at back of head occipital region 7.5 cm behind right ear. Margins are abraded; (6) Bluish black bruise 2 x 2 cm present at left elbow joint. On dissection:
Infiltration of blood present. Clotted blood present at site; (7) Bluish black bruise 7 x 5cm present at right thigh on frontal aspect 17 cm above knee joint. On dissection: Infiltration of blood present. Clotted blood present at site; (8) Bluish black bruise 5 x 3cm present at right thigh on frontal aspect 12 cm above knee joint. On dissection: Infiltration of blood present. Clotted blood present at site", on the deceased. Correspondingly, PW-3 opined that the cause of the deceased's demise was, "... cranio-cerebral damage consequent upon blunt force impact diverted upon head which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
All injuries were ante-mortem in nature...". Needless to mention, PW-3 proved the postmortem report of the deceased, bearing no. 1703/17, as Ex. PW3/B, as proved by him/PW-3.
33. Proceeding with the evaluation of the entire material brought on record, seen in conjunction with the foregoing observations, legal provisions, judicial dictates as well as the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the parties/State, this Court outrightly notes that from a conjoint reading of the depositions of PW-1/Dr. Bharat Yadav and PW-3/Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh, in light of deceased's MLC (Ex.PW1/A) and postmortem report (Ex.PW3/B), the factum of the deceased's/Manoj Kumar's, sustaining multiple injuries as well as of him/deceased's eventually succumbing to the said injuries have been duly proved in the instant case. Needless to reiterate that PW-3, during the course of his deposition, not only proved the postmortem report, prepared by him as Ex. PW3/B, rather, explicitly opined that the cause of deceased's demise was SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 49 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29 16:44:54 +0530 occasioned due to cranio-cerebral damage, consequent upon blunt force impact diverted upon head of the deceased, "which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature". In fact, during the course of his cross examination by/on behalf of the accused, PW-3, explicitly denied that the injuries sustained by the deceased could have been occasioned due to a fall on the surface as well as also denied that he had prepared the said postmortem report at the instance of the IO. Clearly, under such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, prosecution has been able to successfully prove the cause of demise of the deceased due to homicide, i.e., death due to injuries caused to him, otherwise than for natural causes.
34. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is reiterated that none of the prosecution witnesses have proclaimed regarding them witnessing either the alleged incident or that of accused's fleeing from the spot. In fact, as aforenoted, complainant/PW-4/Daya Shankar; PW-5/Jagdish Nagar; PW-6/Sanjeev Yadav and PW-21/Rajinder, have all denied of having witnessed any incident in the present case and were consequently, cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, in terms of the provisions under Section 154 of the Evidence Act. However, it is noted by this Court that despite such vigorous cross-examination, nothing has emerged under the depositions of either of the said witnesses, so as to designate any of them as eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. Ergo, in the absence any direct witnesses to the incident, the allegations against the accused are to be considered in light of the circumstances brought forth/circumstantial evidence.
35. Significantly, as aforenoted, one of the circumstances pressed by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, in order to attract culpability against the accused is premised on the SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 50 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date:
GOYAL 2026.04.29
16:45:08
+0530
depositions of PW-12/Shri Ram Bangadwa; PW-11/Mahesh Kumar; PW-17/Hoshiyar Singh and PW-13/Mahesh Kumar (conductor). In fact, it is the case of the prosecution against the accused that the incident in question, resulted due to past enmity between the accused and the deceased, due to some illegal acts of the accused, which were objected by the deceased. However, in this regard, this Court unequivocally reiterates that the law is trite that motive alone cannot be the sole basis of conviction of an accused, though, may be an important circumstances in a case based on circumstantial evidence. Even otherwise, it is noted that though, PW-12 asserted that when the deceased, informed him of the illegal activities of the driver of his bus in the morning of 15.11.2017, he/PW-12 met with Mr. Soni, Manager at Bikaner Depot and requested him to change the duty of his/PW-12's son, Manoj Kumar/deceased from the said bus, asserting the deceased was being troubled by the bus driver. Further, as aforenoted, PW-12 further proclaimed that Mr. Soni made a telephonic call to someone and informed him/PW-12 that the duty of the deceased was already scheduled for 16.11.2017 and that he/Mr. Soni would change the duty hours of the deceased, post the said duty. However, despite such assertion of PW-12, the prosecution opted not to produce said, Mr. Soni as witness before this Court. Congruently, though, PW-11/Mahesh Kumar, one of the brothers of the deceased, deposed that the deceased told him in the presence of his other brother, Haushiar Singh and their mother that Vinod was troubling him/the deceased, however, no such assertion is forthcoming under the deposition of PW-17/Hoshiyar Singh. On the contrary, PW-17 avowed that on 15.11.2017, deceased, Manoj Kumar came to house and informed during dinner that the driver of his bus, namely, Vinod Kumar brought articles in bus and when SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 51 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29 16:45:14 +0530 he/the deceased objected to the same, Vinod fought with the deceased. Clearly, nowhere under his deposition PW-17 avowed of presence of PW-11 or their mother at that point of time.
36. Here, it is further pertinent to note that another circumstance, which is vehemently argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the State against the accused, so as to bring home conviction under Section 302 IPC against him is that the complainant/PW-4/Daya Shankar and PW-5/Jagdish Nagar, both, deposed in their testimonies that when they witnessed the deceased in an injured state at around 03:00-04:00 p.m., the accused was nowhere to be found in the vicinity of his bus. Congruently, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has further fervently relied upon the deposition of PW-13/Mahesh Kumar (conductor), who inter alia proclaimed that, one day prior to the incident, i.e., on 16.11.2017, he saw that the deceased and the accused were quarrelling with each other and that when he went close to the deceased and the accused, he heard that the deceased was saying to the accused, "you have brought illegal luggage in the bus previous day and Sardar Seher flying squad had also made a remark in this regard". Correspondingly, PW-13 proclaimed that the deceased threatened to lodge a complaint against the accused on the following day, after returning from Delhi and that he/the deceased would get accused's illegal activities stopped, with the assistance of the officials of Roadways.
Thereupon, as per PW-13, accused replied to the deceased by proclaiming, "let us see who will return from Delhi on the next day". Undoubtedly, the aforesaid depositions give an important indication of the previous and subsequent conduct of the accused, relevant in terms of the provisions under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. However, in the considered opinion of this Court, in the facts and circumstances brought forth, the said facts, would not be SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar PageDigitally 52 of 62 signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29 16:45:21 +0530 sufficient to bring home culpability against the accused in the instant case. In fact, in this regard it is pertinent to note here that superior courts have tirelessly declared that, though, the conduct of an accused, may be a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, however, the same, by itself, cannot be a ground to convict him or hold him guilty and that too, for a serious offence like murder. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramanand v. State of U.P., (2023) 16 SCC 510, wherein the Hon'ble Court, unambiguously remarked, as under;
"77. In the aforesaid context, we would like to sound a note of caution. Although the conduct of an accused may be a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, yet the same, by itself, cannot be a ground to convict him or hold him guilty and that too, for a serious offence like murder. Like any other piece of evidence, the conduct of an accused is also one of the circumstances which the court may take into consideration along with the other evidence on record, direct or indirect. What we are trying to convey is that the conduct of the accused alone, though may be relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, cannot form the basis of conviction."
(Emphasis supplied)
37. Congruently, this Court is equally wary of the determined declaration of the superior courts that mere act of absconding, does not necessarily lead to a firm conclusion of guilty mind, and that even an innocent man may feel panicky and try to evade arrest, when wrongly suspected of a grave crime, motivated with his instinct of self-preservation. In this regard, this Court deems it pertinent here to make a reference to the decision in Matru v. State of U.P., (1971) 2 SCC 75, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, expressed similar views inter alia, noting, as under;
"19. The appellant's conduct in absconding was also relied upon. Now, mere absconding by itself does SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 53 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29 16:45:29 +0530 not necessarily lead to a firm conclusion of guilty mind. Even an innocent man may feel panicky and try to evade arrest when wrongly suspected of a grave crime such is the instinct of self-preservation. The act of absconding is no doubt relevant piece of evidence to be considered along with other evidence but its value would always depend on the circumstances of each case. Normally the courts are disinclined to attach much importance to the act of absconding, treating it as a very small item in the evidence for sustaining conviction. It can scarcely be held as a determining link in completing the chain of circumstantial evidence which must admit of no other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. In the present case the appellant was with Ram Chandra till the FIR was lodged. If thereafter he felt that he was being wrongly suspected and he tried to keep out of the way we do not think this circumstance can be considered to be necessarily evidence of a guilty mind attempting to evade justice. It is not inconsistent with his innocence."
(Emphasis supplied)
38. Correspondingly, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has further relied on the deposition of PW-21/Rajinder, who proclaimed that on the alleged date of incident at around 12:00 noon, he left the accused and the deceased in their bus in a sleeping state, read in conjunction with the depositions of the complainant/PW-4/Daya Shankar and PW-5/Jagdish Nagar, who both, asserted that they witnessed the deceased in an injured state at around 03:00-04:00 p.m., on the fateful day, whilst the accused was nowhere to be found in the vicinity of his bus. As aforenoted, in light of the deposition of the said witnesses, it is the contention of Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the testimonies of PW-21, PW-4 and PW-5 are relevant to establish the factum of the accused and the deceased being 'last seen together'. However, the said contention of Ld. Addl. PP for the State, fails to impress this Court. As aforenoted, 'last seen theory' comes into play, only where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 54 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29 16:45:39 +0530 is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. However, in the instant case, not only was time gap between the deceased and the victim being last seen together at 12:00 noon and the deceased being found in an injured state at around 03:00-04:00 p.m., not only quite significant, rather, considering that the bus in question where the deceased was found in an injured state was parked in a public place, possibility of intervention of person, other than the accused, in the instant case cannot be totally ruled out. Even otherwise, it is noted that the said principle is also not strictly applicable in the instant case, especially when the deceased was found only in an injured state, in distinction to being found dead, in his bus at the aforesaid time.
39. Here, this Court deems it pertinent to note that the law is trite that in case of circumstantial evidence 7, "the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else". In fact, the superior courts have time and again reiterated that the for the circumstantial evidence to sustain conviction of an accused must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. In other words, such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, rather, should be inconsistent with his innocence. Reference in this regard is made to the decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, while carrying out an exhaustive review of the judicial dictates 7 Raju v. State of Rajasthan, (2024) 14 SCC 444.
SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 55 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEKABHISHEK GOYAL Date:
GOYAL 2026.04.29
16:45:49
+0530
governing the field, explicated the law by inter alia noting, as under;
"153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793: 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033: 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047] "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
(Emphasis supplied)
40. Correspondingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishnan v. State, (2008) 15 SCC 430, reiterated in the context of foregoing, as under;
"15. Before adverting to the abovestated arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we shall at the threshold point out that in the present case there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the offences and SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 56 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29 16:45:56 +0530 the prosecution case entirely rests on circumstantial evidence. This Court in a series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
(i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(ii) those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and
(iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra [(1982) 2 SCC 351: 1982 SCC (Cri) 431: AIR 1982 SC 1157] .)..."
(Emphasis supplied)
41. Ergo, in light of the foregoing circumstances, when the entire material/evidence/documents brought on record are conscientious analysed, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove culpability of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, either by direct or by circumstantial evidence in the instant case. As aforenoted, the star witnesses of the prosecution, i.e., complainant/PW-4/Daya Shankar; PW-5/Jagdish Nagar; PW-6/Sanjeev Yadav and PW-21/Rajinder have all turned hostile in as much as they have all denied of having witnessed the alleged act of the accused's inflicting injury on the victim and thereafter fleeing from the spot, as otherwise propounded by the prosecution. Even otherwise, as aforenoted, the only circumstances brought forth against the accused are motive; previous and subsequent conduct and the 'so SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 57 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2026.04.29 16:46:04 +0530 called' factum of accused and the deceased being last seen together. However, as noted herein, the prosecution has not only failed to establish the 'last seen together' in certainty, cogently and firmly, rather, as aforenoted, not only is time gap between the deceased and the victim being last seen together at 12:00 noon, as per PW-21 and the deceased being found in an injured state at around 03:00-04:00 p.m., as per PW-4 and PW-5, not only quite significant, rather, considering that the bus in question where the deceased was found in an injured state was parked in a public place, possibility of intervention of person, other than the accused, in the instant case cannot be totally ruled out. Congruently, as noted herein, mere motive and accused's previous as well as subsequent conduct, in the considered opinion of this Court are not conclusive/sufficient enough to bring home culpability against the accused, in the facts and circumstances brought forth.
42. On the contrary, it is unequivocally observed there are several material and significant missing link in the chain of event and circumstantial evidence, which are sufficient to bestow, benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. In this regard, it is outrightly noted that it is the case of the prosecution that the injuries on the deceased were effected with the help of an iron rod/wheel pana (Ex. P1), which was seized from inside the bus of the accused and the deceased. However, in this regard, it is observed that from a scrupulous analysis of the seizure memo of the said iron rod/wheel pana (Ex. PW2/C), in conjunction with the depositions of PW-2/Ct. Malkhan Singh and PW-19/ASI Adesh Kumar, that not only was the said alleged weapon of offence, recovered from inside the bus, near the first passenger's seat behind the driver's seat, in open, in contradistinction from or at the instance of the accused from a closed place/place of hiding, rather, SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 58 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2026.04.29 16:46:11 +0530 such recovery was affected on 17.11.2017, way prior to the arrest of the accused (Ex. PW2/L) and recording of his disclosure statement on 07.12.2017 (Ex. PW2/N). Clearly, in the instant case, there has been no recovered from/at the behest of the accused, even relevant for the purposes of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
43. Ominously, another distressing feature in the instant case is that the concerned Investigating Officers/IOs , i.e., PW-19/ASI Adesh Kumar; PW-20/SI Satish Kumar; and PW-22/Insp. U. Bala Shankaram made no efforts to seek an opinion from any expert as to whether the injuries on the deceased could have, in fact, been occasioned due to/from the said iron rod/wheel pana (Ex. PW1). Correspondingly, none of the said IOs, made any endeavour to lift any finger imprints from the said iron rod/wheel pana (Ex. PW1) or from the beer can (Ex. PW2) or from the place of alleged occurrence, so as to link the accused with the offence in question by means of any forensic, scientific or finger imprint analysis/report. In fact, in this regard, it is specifically noted that PW-9/SI Nagender Giri specifically proclaimed under his deposition that no chance print was developed from the spot and even inter alia affirmed under his cross examination by/at the behest of the accused that, "...no finger-print was taken from the spot by crime team. No finger-print was taken from iron rod..." . Needless to mention that even in the crime scene report (Ex.PW9/A), it is specifically observed that no chance prints were found/lifted from the spot. Here, it is further pertinent to note that even as per the FSL report (Ex. PW8/A), read in conjunction with the deposition of PW-8/Ms. Poonam Sharma, it is noted that no DNA profile could be generated from the said iron rod/wheel pana (Ex. PW1), so as to give any indication of the commission of offence by the accused or by the said iron rod, as otherwise alleged SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 59 of 62 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29 16:46:17 +0530 by the prosecution. Despondently, it is seen from a thorough perusal of the records that the concerned investigating officer(s), made no effort to trace, preserve and place on record, CCTV footage on record so as to establish the factum of presence of the deceased and the accused with closed proximity of time, as propounded by the prosecution or to even establish the time period when the accused, is alleged to have fled from the spot.
44. Ergo, in light of the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion that the chain of evidence/circumstantial evidence is not complete so as to lead to an inference of the accused's having committing the offence in question in all human probability. Needless to reiterate that not only is the last seen theory weak and ambiguous for the foregoing reason, rather, the allegations levelled against the accused are unsupported by any forensic/scientific evidence. Needless to further reiterate mere motive and accused's previous as well as subsequent conduct, in the considered opinion of this Court are not conclusive/sufficient enough to bring home culpability against the accused, in the facts and circumstances brought forth.
CONCLUSION:
45. Conclusively, in light of the foregoing, it is reiterated that from the material placed on record and arguments addressed on behalf of the State, complainant as well as that on behalf of the accused, it is reiterated that in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case/charge under Section 302 IPC, 'beyond reasonable doubt' against the accused, namely, Vinod Kumar. On the contrary, in light of the various lacunae and material omissions, as hereinunder observed, benefit of doubt in the considered opinion of this Court, must necessarily enure in favour of the SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar PageDigitally 60 of 62 signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29 16:46:24 +0530 accused. Needless to mention at this stage that it is a settled law8 that in case where two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused and the other adversely against it, the view favouring the accused must be accepted. It is equally trite law9 that the prosecution has to prove its case/charge against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt and that an accused is considered innocent, until it is established otherwise. In fact, the superior courts10 have persistently avowed that suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt and that an accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Digamber Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 4 SCC 522, wherein the Hon'ble Court, unambiguously remarked;
"14. One of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence is undeniably that the burden of proof squarely rests on the prosecution and that the general burden never shifts. There can be no conviction on the basis of surmises and conjectures or suspicion howsoever grave it may be. Strong suspicion, strong coincidences and grave doubt cannot take the place of legal proof. The onus of the prosecution cannot be discharged by referring to very strong suspicion and existence of highly suspicious factors to inculpate the accused nor falsity of defence could take the place of proof which the prosecution has to establish in order to succeed, though a false plea by the defence at best, be considered as an additional circumstance, if other circumstances unfailingly point to the guilt.
15. This Court in Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa [Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa, (1991) 3 SCC 27 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 527] , has held that even if the offence is a shocking one, the gravity of offence cannot by itself overweigh as far as legal proof is concerned. In cases depending highly upon the circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that the conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The 8 Raghunath v. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 398, Dhan Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1980) 1 SCC 605; and State of U.P. v. Nandu Vishwakarma, (2009) 14 SCC 501.9
Meena v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 5 SCC 21.10
Chandrakant Nishad v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC Online Chh 6503.
SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 61 of 62
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2026.04.29
16:46:30
+0530
court has to be watchful and ensure that the conjecture and suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of evidence should be established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused."
(Emphasis supplied)
46. Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, accused, namely, Vinod Kumar is acquitted of the charge(s)/allegations levelled against him for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Consequently, accused, namely, Vinod Kumar is admitted to bail on the said accused furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) along with one surety of the like amount, as per the provisions under Section 437A Cr.P.C./Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/BNSS. Further, as requested, the bail bond be furnished by the accused within a period of one week from the date of this judgment.
47. File of the present case be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date:
GOYAL 2026.04.29
16:46:38
+0530
Announced in the open Court (Abhishek Goyal)
on 29.04.2026. ASJ-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi SC No. 212/2018 State Vs. Vinod Kumar Page 62 of 62