Delhi District Court
State vs Rahul Joseph @ Sonu on 30 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANUJ AGRAWAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-3, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC No. 486/2019
CNR NO. DLSE01-008810-2019
State
Vs.
Rahul Joseph @ Sonu
S/o. Shri Roomi Joseph
R/o. D-5, Servant Quarter,
Type - VI, Hudco Place,
New Delhi.
FIR No. 130/2019
PS: Defence Colony
U/s: 302/34 IPC
r/w Section 201 IPC
Instituted on : 11.10.2019
Committed on : 15.10.2019
Reserved on : 17.03.2026
Decided on : 30.03.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Rahul Joseph @ Sonu has been sent to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC read with Section 201 IPC. It is alleged that on 14.07.2019 at about 12:40 AM, in front of E-6, Service Lane, towards Lajpat Nagar-Defence Colony, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Defence Colony, the accused, along with his companion 'S' (since child in conflict with law), in furtherance of their common SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.1 of 43 intention and with the intent to cause the death of the deceased Sham Bodh, stabbed him with a knife, thereby causing a fatal injury on his chest and committing his murder. It is further alleged that after committing the said offence, the accused caused the disappearance of evidence of the crime by deliberately washing the blood from the knife used in the commission of the offence.
Brief Facts
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.07.2019, upon receipt of GD No. 02A, ASI Rajender, along with Ct. Deepak, reached the spot i.e., in front of E-6, Service Lane, towards Lajpat Nagar, Defence Colony, New Delhi. At the spot, they noticed bloodstains on the road and a bicycle lying there. By that time, the injured had already been removed to AIIMS Trauma Centre, where the attending doctor declared him "brought dead." The deceased was later identified as Shyam Bodh by one Lalu Prasad Yadav, who had brought the injured to the hospital from the spot and stated that he knew the deceased as they belonged to the same village.
2.1 During the course of investigation, the crime scene was inspected by the police officials and relevant exhibits and samples were lifted from the spot in accordance with law. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer (IO) prepared the rukka, on the basis of which the present case was registered under Section 302 IPC, and the site plan of the place of occurrence was also prepared. During the search, the accused persons Rahul Joseph @ Sonu and 'S' (since declared a Child in Conflict with Law) were apprehended from Vivekanand Park, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi. During SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.2 of 43 the personal search of accused Rahul Joseph @ Sonu, the weapon of offence i.e. a blood-stained knife, was allegedly recovered from his possession and was seized by the IO vide a seizure memo. It is further alleged that both the accused persons Rahul Joseph @ Sonu and 'SKR' (CCL) made disclosure statements confessing their involvement in the commission of the present offence.
3. The investigation culminated in the filing of a chargesheet under section 173 CrPC against accused Rahul Joseph @ Sonu. It is relevant to mention here that separate proceedings got conducted qua CCL 'SKR' before Juvenile Justice Board, as he was below the age of 18 years at the time of alleged incident.
4. Upon completion of investigation and after necessary formalities, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Vide order dated 03.12.2019, charge for offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 201 IPC was framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Record reveals that during course of trial, accused admitted the proceedings regarding his test identification parade (TIP) Ex.P1 in terms of section 294 Cr.PC. It is relevant to mention here that vide said proceedings, accused refused to participate in TIP.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
6. In support of its allegations, prosecution produced 26 witnesses. A SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.3 of 43 summary of the witnesses produced and their connection with the incident is as follows :
Witness Witness Name Purpose
No.
PW1 ASI Dalchand. The duty officer, who recorded the DD
No. 2-A Ex. PW1/A. He made
endorsement Ex. PW1/C on rukka Mark
PW1/A and got the present case registered
vide FIR Ex. PW1/B.
PW2 Ct. Deepak He joined the investigation along with ASI
Rajender and Inspector Josepha Kajur. He
stated that after registration of the FIR, he along with the IO, ASI Rajender and Ct.
Deepak went in search of the accused. At Vivekanand Park, they noticed two boys who, on seeing the police party, got frightened and attempted to run away.
On suspicion, they were apprehended. One of them disclosed his name as Rahul Joseph. During his formal search, a knife was recovered from the right pocket of his trousers, which was measured by the IO and seized.
PW3 SI Ram Niwas He was part of Mobile Crime Team as finger print proficient. He alongwith HC Jaiveer reached at the spot where HC Jaiveer took the photographs of the spot.
PW4 Ct. Ramu Lal He deposited the exhibits at RFSL vide RC
No. 40/21/19 Ex. PW4/A and
acknowledgment Ex. PW4/B.
PW5 ASI Joginder Singh He alongwith Ct. Deepak (PW3) took the
accused and CCL for their medical
examination and thereafter handed over
the exhibits to the IO, which were seized
by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/H.
SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.4 of 43
PW6 Mr. Ravi He, on request of PW-20 Lalu Prasad
Yadav shifted victim from spot to the
hospital in his Eeco Car after visiting the
spot.
PW7 Mr. Ram Lakhan The cousin brother of the deceased Shyam
Bodh, who, upon receiving telephonic
information about the incident, first
reached the spot and noticed blood lying
there. Thereafter, he went to AIIMS
Trauma Centre, where he learnt that the
victim had been declared brought dead.
PW8 Dr. Adarsh Kumar He proved MLC of the deceased Ex.
PW8/A prepared by Dr. Niseno Terhuja
and also proved the postmortem report Ex.
PW7/A prepared by Dr. Shinto Devassy.
PW9 Mr. Pratik Gahatraj The eye witness.
PW10 ACP Mukesh He prepared the scaled site plan Ex.
Kumar Jain, PW10/A.
Draftsman
PW11 Ct. Vijender He delivered the copy of FIR at the
residence of Ld. Magistrate and also at
Police Head Quarter.
PW12 Mr. Jagannath S. Material witness.
Poojary,
PW13 HC Jai Kumar, He proved the copy of PCR form filled up
Channel Operator by him Ex. PW13/A.
PW14 HC Fakruddin He proved the copy of PCR form filled up
by him Ex. PW14/A.
PW15 Dr. Rajiv Ranjan He medically examined the accused vide
MLC Ex. PW15/A.
PW16 ASI Jayveer Singh The part of Mobile Crime Team, who took
SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.5 of 43
photographs of the scene of crime Ex.
PW16/A.
PW17 Ram Bodh Shah He is the brother of deceased Shyam Bodh
and identified the latter's dead body.
PW18 SI Ram Singh He accompanied IO SI Josepha Kujur to
AIIMS Trauma Center, where postmortem
of deceased Shyam Baby was got
conducted.
PW19 ASI Bijender Concerned MHC(M).
Singh, MHC(M)
PW20 Mr. Lalu Prashad An acquaintance of the victim, who saw
Yadav him lying in an injured condition at the
spot. He stated that he sought the help of
PW6, and with his assistance shifted the
injured to the hospital. He also informed
the victim's cousin brother, Ram Lakhan,
about the incident.
PW21 Mr. Praveen He proved the documents in respect of the
Kumar, Nodal mobile phone no. 885xxxx589 i.e. CDR,
Officer E-KYC and certificate u/s. 65B IEA.
The said mobile number was registered in
name of accused.
PW22 Mr. Rajiv Vashist, He proved the documents in respect of the
Nodal Officer mobile phone no. 981xxxx976 i.e. KYC,
CDR, and certificate u/s. 65B IEA.
The said mobile number was registered in
name of one Jayaseelan and was being
used by CCL 'S'.
PW23 Dr. Sweta Sinha, She proved her report Ex.PW23/P1,
JFACE, FSL according to which no poison / pesticide /
Rohini cyanide / alcohol etc. was detected in the
viscera of the deceased.
SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.6 of 43
PW24 Dr. Sanjeev He examined the weapon of offence along
Lalwani with the postmortem report and MLR and
furnished his report Ex. PW24/P2.
As per the said report, the injuries
mentioned in the postmortem report and
MLR were possible by the weapon of
offence i.e. the knife.
PW25 Dr. Suminder He had examined the exhibits received at
Kaur, Senior FSL and gave his detailed report Ex.
Forensic Chemical PW25/P1 and allelelic data Ex. PW25/2 Examiner and Ex. PW25/P3.
PW26 Inspector Josepha He is the Investigating Officer.
Kujur
7. MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD: The testimony of material witnesses is being discussed hereinunder, whereas brief of remaining testimonies has already been given in the preceding paragraph.
8. PW9 is Pratik Gahatraj, the sole eye witness, examined by State and his testimony is reads as under:
"I am residing at the above said address on rent. In year 2019, I was working at Swagat Restaurant & Bar at Defence Colony Market, New Delhi. Shyam Bodh (deceased) was also working with me in the same restaurant.
On 13.07.2019, I and deceased left our restaurant at around 11:40 -11:50 p.m. on cycle. The cycle was being driven by deceased and I was sitting at the back. There were two small water jars hanging on both sides of carrier of cycle. When we reached near Andrews Ganj Bus Stand, near under pass subway, we saw that two boys were SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.7 of 43 sitting between the space of subway and bus stand. While we were passing, they were abusing to us. Despite that we kept moving and they were continued abusing us.
Deceased asked me as to why they were abusing us and he asked me let we ask them as to why they were abusing us. We took turn our cycle and returned towards the place i.e. gate No. E-7 where both the boys were standing. Deceased asked from them as to why they were abusing us and for what reason they were abusing us. Thereafter, heated arguments were ensued between deceased and small boy. Meanwhile, the small boy took out a knife and brandishing it towards us. I requested them to leave us as we wanted to go. I moved and put stand the cycle towards aside of the road. Meanwhile, when I turned around I saw that big boy had taken the knife from hand of small boy. Small boy had caught hold deceased and big boy had given a knife blow upon the deceased. I was shocked as to how this happened in such a short span of time. Thereafter, both the boys rushed towards me and said that to catch hold of me and to kill me. Due to fear I left the spot in an auto for my house.
I could not tell the said fact to anyone on the said night as I was very much afraid due to the said incident. On 14.07.2019, I had come to know that Shyam Bodh had expired. I told the said fact of incident to my Manager Mr. Jagannath Pooja. He had make me understand and I mustard (sic mustered) courage to tell the said fact to the police. Mr. Jagannath Pooja accompanied me for the PS and met with the IO of the case to whom I told the facts of the incident and my statement was recorded by the IO. I had shown the spot of incident to the IO and she has prepared the site plan of the spot which is Ex.PW9/A which bears my signature at point A (objected to). The accused present in Court today is correctly identified by witness as the big boy who had given SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.8 of 43 the stab blow to the deceased at the time of incident."
8.1 During cross-examination, he stated that he was carrying a mobile phone on the date of the incident, however, the police did not ask for his mobile phone during the investigation. He further stated that after the incident he ran towards Moolchand Flyover and, after crossing it, boarded an auto. He admitted that he neither informed the auto driver about the incident nor called the police either on that night or on the next day. He also stated that he did not inform his bua/sister at home about the incident as he was under trauma. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot with the deceased and had not witnessed the incident.
8.2 He further stated that he went to the police station at about 2:00-2:30 PM, where the accused was not shown to him. He denied the defence suggestion that he had not identified the accused at any stage during the investigation.
(emphasis supplied)
9. PW12 is Jagannath and his testimony reads as under:
"I am working as General Manager of Swagat Restaurant and Bar at 14, Defence Colony Market, New Delhi. Shyam Bodh and Pratik Gahatraj were working in the restaurant in the year 2019. In the intervening night of 13/14.07.2019 Shyam Bodh and Pratik Gahatraj were going on the bicycle to their home after duty. When they reached at service road, Defence Colony underpass Andrews Ganj bus stop, where they saw two boys who were sitting outside on the staircase of the subway. They had abused them. Thereafter they moved ahead on SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.9 of 43 bicycle. However, they returned near to the said boys to ask them as to why they had abused them.
When they had reached on the bicycle near gate no. E7 and they asked from the above said boys as to why they were abusing them as they had not any act. Out of two boys one boy was of height seems to be adult and another was seeming to be minor. The boy of height seemed to be adult had caught hold Shyam Bodh and another boy who was minor had stabbed Shyam Bodh. Thereafter one boy asked another boy to caught hold Pratik and to stab him, however after seeing that they are coming towards him he ran to save himself.
On the next day morning when Pratik came on duty he told me about the incident happened with him and Shyam Bodh Pratik had not told the said fact to anyone else due to fear. I support him and encouraged him to tell the same to the police. Thereafter I alongwith Pratik reached at PS Defence Colony where police officials met us. The police officials had made inquiry from Pratik and his statement was recorded. My statement was also recorded by the police officials."
(emphasis supplied)
10. PW25 is Dr. Suminder Kaur and her testimony reads as under:
"On 23.08.2019, I was posted as above at RFSL Chankyapuri. On that day, 14 sealed parcels in the present FIR were submitted at RFSL Chankyapuri and same were marked to me for DNA examination. All the seals were intact and tallied with the sample seal provided by SHO PS Defence Colony.
The detailed description of the articles / exhibits contained in the parcels were given in my report. After the examination the SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.10 of 43 following result/ conclusion made.
A DNA profile of male origin could be generated from the source of exhibits '3' (stony concrete SOC) '6'(knife), '9a' (nail clippings), '9b' (nail clippings) '11a' (pair of slippers), 11b Shirt, 11c Jeans.
The alleles generated from the source of exhibit 3' (stony concrete SOC) '6'(knife), '9a' (nail clippings), '9b' (nail clippings) '11a' (pair of slippers), 11b Shirt, 11c Jeans are accounted in the alleles from the source of exhibit '10' (blood in gauze of deceased Shyam Bodh Shah.
A DNA profile of mixed male origin was generated from the source of exhibits 13a (pair of slippers), 13b (shirt), 13c (jeans). The alleles generated from the source of exhibits 13a (pair of slippers), 13b (shirt), 13c (jeans) are accounted in the alleles from source of exhibit 10 (blood in gauze of deceased Shyam Bodh Sah) and 14 (blood sample of accused Rahul Joseph).
The DNA profiling (STR analysis) performed on the exhibits is sufficient to conclude that:
The DNA profile generated from source of exhibit '10' (Blood in gauge of deceased Shyam Bodh Sah) is similar with the DNA profile generated from the source of exhibits "3' (stony concrete SOC), '6' (knife),, '9a' (Nail clippings), '9b'(nail clippings), '11a' (pair of slipper), '11b' (shirt), '11c'(Jeans pant).
The DNA profile generated from the source of exhibits '10' (Blood gauge of deceased Shyam Bodh Sah) & 14' (Bloods sample of SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.11 of 43 accused Rahul Joseph) is Matching with the mixed DNA profile generated from source of exhibits '13a' (pair of slipper), '13b' (shirt) & '13c' (jeans). A DNA profile of male origin was generated from the source of exhibit '12' (Blood sample of CCL Sagar Kumar Rajput) has been preserved for future references, if any.
My detailed report is Ex. PW25/P1 and alleles data is Ex. PW25/P2 and Ex. PW25/P3 bearing my signature at point A on each page.
The remnants of the exhibits were resealed with the seal of SRK RFSL CH.PURI NEW DELHI and given to the concerned police with the results."
11. PW26 is Inspector Josepha Kujur and her testimony reads as under:
"On 13.07.2019 I was posted as Inspector at Defence Colony. In the intervening night of 13/14.07.2019 a call received vide DD NO. 2A already Ex. PW1/A was received and the same was marked to ASI Rajender for necessary action.
Pursuant to that call the said ASI reached the spot i.e. infront of E-6, Service Lane, towards Lajpat Nagar, Defence Colony. Neither caller nor injured was found at the spot. Injured was stated to have been removed to hospital. The said ASI made a call to first informant and came to know that injured has been taken to AIIMS Trauma Center. In the meantime, ASI Rajender also received a call vide DD No. 6A whereby it was informed that injured was got admitted to AIIMS Trauma Center.
Thereafter, ASI Rajender went to AIIMS Trauma Center leaving behind Ct. Deepak to preserve the scene of crime and collected MLC of injured whereby he was declared brought dead. During that course an information regarding the incident was also forwarded to me and I was instructed by the SHO to take over the case and conduct the further proceedings.
I visited the AIIMS Trauma Center. By that time the dead body has already been got preserved by ASI Rajender. ASI Rajender met me there. Lalu Prasad Yadav, a native of the village of deceased SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.12 of 43 and Ravi, first informant who had also taken the deceased to hospital in his ECCO Van bearing registration no. DL 6CP 6651.
ASI Rajender handed over me the clothes of deceased in sealed condition. I took the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW26/A which bears my signature at point A. the MLC of deceased Shyam is already Ex. PW6/A. ASI Rajender had also handed over me both the said DD entries. We returned to the spot. I called the crime team and got the scene of crime inspected. Photographer from Crime team also photographed the scene of crime vide photograph already Ex. PW16/A colly. I lifted the exhibits from the scene of crime sealed with the seal of JK and took the same into possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW2/A which bears my signature at point B. One black colour bicycle of Avon company bearing no. 15LO 54753 along with the key was also found stationed at the spot. I took the same into possession vide seizure memo now Ex. PW26/B which bears my signature at point A. the said bicycle is also visible in the photograph.
Thereafter, I made endorsement at point D to D bearing my signature at point E on the GD No. 2A already Ex. PW1/A and got the present FIR registered through Ct. Deepak. The said Ct. Deepak returned to the place of incident and handed over to me copy of FIR and original rukka for investigation.
I prepared site plan of place of incident at the instance of SI Rajender now Ex. PW26/C which bears my signature at point A and signature of ASI Rajender at point B. On the same day I along with ASI Rajender, C. Deepak and Ct. Kuldeep, during the search of accused persons we reached Vivekanand Park, Andrews ganj, New Delhi. When we reached near the park two persons sitting there started fleeing from there. We grew suspicion upon them and apprehended them. They revealed their names as Rahul Joseph @ sonu and CCL S. Upon cursory search of accused Rahul Joseph @ Sonu one knife was recovered from his right dub. Accused was wearing jeans pant and shirt at that time and (sic.I) prepared its sketch already Ex. PW2/A which bears my signature at point B. The knife was found having traces of blood and on its blade word 'USA SARKA 2204XXX62' was inscribed. I put the said knife in a transparent plastic container sealed with the seal of JK and seized it vide seizure memo already Ex. PW2/D which bears my signature at point B and SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.13 of 43 signature of accused at point C. I interrogated the accused Rahul Joseph and arrested him vide arrest memo vide Ex. PW2/B which bears my signature at point B and signature of accused at point C. his personal search got also conducted vide personal search memo vide already Ex. PW2/C which bears my signature at point B and signature of accused at point C. I interrogated the disclosure statement of accused Rahul is now Ex. PW26/D which bears my signature at point A and signature of accused at point B. In the meantime I also called JWO SI Rakesh who reached the spot along with SI Shree Bhagwan. JWO SI Rakesh conducted the proceedings qua CCL S. Pursuant to disclosure statement of accused Rahul pointed out the place of incident vide pointing out memo already Ex. PW2/E which bears my signature at point B and signature of accused at point C. I also prepared site plan qua the place of incident at the instance of accused Rahul already Ex. PW2/F which bears my signature at point B and signature of accused at point C. In his disclosure statement, Ex. PW26/D accused disclosed that while fleeing from the spot he had handed over the knife to CCL S, however, on the way he had taken the knife from him and he had washed with water kept in matka kept on the side of the road near Quarter NO. 22, Road no. 2, F-Block, Andrews Ganj, NEW Delhi and had kept the knife with him. The said facts have been mentioned at point C to C. Pursuant to that disclosure accused led us to that place where a steel glass was found kept on the matka and on its inspection it was found having traces of blood and accused pointed it out to be the same glass with which he had taken water from the matka and washed the knife. I took the said steel glass into possession and put in into transparent container and sealed it with the seal of JK and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/G which bears my signature at point B and signature of accused at point C. I also prepared site plan qua the said place of recovery at the instance of accused. Same is now Ex.PW26/E which bears my signature at point A and signature of accused at point B. Thereafter, I got the medical examination of accused Rahul Joseph conducted through ASI Joginder and Ct. Deepak vide MLC and causality card already Ex. PW15/A. After medical examination ASI Joginder had produced me the slippers, cloth and blood sample of accused Rahul in sealed condition along with sample seal. I took into SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.14 of 43 possession the same vide seizure memo already Ex. PW2/H which bears my signature at point B. Accused was got sent to JC.
On the same day i.e. 14.07.2019, employer of eye witness Prateek had brought him to PS. I examined him and recorded his statement u/s 161 CrPC. I also prepared site plan of the place of incident at his instance. Same is already Ex. PW9/A which bears my signature at point B and signature of eye witness Prateek at point A. On 15.07.2019, I have got the postmortem of the dead body of deceased, Shyam Bodh Shah, 22 years male, conducted vide my application already Ex. PW7/A which bears my signature at point B. I had filed 17 inquest papers including Form no. 25.35 (death report), Ex. PW26/F which bears my signature at point A. Dead body was identified by the relative of the deceased vide statement already Ex. PW7/C which bears my signature at point C. Postmortem was conducted vide PM report already Ex. PW8/C which bears my signature at point C. The dead body after postmortem was handed over to the relative of deceased and a handing over was also prepared in this regard. Its original copy was handed over to the relative of the deceased. However, on account of inadvertence its carbon copy could not be placed on judicial file. Same is available in the police file.
At this stage, Ld. Addl PP for state requested that carbon copy of handing over memo of dead body of deceased may kindly be allowed to be placed on the judicial file. Heard.
Ld counsel for accused has no objection if the said document is placed on record.
The carbon copy of handing over memo has now been placed on record and the same is now Mark as Ex PW26/G which bears my signature at point A. The exhibits pertaining to the deceased were handed over to me by the concerned doctor in sealed condition along with sample seal. I took the same into possession into the presence of ASI Ran Singh, who had been present with me throughout the said proceedings vide seizure memo already Ex. PW18/A which bears my signature at point B. The viscera of the deceased was also handed over to me by the concerned doctor and I had taken the same into possession vide SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.15 of 43 seizure memo already Ex. PW18/B. Since, accused was granted one day JC remand which had expired on that day, I produced him before the concerned court and got his JC remand extended.
On the same day I had also moved an application for TIP of accused but accused had refused to participate therein. The record of the TIP proceedings running into 04 pages including my application seeking judicial TIP of the accused is already Ex. P1 (colly). It bears my signature at point A. From Saket Court we returned to PS. I deposited the case property / exhibits in the malkhana of PS Defence Colony.
The investigation/ proceedings qua the CCL was also conducted separately by SI Shri Bhagwan and a report in this regard was filed by me in JJB Court.
On 02.08.2019 I got prepared the scaled site plan by Inspector Mukesh Kumar Jain, draftsman. He had taken rough notes qua the site plan on that day and finally handed over the scaled site plan to me on 14.08.2019.
On 05.08.2019, I had collected the PCR form qua the call and placed the same on record.
On 23.08.2019, I had got deposited the exhibits / case property pertaining to the present case at RFSL Chankyapuri through Ct. Ramulal vide RC No. 40/21/19 already Ex. PW19/P3 and RC No. 41/21/19 already Ex. PW4/C. Copy of the forwarding letter running into 07 pages dated 23.08.2019 are now Ex. PW26/H (colly) bearing my signature at point A on forwarding note (DNA unit).
Forwarding letter qua the viscera sent to RFSL alongwith Viscera running into 03 pages is now Ex. PW26/I. On 04.09.2019, pursuant to the notice, u/s 91 CrPC HR Manager of Swagat Restaurant had submitted documents pertaining to the employment namely aadhar card, of deceased Shyam Bodh Saha vide Ex. PW26/J copy of the entries pertaining to attendance of the deceased at the restaurant and E Pehchan Card running into 04 pages now Ex. PW26/K. The said documents were provided to me vide forwarding letter vide Ex. PW26/L. On 09.10.2019, pursuant to my notice to the Nodal Officer of SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.16 of 43 Bharti Airtel Company, CDR pertaining to mobile number i.e. 9818560976 belonging to the uncle of CCL, already Ex. PW22/P4 along with certificate u/s 65 B already Ex. PW22/P5, CAF already Ex. PW22/P2 and Voter ID of subscriber already Ex. PW22/P3 were provided to me vide forwarding letter already Ex. PW22/P1.
Pursuant to my notice dated 22.09.2019, to the Reliance Jio Company, now Ex. PW26/M, CDR pertaining to mobile number i.e. 8851142589 belonging to accused, already Ex. PW22/P2 along with cell Id chart already Ex. P3, certificate u/s 65 B already Ex. PW22/P4, CAF already Ex. PW22/P1 were provided to me.
I recorded the statement of witnesses who had been associated with me during the course of investigation, prepared the charge sheet and submitted the same in Court.
After obtaining the DNA report already Ex. PW25/P1, its Genotype Analysis Chart Ex. PW25/P3, Viscera report already Ex. PW23/P1 and subsequent opinion Ex. PW24/P2 qua the weapon of the offence. I filed the supplementary charge sheet on 18.01.2022.
On the last date of hearing instead of T Shirt of the accused only shirt has been mentioned in my deposition. Same may be treated as T- Shirt.
I identified accused Rahul Joseph present in Court today. (Correctly identified by the witness).
At this stage, MHC(M) PS Defence Colony had produced parcel no. 13 sealed with the seal of RFSL. Same is opened and out of which one jeans pant, one printed T shirt and one pair slipper are taken out and are shown to the witness, who identified them to be the same cloth and slipper which accused was wearing at the time of incident as well as at the time of arrest. Same is now Ex. PW26/MO- X (colly).
The said MHC(M) further produced parcel sealed with the seal of the court. Same is opened and out of it one knife is taken out and is shown to the witness, who identified it to be the same knife which was recovered from his possession. Knife is already Ex. P5. The said MHC(M) further produced parcel sealed with the seal of the court. Same is opened and out of it one steel glass already Ex. P6 is taken out and is shown to the witness who identified it to be same blood stained steel glass which was recovered from the possession of accused.
SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.17 of 43 The Avon bicycle and its key have already been exhibited as Ex. P7 (the cycle has also been exhibited as EX. C1 in the testimony of PW9) and its key is already Ex. MO-1 respectively. The said bicycle can be seen in the photograph already Ex. MO-1."
(emphasis supplied) STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CrPC:
12. Examined under section 313 of CrPC, the accused either pleaded ignorance about the incriminating evidence or denied the same as incorrect. He claimed to be falsely implicated.
ARGUMENTS OF Ld. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE STATE:
13. Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that the prosecution has successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt through cogent ocular as well as scientific evidence. It was argued that the testimony of PW-9 Prateek Gahatraj, the sole eye-witness, is natural, consistent and inspires confidence. His presence at the spot stands explained as he was accompanying the deceased from their workplace and there is no reason for him to falsely implicate the accused. It was further contended that merely because he is a solitary witness, his testimony cannot be discarded, particularly when it has a ring of truth and is corroborated by surrounding circumstances.
13.1 Ld. APP argued that the delay in reporting the incident by PW-9 stands satisfactorily explained on account of fear and trauma, which is a SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.18 of 43 natural human reaction in the facts of the present case. It was submitted that the conduct of a witness cannot be tested on the touchstone of a stereotypical or uniform reaction and minor deviations in behaviour ought not to discredit an otherwise reliable witness.
13.2 It was further argued that the testimony of PW-9 finds corroboration from PW-12 Jagannath, to whom the witness disclosed the incident at the earliest opportunity. Such disclosure forms part of the same transaction and is relevant under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. Additionally, the medical and forensic evidence fully supports the prosecution case. The postmortem report establishes that the death was homicidal and caused by a sharp-edged weapon, while the opinion of PW-24 confirms that the injuries were possible by the recovered knife.
13.3 Ld. APP laid particular emphasis on the DNA evidence proved by PW-25, which conclusively connects the accused with the crime. It was submitted that the presence of the DNA profile of the deceased on the knife and other articles, coupled with the mixed DNA profile linking both the deceased and the accused on the clothes, provides strong scientific corroboration to the ocular version.
13.4 It was further contended that the recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the accused and his conduct in attempting to flee upon seeing the police are relevant incriminating circumstances under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The refusal of the accused to participate in TIP also SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.19 of 43 lends support to the prosecution case.
13.5 Ld. Addl. PP submitted that the alleged discrepancies pointed out by the defence are minor in nature and do not go to the root of the prosecution case. It was argued that the attendance record does not conclusively disprove the presence of PW-9 with the deceased, as such records are not infallible and minor variations in timing are possible in routine employment records.
13.6 On these grounds, it was contended that the testimony of PW-9, duly corroborated by medical, forensic and recovery evidence, is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Reliance was placed upon the judgments in State of UP Vs. Devendra Singh, Anant Chintama Lagu Vs. State of Bombay and State Vs. Narasingha Khuntia.
14. Per contra, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities and does not inspire confidence. It was submitted that PW-9 is not a trustworthy witness and his presence at the spot is highly doubtful in view of the documentary evidence on record.
14.1 Ld. Counsel drew attention to the attendance register (Ex. PW26/K), which shows that the deceased and PW-9 did not leave the workplace together, thereby demolishing the very foundation of the SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.20 of 43 prosecution story. It was argued that this material contradiction strikes at the root of the prosecution case and renders the presence of PW-9 at the scene doubtful.
14.2 It was further contended that the conduct of PW-9 is wholly unnatural. Despite allegedly witnessing a brutal हत्या, he neither informed the police nor any public person, nor even his family members, despite having access to a mobile phone. His silence throughout the night and delayed disclosure create serious doubts regarding the veracity of his version.
14.3 Ld. Counsel argued that PW-9 surfaced only after the accused had already been apprehended, which raises a strong possibility that he is a planted witness introduced to fill gaps in the prosecution case. It was submitted that no independent public witness has been examined to corroborate the alleged occurrence.
14.4 It was further argued that the alleged recovery of the knife and blood-stained clothes is highly doubtful. The prosecution has failed to explain how the police identified and apprehended the accused in the absence of any prior description or lead. The story that the accused was found casually sitting in a public park with incriminating articles is inherently improbable and contrary to normal human conduct.
SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.21 of 43 14.5 Ld. Counsel also pointed out serious lapses in investigation, including the failure to collect the call detail records and location data of PW-9, which could have independently verified his presence at the spot. Such omission assumes significance in a case resting on the testimony of a solitary witness.
14.6 It was argued that the entire prosecution case appears to be an attempt to solve a blind murder case by planting evidence and introducing a witness subsequently. In the absence of credible and reliable evidence, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
14.7 On these grounds, it was prayed that the accused be acquitted of all charges.
15. Heard. Record perused.
16. Before proceeding further, I would set-up the position of law on various aspects that arise in the matter.
17. In Lallu Manjhi v State of Jharkhand, (2003) 2 SCC 401, it was held as under:
10. The law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact.
However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely, (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The court has to be SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.22 of 43 circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon the testimony of a single witness. (See: Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras [AIR 1957 SC 614 : 1957 Cri LJ 1000].)"
18. In Amar Singh v State NCT Delhi, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 826, it was observed as under:
"16. Thus the finding of guilt of the two accused appellants recorded by the two Courts below is based on sole testimony of eye witness PW-1. As a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of single eye witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony Courts will insist on corroboration. It is not the number, the quantity but quality that is material. The time honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise.
29. In the facts and circumstances of the case this was serious lapse on the part of the investigating officer. Though normally minor lapses on the part of the investigating officer should not come in the way of accepting eye witness account, if otherwise reliable. But in the circumstances of the case at hands where the conduct of sole eye witness is unnatural and there are various other surrounding circumstances which make his presence at the site of incident doubtful, such a lapse on the part of the investigating officer assumed significance and is not liable to ignored."
19. In Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar v State of Bihar, (2020) 3 SCC 443, it was observed as under:
"5.4.2. In Rai Sandeep [Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 750], this Court had an occasion to consider who can be said to be a "sterling witness". In para 22, it is observed and held as under:
22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.23 of 43 be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him.
Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness" whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
20. In State of Maharashtra v Dinesh, (2018) 15 SCC 161, it was observed as under :
"8. In Joseph v. State of Kerala [Joseph v. State of Kerala, SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.24 of 43 (2003) 1 SCC 465 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 356], this Court has observed that where there is a sole witness, his evidence has to be accepted with an amount of caution and after testing it on the touchstone of other material on record. In State of Haryana v. Inder Singh [State of Haryana v. Inder Singh, (2002) 9 SCC 537 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1239], this Court has laid down that the testimony of a sole witness must be confidence inspiring and beyond suspicion, thus, leaving no doubt in the mind of the Court. In Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh [Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 4 SCC 257 :
(2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 382], this Court, after taking note of the aforementioned two judgments, observed that "the principles stated in these judgments are indisputable. None of these judgments say that the testimony of the sole eyewitness cannot be relied upon or conviction of an accused cannot be based upon the statement of the sole eyewitness to the crime.
All that is needed is that the statement of the sole eyewitness should be reliable, should not leave any doubt in the mind of the Court and has to be corroborated by other evidence produced by the prosecution in relation to commission of the crime and involvement of the accused in committing such a crime". It is well settled that it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidence which is required to be judged by the court to place credence on the statement (Seeman v. State [Seeman v. State, (2005) 11 SCC 142 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1893]).
"11. Thus, in the foregoing circumstances, especially taking note of the unnatural manner in which PW 7 kept quiet till one-and-half months after the incident, that too in the midst of thickly populated vicinity, it is not safe to convict an accused solely relying on her evidence. Thus, we find no firm ground in this appeal or reason to believe the testimony of alleged eyewitness PW 7 calling for our interference in the judgment passed by the High Court. In our view, the High Court has rightly classified and considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses and after properly analysing the facts and circumstances rendered a reasoned judgment, disbelieving the prosecution story. We, therefore, affirm the view taken by the High Court and dismiss the appeal of the State."
21. Next, in Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra [(2000) 8 SCC 457 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1546 : AIR 2000 SC 3352], it was observed as under:-
SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.25 of 43 "42. Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the witness. The omission in the police statement by itself would not necessarily render the testimony of witness unreliable. When the version given by the witness in the court is different in material particulars from that disclosed in his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and not otherwise. Minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and the sense of observation differ from person to person."
22. Further, in Allauddin Khan v State of West Bengal, 2015 SCC OnLine Cal 3033, it was held as under:
"15. It is the settled proposition of law that there (sic, is) bound to be some discrepancies between the depositions of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. But discrepancy has to be distinguished from contradiction. While minor discrepancy or variance in evidence will not make the prosecution's case doubtful, contradiction in the statement of witness is fatal for the case. The above principle of law has been laid down in the matter of State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj, reported in (2000) 1 SCC 247 and the relevant portions of the above decision is quoted below:-
7. In support of the impugned judgment the learned counsel appearing for the respondents vainly attempted to point out some discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses for discrediting the prosecution version.
Discrepancy has to be distinguished from contradiction. Whereas contradiction in the statement of the witness is fatal for the case, minor discrepancy or variance in evidence will not make the prosecution's case doubtful. The normal course of the human conduct would be that while narrating a particular incident there may occur minor discrepancies, such discrepancies in law may render credential to the depositions. Parrot-like statements are disfavoured by the courts. In order to ascertain as to whether the discrepancy pointed out was minor or not or the same amounted to contradiction, regard is required to be had to the circumstances of the case by keeping in view the social status of the witnesses and environment in which such witness was making the statement. This Court in Ousu Varghese v. State of Kerala held that minor variations in the accounts of the witnesses are often the hallmark of the SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.26 of 43 truth of their testimony. In Jagadish v. State of M.P. this Court held that when the discrepancies were comparatively of a minor character and did not go to the root of the prosecution story, they need not be given undue importance. Mere congruity or consistency is not the sole test of truth in the depositions. This Court again in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki held that in the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person. Whether the discrepancy is minor or the same is contradiction fatal for the case is a matter of fact which is special to each case."
23. Further, in State of UP v Nandu Vishwakarma & Ors, (2009) 14 SCC 501, it was held as under:
"23. It is a settled principle of law that when on the basis of the evidence on record two views could be taken--one in favour of the accused and the other against the accused--the one favouring the accused should always be accepted. "
24. In light of these guiding principles, I shall now give my findings in the factual matrix of present case.
25. The prosecution star witness is PW-9 Prateek Gahatraj, who is alleged to have witnessed the entire incident. While there is no cavil with the proposition that a conviction can be founded on the testimony of a sole eyewitness, it is equally settled that such testimony must be cogent, credible, trustworthy and must inspire confidence. The testimony of a solitary witness has to be carefully scrutinized and tested on the touchstone of surrounding circumstances and other evidence available on record before it can be safely relied upon.
SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.27 of 43
26. As per the testimony of PW-9, on the intervening night of 13/14.07.2019 he and the deceased Shyam Bodh had left their workplace i.e. Swagat Restaurant & Bar at about 11:40-11:50 PM on a bicycle. When they reached near Andrews Ganj bus stand and subway area, two boys who were sitting there allegedly started abusing them. After moving ahead for some distance, the deceased allegedly turned back and confronted them regarding the abuses, which led to a heated argument. PW-9 deposed that one of the boys took out a knife and thereafter the taller boy took the knife from him and stabbed the deceased while the other boy caught hold of him. PW-9 further stated that when both the assailants rushed towards him and threatened to kill him as well, he fled from the spot out of fear.
27. According to PW-9, he did not disclose the incident to anyone during the night as he was frightened. He claims that he came to know on the next day that the deceased had expired and thereafter he informed his manager PW-12 Jagannath about the incident. It was only thereafter that he went to the police station along with PW-12 and his statement was recorded by the investigating officer.
28. At the outset, as per the case set up by the prosecution through the testimony of PW-9, on the fateful day the eye-witness PW-9 Pratik and the deceased Shyam had completed their duty at Swagat Restaurant and left the restaurant together between 11:40 PM to 11:50 PM on a bicycle. PW-9 has deposed that after finishing their work, both of them proceeded towards their homes and while they were together near Andrewes Ganj Bus Stand, the alleged incident of murder took place at about 12:40 AM SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.28 of 43 (midnight). In order to substantiate the said version, the prosecution has relied upon the attendance record of the restaurant (attendance register Ex. PW26/K), which was seized by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.
28.1 However, a careful and close scrutiny of the said attendance register Ex. PW26/K reveals a material contradiction in the prosecution case. As per the said record, the deceased Shyam had left his workplace at about 11:45 PM, whereas PW-9 Pratik, who was working as a Chef at the said restaurant, had left the workplace much later at about 12:30 AM (midnight). Thus, the very document relied upon by the prosecution itself indicates that the deceased and the alleged eye-witness PW-9 did not leave the restaurant together, but rather there was an interval of about 45 minutes between their departure timings.
28.2 In view of this documentary evidence, the version of PW-9 that both of them had left the restaurant together and were traveling jointly when the incident occurred becomes highly doubtful. Significantly, PW-9 has nowhere stated in his testimony that the deceased, after completing his duty at about 11:45 PM, waited at the restaurant for nearly 45 minutes so as to accompany PW-9 back home on the bicycle. In absence of any such explanation from PW-9, the prosecution version that the deceased and PW-9 left the workplace together and remained in each other's company till the time of the alleged incident appears to be inconsistent with the documentary record and therefore comes under serious cloud.
SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.29 of 43 28.3 The contention of Ld. Addl. PP that minor discrepancies in the attendance record ought to be ignored and that such record is not infallible does not persuade this Court. The attendance register Ex. PW26/K is a document produced by the prosecution itself and constitutes contemporaneous documentary evidence. The discrepancy in the exit timings of PW-9 and the deceased is not a trivial variation but goes to the root of the prosecution story, as it directly impacts the very presence of PW-9 at the spot. In absence of any explanation that the deceased waited for PW-9 for about 45 minutes or that the timings recorded were approximate or erroneous, the said contradiction assumes material significance. The argument of the State that such discrepancy is inconsequential cannot be accepted, as it creates a serious dent in the credibility of the sole eye-witness.
29. Further, the conduct of PW-9 after the alleged incident appears quite unnatural. If the version of PW-9 is to be believed, he had witnessed a brutal stabbing of his co-worker and close acquaintance. However, despite such a serious occurrence, he admittedly neither informed the police nor any public person about the incident. He did not make any call to the police even though he was carrying a mobile phone. He further admitted that even after reaching home he did not disclose the incident to any of his family members. Such silence on the part of a person who claims to have witnessed a murder appears unusual and casts doubt upon his conduct.
29.1 Ld. Addl. PP has argued that the conduct of PW-9 in not reporting the incident immediately is explainable on account of fear and trauma and SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.30 of 43 that human reactions vary from person to person. While this proposition of law is well settled, its applicability depends upon the facts of each case. In the present case, PW-9 not only failed to inform the police or any public person despite having access to a mobile phone, but also did not disclose the incident to his family members after reaching home. Such complete silence, extending over several hours, coupled with the fact that he did not even attempt to seek help for the injured, appears to be inconsistent with the conduct of a natural witness. Thus, the explanation offered by the prosecution does not satisfactorily dispel the doubt arising from the unnatural conduct of PW-9.
30. Be that as it may even if the said conduct of PW-9 is believed in view of the principle that different witnesses may react differently after having witnessed such a ghastly crime, another important circumstance which casts doubt on the testimony of PW-9 is the timing of his appearance in the investigation. The record reveals that by the time PW-9 allegedly came to the police station and disclosed the incident, the accused persons had already been apprehended by the police. As per the testimony of PW-26, the accused Rahul Joseph along with the CCL had already been apprehended during the search operation and certain recoveries had been effected from him. It is only thereafter that PW-9 allegedly surfaced and his statement was recorded by the investigating officer. This sequence of events raises a serious doubt about the spontaneity and genuineness of the statement of PW-9 and gives rise to a possibility that he may have been introduced later to support the prosecution case.
SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.31 of 43 30.1 The submission of Ld. Addl. PP that PW-9 disclosed the incident at the earliest opportunity to PW-12 and that such disclosure is admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act also does not advance the case of the prosecution. For a statement to fall within the ambit of res gestae, it must be so proximate in time and circumstance as to form part of the same transaction. In the present case, the disclosure by PW-9 was made only on the next day after a considerable lapse of time and after he had admittedly come to know about the death of the deceased. Such a delayed disclosure cannot be said to be contemporaneous with the occurrence so as to attract Section 6 of the Evidence Act. Moreover, the fact that PW-9 surfaced only after the apprehension of the accused further weakens the evidentiary value of such disclosure and lends credence to the defence contention that he may have been introduced subsequently.
31. Even the manner of apprehension of the accused appears to be doubtful. From the testimony of the Investigating Officer, it is not clear as to how the police team was able to zero down upon the accused persons in the absence of any prior clue regarding their identity. The record does not reveal that any witness had initially disclosed the identity or description of the assailants to the police. In such circumstances, it appears highly improbable, if not impossible, that the police team, while conducting a search operation, would by sheer chance come across the accused persons in a public park, apprehend them and thereafter recover from their person the alleged weapon of offence.
32. The prosecution version suggests that the accused persons were SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.32 of 43 sitting in Vivekanand Park when the police team reached there and upon seeing the police they attempted to flee, whereafter they were apprehended. However, in the absence of any prior information or identification, it remains unexplained as to what prompted the police officials to suspect the accused persons in the first place. The prosecution has not placed on record any material to show that the police had received any secret information or specific lead which could have led them to the accused. This unexplained circumstance renders the manner of apprehension of the accused highly doubtful.
33. Furthermore, it is equally difficult to believe that a person who had allegedly committed a serious offence such as murder would continue to roam in a public place carrying a blood stained knife in his pocket and wearing blood stained clothes and slippers. Ordinarily, a person involved in such an offence would attempt to dispose of the weapon of offence and change or destroy the incriminating articles at the earliest opportunity. The prosecution has failed to furnish any plausible explanation for such unusual conduct attributed to the accused. Consequently, the alleged recovery of the blood stained knife and clothes from the accused also becomes doubtful and does not inspire confidence.
34. The incident in question had already taken place earlier during the night and the accused had ample opportunity to remove or destroy the incriminating articles. It appears highly improbable that a person who had allegedly committed a murder would continue to roam in a public park carrying a blood stained knife in his pocket and wearing blood stained SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.33 of 43 clothes and slippers. Such conduct does not appear to be consistent with normal human behaviour and renders the alleged recovery highly doubtful.
34.1 Ld. Addl. PP has placed reliance on the recovery of the weapon of offence, the DNA evidence and the alleged conduct of the accused in attempting to flee from the police, contending that these circumstances corroborate the prosecution case. However, as already discussed, the very manner of apprehension of the accused is shrouded in doubt, inasmuch as the prosecution has failed to explain how the police identified or suspected the accused in the absence of any prior lead or description. Once the foundation of the arrest itself becomes doubtful, the subsequent recoveries allegedly effected from the accused cannot be implicitly relied upon. The conduct of attempting to flee, in such circumstances, loses much of its evidentiary value, particularly when it is not preceded by any credible identification. As regards the DNA evidence, though it indicates the presence of biological material of the deceased on certain exhibits, the same by itself cannot conclusively establish the guilt of the accused in absence of a trustworthy link connecting the recovery of those exhibits with the accused in a reliable manner.
35. In case titled Amar s/o Ramesh Lohkare vs The State of Maharashtra Criminal Appeal NO. 521/2014 2017 CRLJ(NOC)33 Bom, it was observed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court "On careful scrutiny of the testimony of PW 7 and the panchnamas, it did not appeal to our mind that the bloodstained clothes were taken charge three days after the incident from the person of app/acc.nos.1 and 2 and the accused persons were SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.34 of 43 wandering in the town with those alleged bloodstained clothes. The alleged recovery of the clothes does not appear to be convincing and appears to be doubtful. Thus, no reliance can be placed on the recovery of clothes of app/accd.Nos.1 and 2."
36. Another significant lapse in the prosecution case relates to the failure of the investigating agency to collect and produce the call detail records of PW-9. During his cross-examination, PW-9 admitted that he was carrying a mobile phone at the time of the incident. In such circumstances, the call detail records and location data of his mobile phone could have been collected during investigation to verify his presence at or near the place of occurrence at the relevant time more so when the CDRs of mobile phones (being used by accused and CCL) were brought on record by investigating agency.
37. In the present age of scientific investigation, mobile phone location data is often used as an important piece of corroborative evidence to establish the presence of a person at a particular location. However, the investigating agency did not collect or place on record the call detail records of PW-9. The absence of such evidence assumes significance, particularly when PW-9 is the sole eye witness and his presence at the spot is seriously in question.
37.1 Ld. Addl. PP has argued that lapses in investigation should not enure to the benefit of the accused if the substantive evidence on record is otherwise reliable. While there can be no quarrel with this proposition, it is equally settled that where the prosecution case hinges upon the testimony of a sole eye witness whose presence itself is doubtful, such lapses assume SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.35 of 43 critical importance. In the present case, the failure of the investigating agency to collect and produce the call detail records and location data of PW-9, despite admittedly collecting similar data for the accused and the CCL, deprives the Court of an important piece of corroborative evidence. This omission is not a mere irregularity but goes to the root of the matter, as it could have independently verified the presence of PW-9 at the spot. Therefore, the said lapse cannot be brushed aside lightly.
38. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid circumstances creates serious doubts regarding the credibility of PW-9 as an eye witness. His unexplained silence immediately after the incident, the delayed disclosure of the alleged occurrence, the suspicious timing of his appearance during investigation after the apprehension of the accused, and the absence of corroborative electronic evidence regarding his presence at the spot coupled with the attendance register which shows that he left the restaurant much after (with a gap of 45 minutes) deceased all weaken the prosecution case.
39. Further, the alleged recovery of the weapon of offence and blood stained clothes from the accused from a public place also appears doubtful for the reasons already discussed above. When the recovery itself appears doubtful and the testimony of the sole eye witness does not inspire confidence, the prosecution case becomes highly suspect.
39.1 Ld. Addl. PP has further contended that minor discrepancies ought to be ignored and that the testimony of PW-9, if otherwise credible, is SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.36 of 43 sufficient to sustain conviction. However, in the present case, the deficiencies in the prosecution evidence are not minor in nature but are material and go to the root of the case. The contradictions regarding the presence of PW-9, his unnatural conduct, the doubtful manner of his introduction in the investigation, the absence of independent corroboration, and the questionable recovery proceedings cumulatively create a reasonable doubt about the prosecution version. The evidence on record does not satisfy the test of a "sterling witness" nor does it inspire the level of confidence required to base a conviction solely on such testimony.
40. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. When the evidence on record gives rise to a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution version, the benefit of such doubt must necessarily go in favour of the accused.
41. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the testimony of PW-9 does not inspire the level of confidence required to base a conviction upon it. The possibility that PW-9 may have been introduced subsequently to strengthen the prosecution case cannot be ruled out. Consequently, the presence of PW-9 at the spot and his claim of having witnessed the incident appears highly doubtful.
42. Once the testimony of the sole eye witness becomes doubtful and the recovery from the accused also appears suspicious, the prosecution case loses its foundation. In such circumstances, it would be highly unsafe SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.37 of 43 to record a finding of guilt against the accused on the basis of such evidence.
43. Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
44. Accordingly, accused Rahul Joseph @ Sonu stands acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. He is directed to furnish bail bonds in Digitally signed terms of Section 437A CrPC. ANUJ by ANUJ AGRAWAL Date: AGRAWAL 2026.03.30 15:55:42 +0530 Announced in the open (ANUJ AGRAWAL) Court on 30.03.2026 Additional Sessions Judge-03, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.38 of 43 Chart of Exhibited Documents Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved by / No. Attested by
1. DD No. 2A - Ex PW1/A(OSR) PW1
2. Computerized copy of FIR - Ex. PW1/B PW1 (OSR).
3. Endorsement on the rukka Mark PW1/A - PW1 Ex. PW1/C.
4. Certificate u/s 65B IEC - Ex. PW1/D. PW1
5. Seizure memo of exhibits - Ex. PW2/A. PW2
6. Sketch memo of knife - Ex.PW2/A PW2
7. Arrest memo of accused Rahul and his PW2 personal search memo -Ex. PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C respectively.
8. Seizure memo of knife - Ex. PW2/D PW2
9. Pointing out memo of spot of incident - PW2 Ex.PW2/E
10. Site plan prepared by IO - Ex.PW2/F PW2
11. Seizure memo of one steel glass - Ex. PW2 PW2/G
12. Seizure memo of exhibits of accused from PW2 hospital - Ex. PW2/H
13. Original RC No. 40/21/19 and PW4 acknowledgment of RFSL - Ex.PW4/A (OSR) and Ex.PW4/B (OSR) SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.39 of 43
14. Copy of RC No. 41/21/19 - Ex.PW4/C PW4 (OSR) 15 Copy of acknowledgment - PW4 Ex.PW4/D(OSR)
16. Postmortem request form - Ex.PW7/A PW7
16. Identification statements of Shyam Bodh - PW7 Ex.PW7/B and Ex.PW7/C
17. The MLC - Ex.PW8/A PW8
18. Death information regarding MLC of Shyam PW8 Bodh - Ex.PW8/B
19. The detailed postmortem report no. 489/19 - PW8 Ex.PW8/C
20. Site plan of spot - Ex.PW9/A PW9
21. Scaled site plan - Ex.PW10/A PW10
22. Statement u/s 161 CrPC dt. 14.07.19 - PW12 Ex.PW12/DX1.
23. Computerized copy of PCR form - PW13 Ex.PW13/A
24. Attested copy of order of Sh. Raj Pal Dabas PW13 ACP regarding cal record before 25.09.2019 had been destroyed / deleted due to fault -
Ex.PW13/B 25 Computerized copy of PCR form - PW14 Ex.PW14/A 26 The MLC No. 8174/2019 of accused - PW15 Ex.PW15/A SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.40 of 43 27 Seven photographs pasted on sheets - PW16 Ex.PW16/A Certificate qua the same - Ex.PW16/B 28 Seizure memo of three sealed exhibits given PW18 by doctor - Ex.PW18/A 29 Seizure memo of viscera and other related PW18 exhibits - Ex.PW18/B 30 Copy of entry no. 1063 in register no. 19 PW19 depositing 14 sealed parcels in malkhana -
Ex.PW19/P1(OSR) 31 Copy of Entry no. 1067 regarding deposit of PW19 viscera box with sample seal in malkhana -
Ex.PW19/P2 (OSR) 32 The aforesaid exhibits were sent through RC PW19 no. 40/21/19 and RC no. 41/21/19 dt.
23.08.19 vide Ex.PW19/P3 and Ex.PW4/C. 33 E-KYC of mobile no. 8851142589 - PW21 Ex.PW21/P1.
34 The CDR of aforesaid mobile number from PW21 12.07.19 to 14.07.19 and Cell ID Chart -
Ex.PW21/P2 and Ex.PW21/P3 respectively.
Certificate u/s 65B of IEA in respect of above said documents - Ex.PW21/4 35 Notice of Police Mark 26A bearing reference PW21 No. 5196 - Ex.PW21/P5 36 CAF and CDR of mobile number PW22 9818560976 - Ex.PW22/P1.
KYC of said mobile - Ex.PW22/P2 and Aadhar card - Ex.PW22/P3 SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.41 of 43 37 CDR of mobile no. 9818560976 w.e.f. PW22 12.07.2019 to 14.07.2019 - Ex.PW22/P4 Certificate in respect of CDR u/s 65B of IEA
- Ex.PW22/P5 38 Sketch of knife - Ex.PW24/P1 PW24 39 Detailed report - Ex.PW25/P1 PW25 Allelic data - Ex.PW25/P2 & P3 40 Seizure memo of clothes of deceased - PW26 Ex.PW26/A Seizure memo of one black colour bicycle of Avon bearing no. 15LO54753 - Ex.PW26/B 41 Site plan at instance of SI Rahul - PW26 Ex.PW26/C 42 Disclosure statement of accused - PW26 Ex.PW26/D Site plan qua the said place of recovery -
Ex.PW26/E 43 17 inquest papers including form no. 25.35 PW26 (death report) - Ex.PW26/F 44 Handing over memo - Ex.PW26/G PW26 45 Copy of forwarding letter - Ex.PW26/H PW26 46 Forwarding letter qua the viscera sent to PW26 RFSL alongwith Viscera - Ex.PW26/I 47 Aadhar card of deceased Shyam Bodh Saha PW26 pertaining to employment Ex.PW26/J 48 Attendance entries of deceased and E- PW26 pehchan at restaurant - Ex.PW26/K SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.42 of 43 49 Forwarding letter qua the said documents to PW26 police - Ex.PW26/L 50 Notice dated 22.09.2019 to Reliance Jio - PW26 Ex.PW26/M 51 Jeans, T-Shirt and one pair slipper - PW26 Ex.PW26/MO-X(colly) Chart for Material Objects/Muddamals Material Description of the Proved Object no. Exhibit by/Attested by
1. Plastic jar containing blood stained earth PW2 lifted from scene of crime - Ex.P1
2. Plastic jar containing earth control lifted PW2 from scene of crime - Ex.P2
3. Plastic jar containing blood stained stony PW2 concrete lifted from scene of crime - Ex.P3
4. Plastic jar containing earth control stone PW2 lifted from divider (footpath) - Ex.P4
5. Knife - Ex.P5 PW2
6. Plastic jar containing steel glass encircled PW2 by black marker DNA - Ex.P6
7. Cycle and its key - Ex.P-7 PW2
8. Bicycle and its key belonging to deceased - PW2 Ex.MO-1 (Cycle is Ex.C1 in evidence of PW9) SC No. 486/2019 State v. Rahul Joseph @ Sonu Page No.43 of 43