Delhi District Court
State vs Pappu Yadav on 5 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK WASON:
ASJ-04 : SW DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI
SC No. 606/2024
CNR No. DLSW01-008910-2024
State Vs. 1. Pappu Yadav
S/o Sh. Banke Yadav
R/o Village Devkali,
PS Manpur, Distt. Nalanda,
Bihar.
2. Sakinder Kumar @ Sakki
S/o Sh. Ram Sahai @ Gani Yadav,
R/o Appt. Flat no.203,
Naya Tola Kumhrar, Patna, Bihar.
Permanent Add:
Village Devkali, PS Manpur Distt.,
Nalanda, Bihar.
3. Vijay Yadav (since PO)
S/o Sh. Suba Lal,
R/o Village Devkali,
PS Manpur, District Nalanda,
Bihar.
FIR No. : 70/2000
Police Station : Uttam Nagar
Under Sections : 302/201/174A/34 IPC
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 13.09.2024
Date on which judgment was reserved : 05.12.2025
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 05.01.2026
Final Order : Both accused persons are
acquitted of the offences
under Section
302/201/174A/34 IPC
SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 1 of 51
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. The prosecution case in brief is that on 11.10.1999, on receipt of DD No.10, P.P Matiyala SI Raj Kumar along with HC Rohtash Kumar and other staff went to plot belonging to Ranbir Singh, S/o Jagbir Singh, R/o Village Matiyala in front of Sector-3. Inspector Sukhbir Singh the then SHO PS Uttam Nagar also reached there with the staff. In the two rooms constructed in the said house there was foul smell. On opening the door, considerable used polythene bags were found there. Under the machine installed in the room, one dead body in rotten condition was present. On examination of the decomposed body, it could not be ascertained whether there was injury on it or not. The dead body was photographed, body fluid, floor with body fluid, earth control were seized in pulandas.
2. Ranbir Singh present at the spot informed that about 1½ months ago, he had let out the premises to one Pappu Yadav on a monthly rent of Rs 4,000/. He used to do the work of melting the polythene bags to convert it into polythene circles. The address of Pappu Yadav from his known person Suraj Gupta R/o village Matiarao Govind Police Station Padwana, District Kushi Nagar, U.P came to the knowledge of police which is Village Devkali Police Station Asthana, District Nalanda, Bihar.
3. On the dead body inquest proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C were conducted. HC Satvir Singh along with staff was sent to the address of Pappu Yadav where the name of deceased person surfaced as Ram Swaroop @ Modi Yadav S/o Badri Yadav R/o Village Devkali Police SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 2 of 51 Station Asthana, District Nalanda, Bihar. The statement of Chandu Yadav brother of the deceased was obtained who stated that two months ago his brother Ram Swaroop @ Modi Yadav and his brother-in-law Vijay S/o Krishan Yadav went from the native place stating that they were going to join duties in the factory of Pappu Yadav in New Delhi. After 10 days, the brother-in-law Vijay returned from Delhi and informed that Pappu Yadav has installed the factory of melting polythene bags to convert it into polythene balls/circles. He got electric shock in the factory so he returned from Delhi. In the factory, Ram Swaroop @ Modi Yadav, Pappu Yadav, Montu and Shakki were working. After 15 days Pappu Yadav, Vijay, Montu and Shakki reached the village so he (complainant Chandu Yadav) asked from Pappu about Modi and he told that Modi has worked with him for some days and he did not know his whereabouts after that. The complainant Chandu Yadav identified the photograph of the dead body of his brother Ram Swaroop from the fingers of his feet and Janeu.
4. During investigation, the site plan was prepared by investigating officer. The four accused persons Pappu Yadav, Montu Yadav, Vijay Yadav and Shakki Yadav could not be traced despite efforts. The proceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C were conducted against them and they were declared proclaimed offenders. The challan was filed against the accused persons who were the proclaimed offenders for recording evidence under Section 299 Cr.P.C. In support of its case the prosecution had examined 16 witnesses i.e PW-1 Dr. K. Goel, PW-2 Constable Raj Kumar, PW-3 Tirath Raj Singh, PW-4 Ramesh Chand, PW-5 HC Rajbir Singh, PW-6 HC Satbir Singh, PW-7 Constable Brahm Swaroop, PW-8 HC SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 3 of 51 Kuldeep Singh, PW-9 Ranbir Singh, PW-10 Constable Mehtab Singh, PW-11 Rakesh Kumar, PW-12 Ghanshyam Paswan, PW-13 SI Ram Kumar, PW-14 SI A.K. Singh, PW-15 Chando Yadav and PW-16 Jai Mala.
Thereafter, on 08.05.2006, file was consigned to Record Room and it was observed that when any accused would be arrested, case would be re- opened.
5. It is a matter of record that on 10.08.2008, one accused Montu Yadav, S/o Bankey Lal was arrested by Special Cell, Rohini, Delhi. His police custody remand was taken who made disclosure statement and pointed out the place of incident. The other accused persons could not traced and arrested. So, only accused Montu Yadav was challaned to face trial and proceedings under Section 299 Cr.P.C was requested in the challan against the other accused persons. It is also a matter of record that vide judgment dated 20.12.2010, accused Montu Yadav was acquitted from the present case.
6. It is also a matter of record that accused Pappu Yadav was arrested by Crime Branch, Prashant Vihar, Delhi in a kalandra under Section 41.1(c) Cr.P.C on 03.06.2024, who disclosed his involvement in the present case and later on, on 08.06.2024, he was arrested in the present case. It is also a matter of record that accused Sakender was also arrested by the Crime Branch in a kalandra under Section 41.1(c) Cr.P.C on 18.07.2024 and later on, he was arrested in the present case on 20.07.2024 and who also disclosed his involvement in the present case.
SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 4 of 517. After investigation against both accused persons, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons before the Ld. concerned MM and the copies of charge sheet were supplied to them in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C) and cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 302/201/174 read with Section 34 IPC was taken on 05.09.2024 and thereafter, matter was committed to the Sessions Court on 13.09.2024 and on 19.09.2024, charge under Section 302/201/34 IPC was framed against both accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Further, a separate charge under Section 174 A IPC was also framed against both accused persons to which both accused persons pleaded "Not Guilty" and claimed trial. Accordingly, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
8. To prove its case prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses. To have access to the prosecution evidence, it would be appropriate to give a short resume of the statement of prosecution witnesses recorded in the court.
9. PW-1 is Sh. Ranvir Singh, S/o Sh. Jag Ram Sharma, R/o VPO Matiala, H.no. 167, Matiala, Delhi (earlier examined as PW-9 dated 02.04.2003 and PW-2 on 15.07.2009). As per the prosecution, he is the landlord of the house / plot, where deceased was murdered and his testimony would be considered at a relevant stage.
10. PW-2 is Sh. Rakesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Pratap Singh, R/o H.No. 151, Village Matiyala, New Delhi (denovo trial qua accused Pappu and SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 5 of 51 Sakinder). He deposed that in the year 1998-1999, he rented out his plot to Pappu Yadav to the tune of Rs.1800/- per month, who was a permanent resident of Bihar. He further deposed that he was running a plastic panni work there and installed an electric machine to make a plastic Gulla. He further deposed that as a lot of pollution was created on account of said work of the accused Pappu Yadav, he got his plot vacated after 06 months. He further deposed that after 2½ months, Pappu Yadav inquired from him regarding some other vacant plot and told him that the same belong to Ranvir Singh Pandit. He further deposed that he also introduced Pappu Yadav to Ranvir Pandit and Ranvir Pandit gave his plot to Pappu Yadav to the tune of Rs.4000/- per month. He further deposed that about 06 months thereafter, he came to know that a dead body had been recovered from the godown of Pappu Yadav. He further deposed that he was called in police post Matiala and asked about whereabouts of Pappu Yadav, but he told the police that he did not know about him. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by the police in this regard as Ex. PW-11/A. He further deposed that he did not know anything else about this case. He further deposed that due to the lapse of time, he could not identify accused Pappu Yadav. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State on the point of identity wherein, accused Pappu Yadav was shown to the witness, however, the witness failed to identify the accused Pappu Yadav. He denied that he was intentionally not identifying accused Pappu Yadav as he has been won over by him. He volunteered that due to the lapse of time, as the matter pertains to the year 1999, he was unable to identify the accused.
SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 6 of 51This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel wherein he admitted as correct that he had not submitted any rent agreement to the police and there was no electricity meter in the name of Pappu Yadav. He deposed that he had not seen any employee of Rambir Pandit and he also did not visit the plot of Ranbir Pandit at that time. He further deposed that he was called by the police, however, he never visited with the police to accompany them to Bihar. He further deposed that he had not obtained the permanent address of Pappu Yadav. He admitted that no police verification of tenant Pappu Yadav was done by him. He denied that the person namely Pappu Yadav was never his tenant prior to the tenancy of Rambir Pandit.
11. PW-3 is Sh. Chando Yadav, S/o Sh. Badri Yadav, R/o Village Dekhuli, District Nalanda, Bihar (denovo trial qua accused Pappu & Sakinder). He deposed that he had already been examined twice in the present case. He further deposed that he is an agriculturist and his brother Ram Saroop used to work in a factory of making plastic gulla at Palam, Delhi and Pappu, Vijay, Mantoo and Shakti, also used to work in that factory with his brother. He further deposed that after 10 days, Vijay i.e brother-in-law of Ram Saroop, returned to village and informed him that he has electrocution in the factory, therefore, he returned to the village. He further deposed that about 02-03 months after his brother had left their village, he came to know that he had been killed by Pappu, Mantoo, Vijay and Shakti. He further deposed that some police officers from Delhi had come to their village and remained in their village for a few days and then returned to Delhi. He further deposed that police had shown photograph of the dead body and he himself and the wife of his brother Ram Saroop SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 7 of 51 identified the body to be of his brother. He further deposed that they identified the body from the physical appearance. He further deposed that police had recorded his statement as Ex. PW-6/A. He further deposed that he also identified the dead body on basis of Janaeu as same was shown on the dead body in the photographs. He further deposed that brother-in-law of his brother Ram Saroop i.e Vijay had also left their village along with Ram Saroop for working in the plastic factory of Pappu Yadav and after about 15 days, his brother had left the village, Pappu, Mantoo, Shakti and Vijay had come to their village and on his asking, Pappu had told him that his brother had worked with him for a few days only and was working some where else. Both accused Pappu Yadav and Sakender Kumar @ Saki were correctly identified by the witness in the Court.
This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused persons wherein he admitted that his brother Ram Saroop was died due to electrocution but he could not say whether the above said accused persons were involved in the death of Ram Saroop. He further deposed that he did not have any document to show that both accused persons were working with Ram Saroop. He admitted as correct that he has not physically seen the dead body of her brother.
12. PW-4 is Sh. Ghanshyam Paswan, S/o Sh. Muneshwar Paswan, R/o Village Katrahi, District Nalanda, Bihar (denovo trial qua accused Pappu & Sakinder). He deposed that he did not remember the date or month, but it was many years ago, he used to work in factory of his brother Raju in Matiala, Delhi. He further deposed that Pappu Yadav, who was also a resident of Bihar used to run his factory in Pappan Kalan but he did not SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 8 of 51 know anything about the present case as matter is 24-25 years old. He further deposed that he could not identify accused Pappu Yadav & Sakender Kumar @ Saki. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as the witness was resiling from his previous statement wherein he denied that on 11.10.1999, his statement was recorded by the police in this case. He voluntarily deposed that police officials obtained his signature on one blank paper. He admitted that the document Ex.PW14/G (earlier marked as P12-1) bear his signature at point X. He volunteered that it was the same signature, which had been obtained by the police forcibly on blank paper. He admitted as correct that he was running his business of old polythene bag for recycling purpose and having godown in Village Matiala, Delhi. He denied that he used to sell polythene bags (PANNI) to Pappu Yadav for recycling purpose or that about 1½ months prior, from the day of incident in the factory of Pappu Yadav, he had sold polythene bags (PANNIS) to him. This witness was confronted with his statement. He denied that Ram Swaroop @ Modi Yadav was also working on the machine of Pappu Yadav in Village Matiala near the month of October 1999. He also denied that he used to meet Pappu Yadav and Ram Swaroop Modi Yadav in the factory prior incident. He denied that accused Pappu Yadav ran away, after putting lock on his factory somewhere else, after some days from the incident. He denied that he was aware that Ram Swaroop @ Modi Yadav expired while working on machine due to electrocution. This witness was confronted with his statement. He also denied that the dead body of the deceased had been recovered under the machine of Pappu Yadav. He also denied the suggestion that it came into notice on the day of the recovery of dead body that Pappu Yadav and Sakender Kumar had ran away after SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 9 of 51 putting lock on the gate of factory, some days prior to the recovery of dead body. This witness was shown accused Pappu Yadav and Sakender, however, he failed to identify them. He denied that he was intentionally not identifying both the accused namely Pappu Yadav & Sakender or that he has narrated incorrect facts before the Court, in order to save both the accused persons. He denied that he has been won over by all accused and deposed falsely in order to save the accused persons, as he has settled the case outside the court. This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsels.
13. PW-5 is Retd. ACP Sh. Sukhbir Singh, S/o Late Sh. Jhandu Ram, R/o C-272, Tagore Garden Extension, New Delhi-110027 (denovo trial qua accused Pappu & Sakinder). He deposed that on 04.02.2000, he was posted as SHO at PS Uttam Nagar and on that day, postmortem report of deceased Ram Swaroop received at PS and after going through the contents of post mortem report, he thought fit to make endorsement for registration of FIR and also gone through the statement of complainant Chando Yadav which had been recorded by HC Satvir Singh on 26.10.1999. He further deposed that inquest proceedings had also been completed of this case by SI Ram Kumar, ICPP, Matiyala and at that time, postmortem report was awaited. He further deposed that he made endorsement already Ex.PW19/A (now Ex.PW-5/A) which bears his signature at point A on 04.02.2000 on the basis of statement of complainant Chando Yadav and on the basis of post mortem report. He further deposed that FIR of present case was registered by the Duty Officer HC Rajbir on being presented rukka by him and investigation of this case was assigned to him. He further deposed SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 10 of 51 that he had made a request under his rukka / endorsement that copy of FIR of present murder case may be sent to senior police officers as well as the Ld. MM. He further deposed that he received rukka Ex.PW19/A (now Ex. PW-5/A) and copy of FIR and started investigation. He further deposed that on the same day, he along with police official reached at the spot i.e Factory premises of Ranvir Singh S/o Jagram near transformer, opposite Sector-3, Pappan Kala, Sahyog Vihar Road, Matiyala, Uttam Nagar. He further deposed that he had inspected the place of occurrence at the instance of the premises owner, Ranvir Singh, and had prepared an unscaled site plan indicating the important points. He further deposed that the site plan was already marked as Ex.PW19/B (now Ex. PW-5/B), which bore his signature at point A. He further deposed that during the inspection, he was informed that some plastic products were being manufactured on machines inside the premises, where the dead body of an unknown male person had been previously found by the police. He further deposed that he had gone through all the documents related to the present case, which had been completed by the previous Investigating Officer, including the inquest proceedings. He further deposed that he had recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses, namely Chando Yadav, Ranvir Singh, Ramesh Chand Gupta, Ghanshyam Paswan, and Rakesh Kumar, from time to time. He further deposed that he had initiated a search for four accused persons, whose names were mentioned in the complainant's statement, in different parts of Delhi. He further deposed that he had also sent a team outside Delhi to arrest them and had conducted a raid in Bihar at the native village of the accused persons, but no clue regarding their whereabouts had surfaced, and their presence could not be procured at their native places. He further SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 11 of 51 deposed that he had obtained proclamation proceedings against the four accused persons, namely Pappu Yadav, Vijay Yadav, Shaki Yadav, and Montu Yadav. He further deposed that on 08.05.2000, the place of occurrence was inspected by draftsman Tirath Ram Singh Sandhan Walia in his presence at the instance of Ranvir Singh. He further deposed that the draftsman had taken some measurement notes to prepare a site plan on that day, which was later prepared as a scaled site plan, already exhibited as Ex.PW3/A, based on the rough notes and measurements. He further deposed that the site plan bore the signature of Tirath Ram Singh at point A, and he identified his signature and handwriting in an official capacity, as he had seen him writing and signing before. He further deposed that he had deputed a police official to execute the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. against the four accused persons. He further deposed that later, on the report of the said police official, all four accused persons were declared proclaimed offenders. He further deposed that during the course of the investigation, he had collected photographs already marked as Ex.PW8/A, PW-8/B, Ex.PW6/A, and Mark A, B & C from the concerned office and placed them on file. He further deposed that he had also collected copies of relevant DD entries related to the present case, including DD No. 12A dated 04.02.2000 (already marked as Ex.PW19/C) and DD No. 4 dated 21.10.99 (already marked as Ex.PW19/D), and placed them on file. He further deposed that he had also taken into possession a copy of DD entry No. 374 dated 24.10.99 (already marked as Ex.PW19/E), a copy of DD No. 306 dated 17.03.2000 (already marked as Ex.PW19/F), the statement of PW Domango (already marked as Ex.PW19/G), the statement of Saleem Murdan (already marked as Ex.PW19/H), and the statement of Riyazdin SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 12 of 51 (already marked as Ex.PW19/I) from the police official who had gone to the native place of the accused persons in search of them. He further deposed that he had placed the same on file. He further deposed that HC Satvir Singh had given his statement before the court on 26.05.2000, and on that day, the accused persons were declared proclaimed offenders. He further deposed that the report of HC Satvir Singh on the process under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. was already exhibited as Ex.PW19/J (now Ex. PW-5/C). He further deposed that the dead body of the unknown male person had been cremated by the police official along with a social worker as unclaimed. He further deposed that he had prepared a charge sheet against the four accused persons, namely Pappu Yadav, Vijay Yadav, Shaki Yadav, and Montu Yadav, upon completion of the investigation, by placing their names in column No. 2 of the challan. He further deposed that the charge sheet was sent to the court for trial through the proper channel against the four proclaimed offenders. This witness was also cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsels.
14. PW-6 is Smt. Jai Mala, W/o Late Sh. Ram Swaroop Yadav @ Modi Yadav, R/o Village Dekhuli, District Nalanda, Bihar (denovo trial qua accused Pappu & Sakinder). She deposed that the deceased, Ram Swaroop @ Modi Yadav, was her husband. She further deposed that she, along with her family, was residing in the aforesaid village. She further deposed that her husband had left the village along with an unknown person to go to Delhi in search of work. She further deposed that she had identified the dead body of her husband through photographs. She further deposed that she did not remember the exact date and month as the matter pertained to SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 13 of 51 the year 2000. She further deposed that her husband was working in Delhi with Pappu Yadav in a factory. She further deposed that accused Pappu Yadav was present in the Court on that day and she correctly identified him. She further deposed that, to her knowledge, her husband had been murdered by accused Pappu Yadav, Montu Yadav, and others. She further deposed that at that stage, she was shown a photograph already exhibited as Ex.PW-8/A, PW-8/B & PW6/A available on the file. She further deposed that upon seeing the aforesaid photograph, she confirmed that it depicted the dead body of her husband. She further deposed that the police had shown her the said photograph when she had identified the dead body of her husband. She further deposed that she did not know the other facts of the case. She further deposed that accused Montu, who was present in the Court, was a resident of their village, and she had known him earlier as he was a co-villager. She further deposed that her brother, Rajeev, had also gone to Delhi with her husband. She further deposed that after some time, police officials from Delhi had come to their village and had shown them photographs of the dead body, in which she had correctly identified her husband, Ram Swaroop. She further deposed that before the police had come to their village, Pappu Yadav and others had visited the village. She further deposed that when she had asked them about her husband, Pappu had told her that he was working somewhere else, but he did not know the exact place. She has correctly identified accused Saki @ Sakender in the Court. She further deposed that it had also come to her notice that Pappu Yadav, Vijay Yadav, Shanki, and Montu were found to be involved in the present case. This witness was also cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsels.
SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 14 of 5115. PW-7 is Sh. Vijay Yadav, S/o Sh. Krishan Yadav, R/o Village Dumaria, District Patna, Bihar (denovo trial qua accused Pappu & Sakinder). He deposed that the deceased, Ram Swaroop @ Modi Yadav, was his jeeja. He further deposed that before the incident, his jeeja's family was residing in village Dekhuli. He further deposed that now his sister was residing there along with her four children. He further deposed that his jeeja had come to Delhi with him approximately two months before the incident in search of work. He further deposed that he could not say at which place in Delhi his jeeja had started working, nor could he say how many co- villagers of his jeeja were working in Delhi during those days. He further deposed that in the month of October 1999, police officials from Uttam Nagar Police Station had reached his sister's house and informed her about the murder of his jeeja. He further deposed that he had also reached his sister's house on that day and came to know about the murder of his jeeja in Delhi. He further deposed that he could not say by whom and where his jeeja was killed in Delhi. He further deposed that he knew the accused, Pappu Yadav and Sakender, who were present in the court, as they were co- villagers of his jeeja. He further deposed that he did not know the other facts of the case.
During cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he denied that the police had recorded his statement. He denied that on 19.03.2000, police officials from Uttam Nagar Police Station had met and interrogated him. He also denied that he had left his jeeja with Pappu Yadav, Vijay Yadav, Shanki, and the accused Montu in the factory in the month of September-October 1999. He also denied that Pappu Yadav was running a plastic factory in the plot of one Ranvir Singh, near Sahyog Vihar, Uttam SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 15 of 51 Nagar, Village Matiala, Delhi. He also denied that accused Montu was working in the aforesaid factory in the year 1999 or that Vijay Yadav and Shanki Yadav were also working there in the same year. He further deposed that he was confronted with his statement already exhibited as Ex.PW7/A, where it was so recorded. He also denied that, during the course of investigation, it had come to his notice that his jeeja was murdered in the factory of Pappu Yadav. He also denied that it had also come to his notice that Pappu Yadav, Vijay Yadav, Shanki, and Montu Yadav were found to be involved in the present case by the police. He also denied that he had intentionally not deposed the correct facts of the present case before the court that day as he and his family had settled the matter with the accused outside the court and had been won over by them, and that he was deposing falsely in order to save the accused persons. He further deposed that it was incorrect to suggest that he had stated before the police that the accused persons present in the court had murdered his jeeja in the factory. He further deposed that he was confronted with his statement already exhibited as Ex.PW7/A, where it was so recorded. He also denied that he had deposed falsely that day regarding identifying the dead body of his jeeja before the police upon seeing the photographs. He also denied that accused Pappu, Vijay, Sakender, and Montu had killed his jeeja, Ram Swaroop. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsels.
16. PW-8 is Dr. Kulbhushan Goel, Chief Medical Officer, Dr. N.C. Joshi Hospital, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (denovo trial qua accused Pappu & Sakinder). He deposed that on 15.10.1999, he was posted at Subzi Mandi Mortuary. He further deposed that on that day, he had conducted the post-
SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 16 of 51mortem examination on the dead body of an unknown male person, which had been sent by SI Ram Kumar of PS Uttam Nagar with the alleged history of being found dead on 11.10.1999. He further deposed that the clothes on the body consisted of only underwear and one jenau. He further deposed that on external examination, the soft tissues of the face, upper side of the neck, arms, and forearms had been eaten up by maggots. He further deposed that any external antemortem injury was inconspicuous due to the advanced stage of decomposition. He further deposed that on internal examination of the neck, subcutaneous and platysmal bruising was seen at places. He further deposed that the hyoid bone was found subluxated at the left greater cornua and body, with a fracture of the right greater cornua, along with marked bruising at the fracture sites. He further deposed that the soft tissues of the neck showed decomposition changes with bruising of deeper neck muscles. He further deposed that, in his opinion, the cause of death was asphyxia consequent to pressure on the neck structures. He further deposed that the soft tissue bruising of the neck and the fracture of the hyoid bone were antemortem in nature and had been caused by pressure over the neck structures. He further deposed that the mechanical pressure on the neck was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He further deposed that the estimated time since death was about ten days. He further deposed that two teeth of the deceased were sealed and handed over to the police with a sample seal, while the clothes were handed over to the police in an unsealed condition. He further deposed that his detailed post- mortem report was already exhibited as Ex. PW17/A (now Ex. A-10), which bore his signature at point A. He further deposed that nine inquest papers SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 17 of 51 were numbered and initialed by him. This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsels.
17. PW-9 is Retired Inspector Sh. Ram Kumar, S/o Sh. Balwant Singh, R/o 58/1, Village Sawda, Delhi-81 (denovo trial qua accused Pappu & Sakinder). He deposed that on 11.10.1999, he was posted at Police Station Uttam Nagar and was on duty as Incharge Police Post Matiala. He further deposed that on that day, at about 4:15 a.m., a copy of DD No.10, already exhibited as Ex.PW2/A and now Ex.PW-9/A, was assigned to him for taking necessary action in the matter. He further deposed that he, along with HC Rohtas, Constable Rajinder, and Constable Braham Sarwoop, reached the godown of Ranbir at Palam Matiala Road. He further deposed that upon reaching there, they noticed a foul smell emanating from a locked room of the aforesaid godown. He further deposed that they entered the godown after removing the lock and found the dead body of a young male under a machine, amidst some old and new polythene bags of various sizes. He further deposed that he immediately informed the senior police officials about the discovery. He further deposed that the highly decomposed dead body was taken out from under the machine. He further deposed that upon inspection, he found that the deceased was wearing only an undergarment and a jenau. He further deposed that efforts were made to ascertain the identity of the deceased, but they were in vain. He further deposed that, upon his request, the crime team officials arrived at the spot and performed their duties. He further deposed that a photographer took photographs of the dead body, which were already exhibited as Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW8/B, and A-12 (colly), and that the photographs depicted the same dead body found SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 18 of 51 in the godown. He further deposed that he collected some exhibits from the spot, the details of which were mentioned in the seizure memo, already exhibited as Ex.PW7/A and now Ex.PW-9/A, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that the collected exhibits were converted into three parcels, sealed with the seal marked "RKM," and the memo bore his signatures at point A. He further deposed that the dead body was sent to the mortuary through a constable for a post-mortem examination. He further deposed that, after completing the spot proceedings, he left the location and returned to the police station. He further deposed that he deposited the aforesaid sealed parcels with the MHCM and narrated the facts to the SHO. He further deposed that on 12.10.1999, he made efforts to ascertain the address of Pappu Yadav, as the plot owner of the factory had informed him that the aforesaid machine was being operated by Pappu Yadav with the help of some employees/workers at that time. He further deposed that during his inquiries, he met one Suraj, who was aware of Pappu Yadav's whereabouts, and Suraj disclosed the native address of Pappu Yadav as Village Devkali, Police Station Manpur, District Nalanda Vihar. He further deposed that he completed the inquest proceedings on 15.10.1999 by filling up the inquest form, already exhibited as Ex.PW14/A and Ex.A-9, and by recording the brief facts of the case, already exhibited as Ex.PW14/B and now Ex.PW-9/B. He further deposed that he also filled up the request for the post-mortem examination, already exhibited as Ex.PW14/C and now Ex.PW-9/C, all of which bore his signature at point X. He further deposed that he sent the aforesaid inquest papers along with relevant documents to the post-mortem conducting doctor, Dr. K. Goel. He further deposed that the autopsy was conducted on the same day, and the post-mortem report SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 19 of 51 was already exhibited as Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that, since the dead body remained unidentified, it was cremated as abandoned by police officials, and the receipt for the same was already exhibited as Ex.PW14/D. He further deposed that one sealed parcel containing the deceased's teeth in a sealed condition was handed over to him by the post-mortem conducting doctor, and he seized the same vide seizure memo, already exhibited as Ex.PW14/E and now Ex.PW-9/D, which bore his signature at point A. He further deposed that the duty officer also seized the jenau and undergarment of the deceased, vide seizure memo already exhibited as Ex.PW14/F and now Ex.PW-9/E. He further deposed that he returned to the police station and deposited the case parcel with the MHCM. He further deposed that, as long as the sealed parcel and the sample seal remained in his custody, no one tampered with them. He further deposed that he directed HC Satbir to visit the native village of Pappu Yadav and handed over two photographs of the dead body for the purpose of identification. He further deposed that HC Satbir returned to Delhi and informed him that the body had been identified upon seeing the photograph by PW Chandi Yadav and Jai Mala, among others. He further deposed that it came to his notice that the deceased was named Ram Swaroop @ Modi Yadav and that he had been working in Delhi with Pappu Yadav, Montu Yadav, Vijay Yadav, and Shakki Yadav. He further deposed that HC Satbir recorded the statement of Chandi Yadav, already exhibited as Ex.PW6/A, at his native village and produced it before him, and he kept the same on record. He further deposed that, by that time, the post-mortem report had not been received, and the cause of death had not been ascertained by the doctor until December 1999. He further deposed that he recorded the statements of Ranbir Singh, already exhibited as SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 20 of 51 Ex.PW9/A and now Ex.PW-9/F, Ramesh Chand Gupta, already exhibited as Ex.PW4/A and now Ex.PW-9/G, Ghan Shyam Paswan, already exhibited as Ex.PW14/G and now Ex.PW-9/H, Rakesh Kumar, already exhibited as Ex.PW11/A and now Ex.PW-9/I, and Suraj Gupta, already exhibited as Ex.PW14/H and now Ex.PW-9/J, all of which bore his signatures at point X. He further deposed that he handed over the case file to the MHCR as he was transferred from Police Station Uttam Nagar to Police Station Patel Nagar. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsels.
18. PW-10 is ASI Mehtab Singh, No. 7819, DAP (denovo trial qua accused Pappu & Sakinder). He deposed that on 01.09.2000, he was posted at Police Station Uttam Nagar. He further deposed that on 04.02.2000, he was also posted at the same police station. He further deposed that on that day, at about 06:00 PM, he had received copies of the FIR from the Duty Officer and had delivered the same to the learned Ilaka Magistrate and senior police officers. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 01.09.2000. This witness was not cross- examined by the Ld. defence counsels.
19. PW-11 is HC Dinesh, No. 229 OND, posted at Crime Branch, Prashant Vihar, Rohini (denovo trial qua accused Pappu & Sakinder). He deposed that on 01.06.2024, a secret informer informed him about Pappu Yadav, who was involved in the murder case of Police Station Uttam Nagar and had been absconding for the last 24 years, having been declared a Proclaimed Offender in the present case. He further deposed that the informer also stated that if a raid was conducted at Pappu Yadav's native SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 21 of 51 village in Bihar, he could be apprehended. He further deposed that thereafter, he shared the information with the senior officers and, after obtaining an order from the court, he, along with the raiding team members, namely SI Yogesh, ASI Sandeep, and ASI Virender, reached the village of Pappu Yadav, i.e., Village Devkali, Police Station Manpur, District Nalanda, Bihar. He further deposed that at the instance of the secret informer, Pappu Yadav was arrested in Kalandra under Section 41(1) Cr.P.C. He correctly identified accused Pappu Yadav in the Court. He further deposed that the Kalandra was already exhibited as Ex. PW-11/A, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that the arrest memo of Pappu Yadav was already exhibited as Ex. PW-11/B, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that the personal search memo of Pappu Yadav was already exhibited as Ex. PW-11/C, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that thereafter, he informed the Duty Officer of Police Station Uttam Nagar about the arrest of the accused Pappu Yadav, and the accused was produced before the court in a Kalandra. He further deposed that the Investigating Officer recorded his statement. He further deposed that on 16.07.2024, a secret informer informed him about Sakender Kumar @ Sakki, who was also involved in the murder case of Police Station Uttam Nagar and had been absconding for the last 24 years, having been declared a Proclaimed Offender in the present case. He further deposed that the informer also stated that if a raid was conducted at Patna, Bihar, he could be apprehended. He further deposed that thereafter, he shared the information with the senior officers and, after obtaining an order from the court, he, along with the raiding team members, namely SI Yogesh, ASI Sandeep, and ASI Virender, also reached Patna, Bihar. He further deposed that at the SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 22 of 51 instance of the secret informer, Sakender was arrested in Kalandra under Section 35(1)(d) BNSS. He correctly identified the accused Sakender. He further deposed that the Kalandra was already exhibited as Ex. PW-11/D, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that the arrest memo of Sakender was already exhibited as Ex. PW-11/E, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that the personal search memo of Sakender was already exhibited as Ex. PW-11/F, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of Sakender, which was already exhibited as Ex. PW-11/G, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that thereafter, he informed the Duty Officer of Police Station Uttam Nagar about the arrest of the accused Sakender, and the accused was produced before the court in a Kalandra. He further deposed that the Investigating Officer recorded his statement. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsels.
20. PW-12 is HC Narender, no. 1698/DW, PS Cyber Dwarka, Sec-17, New Delhi. He deposed that on 18.07.2024, at about 05:27 p.m, HC Dinesh telephonically informed regarding the arrest of Sakender Kumar @ Sakki vide DD no.2A, under Section 35D BNSS in case FIR no.70/2000, PS Uttam Nagar and produced before the concerned Court at about 12:00 p.m and the said information was lodged by him vide GD no. 133A, same is Ex. PW-12/A and was handed over to the concerned MHC(R) Branch. This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsels.
21. PW-13 is HC Ashish, no. 617/DW, PS Uttam Nagar, ND. He deposed that on 07.06.2024, he joined the investigation with SI Ram Niwas SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 23 of 51 and reached at Dwarka Courts where SI Ram Niwas moved an application for interrogation and formal arrest of accused Pappu Yadav, which was allowed by Court. He further deposed that after that, SI Ram Niwas interrogated accused Pappu Yadav and arrested him vide memo Ex. PW-13/A. He further deposed that SI Ram Niwas took 03 days PC remand of accused Pappu Yadav and thereafter, they took the accused to IG Hospital and after medical examination, they took him to PS where IO recorded detailed disclosure statement as Ex. PW-13/B. This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsels.
22. PW-14 is ASI Mahipal Singh, no. 5992/D, PS Paharganj, Central District, New Delhi. This witness has joined the investigation with the IO and has deposed about the investigation conducted by him as well as by the IO. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsels.
23. PW-15 is HC Ashok, no. 341/DW, PS Uttam Nagar, ND. He deposed that on 20.07.2024, he joined the investigation with SI Ram Niwas and reached at Dwarka Courts where SI Ram Niwas moved an application for interrogation and formal arrest of accused Sakender @ Sakki, which was allowed by Court. He further deposed that after that, SI Ram Niwas interrogated accused Sakender @ Sakki and arrested him vide memo Ex. PW-15/A. He further deposed that SI Ram Niwas took 02 days PC remand of accused Sakender @ Sakki and thereafter, they took the accused to IG Hospital and after medical examination, they took him to PS where IO recorded detailed disclosure statement as Ex. PW-15/B. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsels.
SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 24 of 5124. PW-16 is Inspector A.K. Singh, Incharge South Zone, PCR, Delhi. He deposed that on 04.02.2000, he was posted as Incharge, Police Post Matiala, PS Uttam Nagar and had gone with the SHO to the plot of Ranvir at Village Matiala. He further deposed that SHO prepared the site plan as Ex. PW-5/B and recorded the statement of witnesses in his presence. He further deposed that on 17.03.2000, he went to Village Devkali, Bihar for execution of non-bailable warrants of accused persons and searched for accused persons, who could not be traced out and he recorded the statement of witnesses. This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsels.
25. PW-17 is SI Ram Niwas, no. D-6709, PS Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. This witness along with PW-13 HC Ashish joined the investigation in the present case, who deposed on the same lines. In addition to that, PW-17 deposed that on 20.07.2024, he along with HC Ashok reached at Dwarka Courts, where he moved an application for interrogation and formal arrest of accused Sakender @ Sakki, which was allowed by the Court and after that, he interrogated the accused Sakender @ Sakki and after interrogation, he arrested the accused vide arrest memo as Ex. PW-15/A and recorded his disclosure statement as Ex. PW-15/B. He further deposed that he took 02 days PC remand of the accused Sakender @ Sakki and took the accused to IC Hospital and after medical examination of the accused, they took the accused to police station and handed over the custody of accused Sakender @ Sakki to Inspector Rajesh. This witness was also not cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsels.
SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 25 of 5126. PW-18 is Inspector Rajesh, No. D-1/1164, DIU Outer North District. He deposed that on 07.06.2024, the investigation of the present case was marked to him and he deputed SI Ram Niwas for the formal arrest of accused Pappu Yadav as accused Papu Yadav was produced before the court, after his arrest in his Kalandra under Section 41.1 Cr.P.C and accordingly, accused Papu Yadav was arrested by SI Ram Niwas and took 03 days PC remand of the accused. He further deposed that during the PC remand, he prepared pointing out memo of the place of incident at the instance of accused Pappu Yadav as Ex. PW-14/A. He further deposed that thereafter, he also prepared the site plan of the spot as Ex. PW-14/A. He further deposed that on 20.07.2024, he deputed SI Ram Niwas, for the formal arrest of accused Sakender @ Sakki as he was produced before the court, after his arrest in his Kalandra under Section 41.1 Cr.P.C and accordingly, SI Ram Niwas took 02 days PC remand of the accused. He further deposed that during the PC remand, he prepared pointing out memo of the place of incident at the instance of accused Sakender @ Sakki as Ex. PW-14/B. He further deposed that he also prepared the site plan of the spot as Ex.PW-14/C. He further deposed that after the arrest of accused Papu Yadav and Sakender, he recorded the statement of witnesses, prepared the supplementary charge sheet and filed before the court. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsels.
27. PW-19 is Retd. SI Satbir Singh, S/o Late Sh. Mange Ram, R/o Village Chara, District Jhajjar Haryana. . He deposed that on 26.10.1999, he was on duty at PS Uttam Nagar and on that day SI Ram Kumar directed SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 26 of 51 him to go to Village Devkhuli, Dist. Nalanda, Bihar for the purpose of identification of dead body along with three photographs of the present case, which were depicting the charred dead body upon which he along with Constable Uma Shankar and after arranging necessary permission to go outside from senior police officials, he reached the aforesaid village. He further deposed that he made the DD entry at the concerned Police Station Manpur at S.No.378 and one Constable was also deputed with them by the senior police officials of aforesaid PS. He further deposed that thereafter, they reached to the house of deceased namely Ram Swaroop @ Modi Yadav and presented three photographs as Ex.PW6/A, PW8/A and PW8/B and Ex. A-12 (colly) available in the file before the wife of the deceased Jai Mala and brother of the deceased namely Chando Yadav, who identified the dead body of deceased Ram Swaroop. He further deposed that he also made some inquiries from them and returned back to Delhi via Police Station Manpur. The copy of NAKAL RAPAT no.378 is Ex. PW8/C. He further deposed that he also made the arrival entry at PS Uttam Nagar at S.no.9 on 01.11.1999 and the copy of the same is Ex. PW8/D. He further deposed that it was told to him by both the aforesaid witnesses that the deceased had gone to Delhi for work 02-03 months prior from the incident. He further deposed that in the year 2000, proclamation and attachment warrants against the accused persons namely Pappu Yadav, Vijay Yadav, Shaknki Yadav and Montu Yadav had been assigned to him by the SHO for execution. He further deposed that he reached at the given address at Devkhuli and made efforts to trace the accused persons but in vain as neither accused persons met him nor their whereabouts could be traced. He further deposed that he gave his report on proclamation warrants and after SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 27 of 51 expiry of time, he again made efforts and also tried to attach their movable and immovable property but no clue came forward and he gave his report to this effect & on the basis of the report, the aforesaid accused persons were declared Proclaimed Offenders in the year of 2000. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of some villager during the execution of proclamation and attachment proceedings. He further deposed that during execution of the processes, he had pasted the copy of proceeding under Section 82 Cr.P.C, near the houses of the accused persons at Patna, and after some days copy of aforesaid processes was also pasted at the notice board of concerned Court. He further deposed that on arrival to Delhi, he handed over the photographs and relevant papers of this case to the concerned Investigating Officer. This witness was also cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsels.
28. It is a matter of record that on 25.11.2024, it was observed by the Court that witness Ramesh Chand Gupta was unserved despite the fact that he was ordered to be summoned through DCP Office. Accordingly, witness Ramesh Chand Gupta was dropped from the list of witnesses. However, the testimony of this witness can be read which was recorded under Section 299 Cr.P.C on 27.02.2002 and same is discussed as under:-
29. PW-4 Ramesh Chand S/o Lt. Sh. Kishori Lal aged:44 yrs, Occupation: Dhaba Owner, R/o D-91, Village:- Matiala, Near Sahyog Vihar, Delhi. He deposed that he was running his dhaba at D-91 Vill. Matiala Road, near Sahyog Vihar for the last 7-8 years. He further deposed that there was a plot of Ranbir Singh, R/o Matiala Village, in front of his SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 28 of 51 dhaba. He further deposed that two rooms were constructed in that plot in the year 1999. He further deposed that one Pappu was resident of Bihar occupied one of the rooms and started manufacturing golas of plastic by melting plastic punnies in a machine. He further deposed that he had started this work about 1½ months prior to 11.10.99. He further deposed that room was lying closed for 8/9 days and Pappu was not seen during that period. He further deposed that thereafter, he felt some foul smell coming from that room. He further deposed that he informed Ashok Sharma, who was running a factory of dying near that plot. He further deposed that Ashok Sharma informed Ranbir Singh. He further deposed that he came there and informed the police on phone No. 100. Thereafter, he went to Aggarsen Hospital in Punjabi Bagh where his sister and brother-in-law were admitted. He further deposed that he returned in the evening at about 07:00 p.m. He further deposed that he came to know that a dead body was recovered from that room. He further deposed that he went to the PS and made statement as Ex. PW4/A. He further deposed that he could identify Pappu, if shown to him. He further deposed that 4/5 persons were employed with him in his factory. He further deposed that his statement was also recorded by the police on 04.02.2000.
30. It is a matter of record that during the evidence, on 03.12.2024, a joint statement of accused persons namely Pappu Yadav & Sakinder Kumar was recorded under Section 294 Cr.P.C wherein they admitted the documents i.e Copy of FIR already Ex. PW-5/A as Ex. A-1, DD No. 12A dated 04.02.2000 already Ex. PW-19/C as Ex. A-2, scaled site plan already Ex. PW-3/A as Ex. A-3, DD No. 10A dated 11.10.1999, already Ex. PW-2/A SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 29 of 51 as Ex. A-4, DD No. 306 dated 17.03.2000, already Ex. PW-19/F as Ex. A-5, DD No. 4 dated 21.10.1999 already Ex. PW-19/D as Ex. A-6, Departure entry SD No. 378, already Ex. PW-8/C as Ex. A-7, DD No. 90 dated 01.11.1999, already Ex. PW-8/D as Ex. A-8, Death report, already Ex. PW-14/A as Ex. A-9, PM No. 2933 dated 15.10.1999, already Ex. PW-17/A as Ex. A-10, Receipt of dead body, already Ex. PW-14/D as Ex. A-11 and photographs and negatives, already Ex. PW-6/A, PW-8/A and Ex. PW-8/B as Ex. A-12 (colly). Accordingly, witnesses mentioned at serial no.7, 9, 11, 14 & 18 were dropped from the list of witnesses. However, the testimonies of the the said witnesses can be read which was recorded under Section 299 Cr.P.C and same are discussed as under:-
31. PW-7 is Sh. Tirath Raj Singh S/o Sardar Gurmukh Singh.
Occupation: Draftsman R/o D-239 Nehru Vihar, Timar Pur, Delhi-84 (earlier examined as PW-3 under Section 299 Cr.P.C recorded on 06.10.2001). He deposed that on 08.05.2000, he was summoned by the SHO PS Uttam Nagar. He further deposed that he accompanied Inspector Ranbir Singh to the spot. He further deposed that he went to Matiala factory on the/road going towards Navada. He further deposed that he took rough notes and measurements at the directions of Inspector Ranbir Singh and on the basis of said rough notes and measurements, he prepared scaled site plan in his office using the scale 20 feet one inch, same is Ex.PW3/A. He further deposed that it was in his handwriting except the portion written in red ink. He further deposed that the site plan was signed by him at point A and same was correct. He further deposed that rough notes and measurement were destroyed after preparing the scaled site plan.
SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 30 of 5132. PW-9 is HC Rajbir Singh No.720 Security, Main Lines, Vinay Marg, Delhi. (earlier examined as PW-5 under Section 299 Cr.P.C recorded on 05.04.2002). He deposed that on 04.02.2000, he was working as Duty Officer at PS Uttam Nagar and on receipt on rukka, sent by SHO which was handed over to him, he recorded FIR of this case, carbon copy of which is Ex.PW5/A. He further deposed that copy of FIR and original rukka were handed over to the SHO.
33. PW-11 is Ct. Raj Kumar No. 1719 W. P.P. Matiaza, PS Uttam Nagar, Delhi. (earlier examined as PW-2 under Section 299 Cr.P.C). He deposed that on 11.10.1999, he was posted at PP Matiala and was working as a DD writer from 08:00 am to 08:00 pm. He further deposed that at 04:05 pm, he received a call on wireless from PCR, that foul smell was coming from a godown on the road from Matiala to Palam, and that the godown was locked. He further deposed that he recorded this information in the roznamcha at S.No.10 which he has brought in original. He further deposed that the same was in his handwriting. He further deposed that he handed over its copy to PP In-charge Ram Kumar SI and he along with HC Rohtas Kumar, HC Rajender Kumar and Brahm Saroop left for the spot.
34. On 17.12.2024, as per the report, Ct. Bhram Swaroop stated to have expired on 20.01.2023 and accordingly, he was dropped from the list of witnesses. However, the testimony of the this witness can be read which was recorded under Section 299 Cr.P.C on 20.01.2003 and same is discussed as under:-
SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 31 of 5135. PW-7 is Ct. Brahm Swaroop, No.4330/DAP, 5th Batallion, PHQ Guard, Delhi. He deposed that on 11.10.99, he was posted at PS Uttam Nagar and on that date, he joined the investigation of this case with SI Ram Kumar and reached at the place of occurrence from there, IO lifted dead body fluid stain floor and control earth which were sealed in 3 separate parcels with the seal RKM. He further deposed that the same were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW7/A.
36. Vide order dated 01.02.2025, on the submissions of Ld. Addl. PP for the State witness ASI Sandeep was dropped from the list of witnesses as his testimony was repetitive in nature.
37. It is a matter of record that during the evidence, on 04.10.2025, a supplementary joint statement of accused persons namely Pappu Yadav & Sakinder Kumar was recorded under Section 294 Cr.P.C wherein they admitted the documents i.e DD No.106A dated 04.06.2024 as Ex. A-13, DD No. 5A dated 02.06.2024 as Ex. A-14, DD No. 21A as Ex. A-15, DD No. 139A dated 03.06.2024 as Ex. A-16. Accordingly, witnesses mentioned at serial no. 4 & 6 were dropped from the list of witnesses. Thereafter, on 09.10.2025, prosecution evidence was closed and matter was adjourned for recording statement of accused persons.
38. Statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein they stated that they have been falsely implicated in the SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 32 of 51 present case and did not wish to lead defence evidence and thereafter, final arguments were heard.
39. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. Brijesh Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. counsels for the accused and have perused the record as well as gone through the record.
40. To prove the accusation against the accused persons, the prosecution has to prove that on or before 11.10.1999, at plot of Ranvir Singh near transformer, Opposite Sector-3, Pappan Kalan on Sahyog Vihar Road, Matiala, Delhi in furtherance of their common intention, both accused namely Pappu Yadav & Sakender Kumar @ Sakki along with other co-accused (since PO) intentionally and knowingly committed murder or caused death of Ram Swaroop. Further, the accused persons caused certain evidence connected with the said offence namely dead body to disappear and deformed with intention to screening the offenders from legal punishment. Further, on 26.05.2000 at unknown times, at Tis Hazari courts, both accused persons were declared Proclaimed Offender, as they failed to put appearance before the court despite the proclamation was issued against them and as per the orders of Ld. MM, Tis Hazari.
41. At this stage, it would be relevant to go through the testimony of PW-6 Smt. Jai Mala, who deposed that the deceased, Ram Swaroop @ Modi Yadav, was her husband and she, along with her family, was residing in the aforesaid village. She further deposed that her husband had left the village along with an unknown person to go to Delhi in search of work. She SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 33 of 51 further deposed that she had identified the dead body of her husband through photographs. She further deposed that she did not remember the exact date and month as the matter pertained to the year 2000. She further deposed that her husband was working in Delhi with Pappu Yadav in a factory. She identified accused Pappu Yadav in the Court. She further deposed that, to her knowledge, her husband had been murdered by accused Pappu Yadav, Montu Yadav, and others. This witness was shown photograph already exhibited as Ex.PW-8/A, PW-8/B & PW6/A available on the file and after seeing the aforesaid photographs, she confirmed that it depicted the dead body of her husband. She further deposed that the police had shown her the said photograph when she had identified the dead body of her husband. She further deposed that she did not know the other facts of the case. She further deposed that her brother, Rajeev, had also gone to Delhi with her husband. She further deposed that after some time, police officials from Delhi had come to their village and had shown them photographs of the dead body, in which she had correctly identified her husband, Ram Swaroop. She further deposed that before the police had come to their village, Pappu Yadav and others had visited the village. She further deposed that when she had asked them about her husband, Pappu had told her that he was working somewhere else, but he did not know the exact place. She correctly identified accused Sakki @ Sakener in the Court. She further deposed that it had also come to her notice that Pappu Yadav, Vijay Yadav, Shanki, and Montu were found to be involved in the present case.
During cross-examination by the learned counsels for the accused persons Pappu Yadav and Sakki @ Sakender, she deposed that SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 34 of 51 accused Sakki @ Sakender was not involved in the murder of her husband. She further deposed that Pappu Yadav had come to the village 07-08 days before the police had reached there, in the month of Ashwin, however, she did not remember the exact date. She further deposed that her husband did not have any enmity with accused Pappu Yadav. She further deposed that she was not aware as to where her husband had been working in Delhi or where he had been residing. She denied the suggestion that she was taking the names of the accused persons at the behest of the police officials or that the names of the accused persons had been revealed to her through the police officials. She also denied the suggestion that the accused persons were involved in the murder of her husband. She also denied the suggstions that she had wrongly identified the dead body of her husband.
42. Another witness whose testimony is beneficial for the prosecution is PW-7 Sh. Vijay Yadav, who deposed that the deceased, Ram Swaroop @ Modi Yadav, was his jeeja. He deposed that before the incident, his jeeja's family was residing in village Dekhuli. He deposed that now his sister was residing there along with her four children. He further deposed that his jeeja had come to Delhi with him approximately two months before the incident in search of work. He further deposed that he could not say at which place in Delhi his jeeja had started working, nor could he say how many co-villagers of his jeeja were working in Delhi during those days. He further deposed that in the month of October 1999, police officials from Uttam Nagar Police Station had reached his sister's house and informed her about the murder of his jeeja. He further deposed that he had also reached his sister's house on that day and came to know about the murder of his SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 35 of 51 jeeja in Delhi. He further deposed that he could not say by whom and where his jeeja was killed in Delhi. He further deposed that he knew the accused, Pappu Yadav and Sakender, who were present in the court, as they were co- villagers of his jeeja. He further deposed that he did not know the other facts of the case.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State prayed for permission to cross-examine the witness as he was resiling from his earlier statement. The court, after hearing the submissions, allowed the prayer. During cross-examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, he deposed that it was incorrect to suggest that the police had recorded his statement. He denied the suggestion that on 19.03.2000, police officials from Uttam Nagar Police Station had met and interrogated him. He also denied the suggestion that he had left his jeeja with Pappu Yadav, Vijay Yadav, Shanki, and the accused Montu in the factory in the month of September-October 1999. He also denied the suggestion that Pappu Yadav was running a plastic factory in the plot of one Ranvir Singh, near Sahyog Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Village Matiala, Delhi. He also denied the suggestion that accused Montu was working in the aforesaid factory in the year 1999 or that Vijay Yadav and Shanki Yadav were also working there in the same year. This witness was confronted with his statement Ex.PW7/A, where it was so recorded. He also denied the suggestion that during the course of investigation, it had come to his notice that his jeeja was murdered in the factory of Pappu Yadav. He also denied the suggestion that it had also come to his notice that Pappu Yadav, Vijay Yadav, Shanki, and Montu Yadav were found to be involved in the present case by the police. He also denied the suggestion that he had intentionally SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 36 of 51 not deposed the correct facts of the present case before the Court as he and his family had settled the matter with the accused outside the court and had been won over by them, and that he was deposing falsely in order to save the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that he had stated before the police that the accused persons present in the Court had murdered his jeeja in the factory. This witness was confronted with his statement Ex.PW7/A, where it was so recorded. He also denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely regarding identifying the dead body of his jeeja before the police upon seeing the photographs. He also denied the suggestion that accused Pappu, Vijay, Sakender, and Montu had killed his jeeja, Ram Swaroop.
During cross-examination by the Ld. defence counsel, he deposed that he had no suspicion regarding the involvement of the accused persons in the murder of his jeeja. He further deposed that at the time of the incident, he was in his village. He further deposed that there was no enmity between his jeeja and the accused persons. He further deposed that, in his presence, no quarrel had ever taken place between the accused persons and his jeeja.
43. In this present case, there is no direct evidence against either of the accused persons. No eyewitness has come forward to testify regarding the commission of the murder of the deceased, Ram Swaroop Yadav @ Modi Yadav. The case of the prosecution is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. In cases based on circumstantial evidence, it is imperative that each link in the chain of evidence is proven beyond doubt and that all circumstances, when considered collectively, lead to the inescapable conclusion that the accused alone committed the crime. However, in the SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 37 of 51 present case, the prosecution has failed to prove a critical link--namely, the last-seen evidence connecting the accused with the deceased.
44. In Sunder @ Lala and Ors. Vs. State 2009 VII AD (Delhi) 615 it was held as under:
" 29. It is settled law that circumstances play very important role in the appreciation of evidence. The conduct of witnesses is a very important facet to determine their creditworthiness. "
45. As evidence, there is no difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. The only difference is in that as proof, the former directly establishes the commission of the offence whereas the latter does so by placing circumstances which lead to irresistible inference of guilt. (See Dalpat Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2005 Cr LJ 749 (Raj) (DB)). The evidence has not to be considered merely as a number of bits of evidence, but the whole of it together and the cumulative effect of it has to be weighed. (See Dukharam Nath V Commercial Credit Corpn Ltd AIR 1940 Oudh 35). No distinction has, therefore, to be made between circumstantial and direct evidence. {See Miran Baksh V Emperor AIR 1931 Lah 529 and Thimma V State of Mysore (1970) SCC (Cr) 320}. The court must satisfy itself that the cumulative effect of the evidence, led by the prosecution, establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. (See Shankar Bhaka Narsale V State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC 1171 and Chanan Singh V State of Haryana AIR 1971 SC 1554) In Padala Veera Reddy v State of AP, AIR 1990 SC 79 it was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 38 of 51(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) 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 (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of 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 Shivu & Anr. v R. G., High Court of Karnataka, 2007 Cr LJ 1806 (SC)) In Raju Vs. The State by Inspector of Police AIR 2009 SC 2171, as regards circumstantial evidence, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"7. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977 SC 1063); Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 39 of 51
316); Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446); State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224); Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. (AIR 1989 SC 1890). The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621), it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.
8. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it has been observed thus:
"In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence....".SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 40 of 51
9. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 79), it was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) 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 (4) 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.
10. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 41 of 5111. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book "Wills' Circumstantial Evidence"
(Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence:
(1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled of the right to be acquitted".
12. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by the this Court as far back as in 1952.
13. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1952 SC 343), wherein it was observed thus:
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 42 of 51 hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
46. From the above legal position, it is clear that all links in the chain of circumstantial evidence against the accused persons must be established and proved by the prosecution to establish their guilt. Each significant incriminating circumstance must not only be proved individually but must also collectively lead to the inference that the accused alone committed the murder of the victim. The outcome of the ongoing trial is fundamentally dependent on the testimonies of PW-6 and PW-7. Regarding the identification of the deceased, PW-6 deposed that she identified the dead body of her husband, Ram Swaroop @ Modi Yadav, through photographs shown to her by the police. She confirmed that the photographs, Ex.PW-8/A, Ex.PW-8/B, and Ex.PW-6/A, depicted the dead body of her husband. However, PW-7 did not explicitly state that he had identified the body of the deceased. He deposed that police officials from Uttam Nagar Police Station had informed his sister (PW-6) about the murder of her husband and that he was present at her house on that day. When confronted with his previous statement, Ex.PW-7/A, where it was recorded that he had identified the dead body, he denied having done so in court. Further, as far as the presence of the deceased in Delhi is concerned, PW-6 deposed that her husband had left the village with an unknown person to go to Delhi in search of work. She also stated that he had been working in a factory run by accused Pappu Yadav in Delhi whereas, PW-7 provided a different account, SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 43 of 51 stating that his jeeja (the deceased) had traveled to Delhi with him approximately two months before the incident but failed to specify where his jeeja had started working. He also did not confirm that the deceased had been employed at the factory of Pappu Yadav.
47. As per the prosecution, accused Pappu Yadav was a tenant in the house of one Sh. Ranvir Singh along with other accused persons on the relevant date. In this regard, prosecution examined Sh. Ranvir Singh as PW-1, who deposed that he was having a plot of 2500 sq. yard on Matiala Road and constructed a room in that plot. He further deposed that in the year 1999, he had given that room on rent to one person, but he did not remember his name. He further deposed that with reference of Rakesh Kumar, resident of his village and the tenant was resident of Bihar, however he did not remember his name. He further deposed that he had given the said plot with room on rent on monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- and the tenant used to reside in that room. He further deposed that on 11.10.1999, his cousin brother Ashok informed him on telephone that foul smell was coming from the room in the above said plot. He further deposed that he reached there and found that room was locked and in that room, tenant installed a machine for doing some plastic work. He further deposed that he did not remember who made a call to the police but police came there and the lock of the room was broke open and a dead body was found inside the room. He further deposed that he had given a room to the tenant about one and half month prior. He further deposed that police recorded his statement Ex. PW-9/A. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement wherein he denied that SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 44 of 51 IO recorded his statement on 08.06.2024 and 21.07.2024, which are marked X and X1. He further deposed that on 08.06.2024 and 21.07.2024, IO/police visited his house along with two different persons on both dates and after seeing that person, he informed the IO that he was unable to identify these persons due to the lapse of time. He denied that in the year 1999, the above said plot was rented by him to Pappu Yadav to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- per month. He denied that accused Pappu Yadav was running a plastic factory in the above said plot. This witness was confronted from the statement of witness Mark X, where it was so recorded. He denied that at the instance of the accused Pappu Yadav, police prepared the pointing out memo of the factory, where he along with his associate had murdered Ram Swaroop, the pointing out memo dated 08.06.2024 is marked as mark X2. This witness was confronted from the statement of witness Mark X, where it was so recorded. The witness was shown the pointing out memo of the spot, however, witness failed to identify the same. He denied that he intentionally not stated the true fact before Court. He further deposed that police obtained his signature later on blank papers. This witness was shown accused Pappu, however, he failed to identify accused Pappu Yadav. He denied that he was intentionally not identifying the accused Pappu Yadav as the matter pertains since 1999 and due to the lapse of the time he was unable to identify accused Pappu Yadav. He denied that on 21.07.2024, IO took accused Sakender Kumar @ Shakki at his home or that after seeing him, he correctly identified him being associate of accused Pappu Yadav to whom accused Sakender Kumar @ Shakki was residing/working. He also denied that after seeing the accused Sakender Kumar @ Shakki, he correctly identified him as associate of Pappu Yadav. This witness was confronted SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 45 of 51 from the statement of witness Mark X1. This witness was shown pointing out memo dated 21.07.2024 of the spot, which was prepared at the instance of the accused Sakender Kumar @ Shakki, however, the witness failed to identify the same as mark X3. He also denied that he intentionally not stated the true fact before the court. He further deposed that police obtained his signature later on blank papers. He denied that he was intentionally not identifying the accused Sakender Kumar @ Shakki as the matter pertains since 1999 and due to the lapse of the time, he was unable to identify the accused Sakender Kumar @ Shakki. This witness was asked one question, which is as under (in verbatim) :-
Q. At the time of examination in chief before the court on dated 02.04.2003, I had deposed the above said plot was rented out to one Pappu Yadav?
A. I do not remember due to lapse of time and my old age.
During his cross-examination by the Ld. defence counsel, he admitted that nothing has happened. He admitted that no document was executed while renting out the property. He deposed that he had not given any information to the local police that the plot has been let out to one person.
48. Hence, from the testimony of PW-1, it emerges that he failed to identify accused Pappu Yadav as his tenant and he has specifically denied the suggestion that in the year 1999, the plot in question was rented by him to accused Pappu Yadav. He also denied the suggestion that accused Pappu Yadav was running any plastic factory in the said plot. He admitted as correct that no document was executed while renting out the property. As SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 46 of 51 per PW-5 Retd. ACP Sukhbir Singh, the then SHO, he admitted as correct in his cross-examination that he did not collect any document to show that accused Pappu Yadav was residing in the said premises. Accordingly, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that accused Pappu Yadav was running any factory or residing there, where the murder took place. Hence, it creates a serious doubt in the story of the prosecution.
49. However, PW-6 deposed that her husband had been murdered by the accused persons, Pappu Yadav, Montu Yadav, and others. She further stated that before the police arrived at her village, Pappu Yadav had visited her and informed her that her husband was working elsewhere. During cross-examination, she admitted that the accused Sakki @ Sakender was not involved in the murder and that her husband had no enmity with Pappu Yadav. In contrast, PW-7 categorically stated that he could not ascertain who had murdered his jeeja or where the incident had taken place. He resiled from his previous statement, denying that he had left his jeeja in the company of Pappu Yadav, Montu Yadav, and others at the factory. He further denied that the accused persons were running or working in the said factory.
50. Further, PW-6 deposed that police officials had visited her village and shown her photographs of her deceased husband, which she identified. However, she stated that she was not aware of other facts related to the case. On the other hand, PW-7 denied that the police had recorded his statement or that he had identified the dead body through photographs. He SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 47 of 51 also denied that the police had informed him about his jeeja's murder during interrogation.
51. From a perusal of the record, it appears that in the present case, PW-6 initially implicated the accused persons but later admitted that accused Sakki @ Sakender was not involved and that her husband had no enmity with Pappu Yadav. On the other hand, PW-7 completely resiled from his statement, denying any knowledge of the involvement of the accused persons and rejecting the prosecution's claim that he had identified the dead body. The testimonies of PW-6 and PW-7 reveal substantial contradictions, casting doubt on the reliability of their statements. While PW-6 partially supported the prosecution's case by identifying the accused and confirming the deceased's employment with Pappu Yadav, her cross-examination weakened her allegations. Conversely, PW-7 out-rightly denied any knowledge of the accused's involvement and discredited his own previous statement, leading to inconsistencies that severely undermine the prosecution's case. In the present case, the crucial circumstance of the accused persons, Pappu Yadav and Sakender Kumar @ Sakki, being last seen with the victim is missing. There is no evidence on record to establish that the accused persons were present at or near the crime scene on the date of the offence. The prosecution witnesses merely create a superficial inference of incriminating circumstances against the accused persons, without any concrete proof. Moreover, the dead body of the victim could not be identified by PW-7, Sh. Vijay Yadav, the brother-in-law of the deceased, who stated that he did not identify the dead body of his jija before SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 48 of 51 the police upon seeing the photograph. However, the deceased's wife, PW-6, Smt. Jai Mala, identified the dead body through the photograph.
52. It is clear from the record that at the time of cremation of the body, none of the family members of the deceased were present there. Even, PW-5, the then SHO has specifically deposed in his cross-examination that he did not find any hue and cry notice or any type of publication of photographs of the dead body in the inquest report before the disposal of the dead body. Further, as per the examination of PW-9 Retd. Inspector Ram Kumar, unknown dead body was cremated as abandoned by the police officials. PW-8 Dr. Kulbhushan Goel also deposed that on 15.10.1999, he conducted post mortem on the dead body of unknown person. As such, it is difficult to say that it was the deceased Ram Swaroop, whose post mortem was conducted. It also creates serious doubt in the story of the prosecution.
53. Additionally, the prosecution witnesses, apart from providing formal testimony, have not presented any substantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused persons. Their testimonies primarily pertain to procedural aspects, such as the recovery of the body, the post-mortem examination, and the investigative steps taken by the police. However, none of these elements conclusively link the accused persons to the commission of the offence.
54. At this stage, it would be relevant to mention the judgment titled as Allrakha K. Mansuri Vs. State of Gujrat 2002 (1) CR (Cr.P.C) 748
(c) wherein it is held that the golden thread which runs through the web of SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 49 of 51 administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to innocence, the view favorable to accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court should be to avoid miscarriage of justice.
55. In light of the foregoing discussion and the principles governing circumstantial evidence, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proving the charges against the accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt. The absence of crucial evidence, coupled with inconsistencies in the testimonies of key witnesses, renders the case of prosecution unreliable and unworthy of reliance.
56. Accordingly, accused persons Pappu Yadav and Sakender Kumar @ Sakki are acquitted of the charges under Section 302/201/34 IPC. Since the accused persons have been acquitted for the major offences, they are also acquitted for the offence under Section 174 A IPC.
57. Accused persons are directed to furnish bail bond / surety bond under Section 437A Cr.P.C in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each. At the request of the accused persons, their previous bail bonds are extended in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C and shall remain in force for six months from today.
58. The file be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance, with a direction that the same shall be revived as and when the SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 50 of 51 said accused Vijay Yadav would be apprehended and produced before the Court. Digitally signed DEEPAK by DEEPAK WASON WASON Date: 2026.01.05 11:57:51 +0530 Announced in open Court today (Deepak Wason) on 05th January, 2026 Additional Sessions Judge-04:
SW District: Dwarka Courts:
New Delhi SC No. 606/2024 State Vs Pappu Yadav & Ors Page 51 of 51