Delhi District Court
State vs Rohit on 24 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. KUMAR RAJAT,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-07, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
CNR No. DLSH01-005552-2023
SC No. 265/2023
FIR No. 742/2022
PS Nand Nagri
U/s 302 IPC
STATE
Vs.
ROHIT,
S/o Late Sh. Devender Kumar,
R/o H.No. E-3/243,
Nand Nagri, Delhi.
........ Accused
Date of Institution of case 05.09.2023
Date of case reserved for Judgment 16.04.2026
Judgment Pronounced on 24.04.2026
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. As per the case of prosecution, on receipt of DD No. 121A dated 17.09.2022 at 10.30 PM, SI Nipender along with HC Ajay reached the GTB Hospital where patient Yash was declared State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 1 of 37 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.04.24 12:14:01 +0530 brought dead.
Complainant Prashant alleged that he was running a photo shop in the name Prince Studio at Nand Nagri, Delhi and H.No. E-3/243, Nand Nagri was registered in the name of his father, who expired in 2020 due to Covid and the house was transferred in the name of his mother Maya Devi in August, 2012 and his elder brother Rohit wanted to get the said house registered in his name, which led to frequent quarrels in the house. Rohit was drunkard and he used to abuse him and his mother and brother after drinking and asked them to transfer the documents of house in his name and due to his bad behaviour, he was disowned by his mother from the said property in August, 2022. On 17.09.2022 at 6 PM, Rohit started arguing with his mother and brother Yash and threatened to commit suicide, which led to scuffle between the brothers and they called the police and Rohit was taken by the PCR, but after medical, he returned home. At 8.45 PM, some altercation took place between him, his brother and mother and he tried to make Rohit understand, but he did not listen and Rohit took out a scissors from a room at ground floor and approached to kill them and he and his brother fled from there due to fear, but at 10 steps from the house, Rohit stabbed scissors in the chest of his brother Yash due to which he became unconscious and fell down. He took him to GTB Hospital with the help of family members and neighbours, where Yash was declared brought dead and accused Rohit had committed the murder of Yash with scissors.State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 2 of 37 Digitally signed by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT Date:
RAJAT 2026.04.24 12:14:08 +0530
2. On the above complaint of the complainant, FIR was registered vide FIR No. 742/2022, dt. 18.09.2022 in PS Nand Nagri u/s 302 IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused Rohit u/s 302 IPC and after the filing of charge- sheet, cognizance of offence was taken against the accused.
CHARGE
3. Charge for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC was framed against accused Rohit on 03.10.2023 by Ld. Predecessor of this Court. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
ADMISSION / DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
4. Admission/denial of documents u/s 294 Cr.P.C. was conducted on 25.11.2023. Accused Rohit, vide his separate statement recorded on the abovesaid date, had not disputed the following documents:
(i) FIR No. 742/2022, PS Nand Nagri and DD No. 15A dt. 18.09.2022, Ex.P1.
(ii) Certificate u/s 65B IEA regarding the FIR, Ex.P2.
(iii) GD No. 121A dt. 17.09.2022 and Certificate u/s 65B IEA, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4.
(iv) MLC bearing no. 2021/08/2022 of deceased Yash, Ex.P5.
(v) PMR bearing no. 1537/2022, Ex.P6.
(vi) Subsequent opinion bearing no. 145/22, dated 26.09.2022, Ex.P7.
In view of above-said admission, the requirement of evidence of following witnesses was dispensed with :
State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 3 of 37 Digitally signedKUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2026.04.24 12:14:13 +0530 (a) HC Ravinder Kumar (mentioned at Sl. No. 14 in the list of witnesses),
(b) ASI Janesh Kumar (mentioned at Sl. No. 15 in the list of witnesses).
(c) Dr. Jitender Meena (mentioned at Sl. No. 10 in the list of witnesses).(d) Dr. Chukka Praveen (mentioned at Sl. No. 11
in the list of witnesses).
(e) Dr. Harsh (mentioned at Sl. No. 9 in the list of witnesses).
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. Prosecution examined eighteen (18) witnesses in its favour to prove the case.
6. PW1 Prashant deposed that his father Devender Kumar died in June, 2020. He had his mother Maya Devi and brother Rohit Kumar. His younger brother Yash Kumar died on 17.09.2022. After the death of his father, he along with his brothers namely Yash Kumar and Rohit Kumar used to run a photography shop nearby his house in the name of Prince Studio. On 17.09.2022, at about 5.30 pm, his brother Rohit was misbehaving with his mother on the issue of visiting Shree Khatu Shyam, Rajasthan and PW1 made 100 number call. Police reached at his house at 3/243, E-Block, Nand Nagri, Delhi and took his brother Rohit to the PS. He along with his mother was present at the second floor of the above said house and talking with Mausi Hema on mobile phone. Suddenly, they heard the noise of hue and cry and they went to the window and saw that his brother Yash @ Golu was lying in front of his aforesaid house. They got downstairs and found some neighbours present near his brother Yash. PW1 along with his friend had taken him to GTB Hospital on a motorcycle and doctor declared him State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 4 of 37 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.04.24 12:14:18 +0530 brought dead. Rohit also reached there and from there he was taken by the police to PS. Police official took his signature on some blank papers and stated that the body of his brother would only be released after signing those blank documents.
7. PW1 further deposed that on 18.09.2022, he identified the dead body of his brother Yash Kumar vide identification statement, Ex.PW1/A, which was handed over to him vide handing over memo, Ex.PW1/B. The cremation of his brother was done. PW1 admitted in the cross-examination of Ld. APP that his mother became the registered owner of aforesaid house.
PW1 correctly identified his signature on the arrest memo of accused Rohit, Ex.PW1/D and personal search memo, Ex.PW1/E. The identity of wearing cloths of accused Rohit and deceased Yash was not disputed by accused. PW1 correctly identified his house i.e. spot from photographs, Ex.P2. PW1 correctly identified accused Rohit in the Court.
8. PW2 Naveen deposed that Prashant, Yash and accused Rohit Kumar were his cousin, being son of his uncle Devender. On 17.09.2022, he came to know from some persons, standing in the street that his cousin Yash was taken to GTB Hospital and he went there and found that Yash had died as declared by the doctors. He remained at the hospital for few hours. He identified the dead body of his cousin Yash vide identification statement, Ex.PW2/A. After sometime, dead body of Yash was handed over to Prashant vide handing over memo, Ex.PW1/B. On the next day, cremation of Yash was done. PW2 correctly identified accused Rohit in the court.
State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 5 of 37 Digitally signed by KUMARKUMAR RAJAT Date:
RAJAT 2026.04.24 12:14:24 +0530
9. PW3 Maya Devi deposed that her husband Devender Kumar died in June, 2020. She had three sons namely Prashant, Yash (deceased) and Rohit Kumar. Her son Yash died on 17.09.2022. After the death of her husband, her abovesaid sons used to run a photography shop at B-5/1, Nand Nagri in the name of Prince Studio. On 17.09.2022, at about 5.30 PM, her son Rohit was misbehaving with her on the issue of visiting Shree Khatu Shyam. Her son made a 100 number call and police official reached at their house and took her son Rohit to PS. She along with her son was present at the second floor of the abovesaid house and talking with her sister Hema on mobile phone. Suddenly, they heard the noise of hue and cry and they went to window of the front side of house and she saw that her son Yash @ Golu was lying in front of her abovesaid house.
10. PW3 further deposed that they got downstairs and found some neighbours present near her son Yash. Her son Prashant and his friend took Yash to GTB Hosptial on a motorcycle where he was declared dead by the doctors. Police took her son Rohit to the PS. PW3 admitted her signature on her statement, Mark-Y2. The identity of wearing cloths of accused Rohit and deceased Yash was not disputed by accused. PW3 correctly identified her house i.e. spot from photographs, Ex.P2. PW3 had correctly identified accused Rohit in the Court.
11. PW4 HC Raghubir deposed that on 17.09.2022, he was posted as HC at Mobile Crime Team, N/E, Delhi and working as Photographer. On that day, in the night on receipt of information, he along with SI Tej Singh (I/C Crime Tea) went to State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 6 of 37 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT Date:
RAJAT 2026.04.24 12:14:28 +0530 the spot i.e. E-3/243, Nand Nagri, Delhi. SI Tej Singh inspected the spot and he took 15 photographs of the place of incident nearby the spot. On 26.09.2022, he handed over the abovesaid photographs along with certificate u/s 65B IEA, Ex.PW4/A. PW4 correctly identified the 15 photographs, Ex.PW4/P1 (colly), (Ex.P2), which were taken by him.
12. PW5 ACP Mahesh Kumar deposed that on 08.12.2022, he was posted as ACP Draftsman, Crime Branch, Police HQs., Delhi and on that day, at the request of Inspector Nitin Pal Singh, PS Nand Nagri (IO), he along with Inspector Nitin Pal Singh visited the place of incident i.e. outside H.No. E-3/243, Nand Nagri, Delhi (street area in front of the house). He took measurements and prepared rough notes at the instance of Inspector Nitin Pal Singh. On 12.12.2022, on the basis of rough notes and measurements, he prepared the scaled site plan, Ex.PW5/A and handed over the same to IO/Inspector Nitin Pal Singh.
13. PW6 SI Tej Singh deposed that on 17.09.2022, he was posted as SI at Mobile Crime Team, N/E as In-charge. On that day, on receipt of information, he along with HC Raghubir went to the place of incident i.e. H.No. E-3/243, Nand Nagri, Delhi and street area. He came to know that deceased had been murdered with some weapon. He conducted inspection of the spot and HC Raghubir took photographs of the spot. He prepared SOC report, Ex.PW6/A. On 26.09.2022, he handed over the SOC report to IO/Inspector Nitin Pal Singh, who recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 7 of 37 Digitally signed by KUMARKUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.04.24 12:14:34 +0530
14. PW7 HC Ajay Kumar deposed that on 17.09.2022, he was posted at PS Nand Nagri as HC and on that day, he was on emergency duty from 8 PM to 8 AM. On that night, at about 10.30 PM, one DD No. 121A was marked to SI Nipender from GTB Hospital. Both of them immediately reached at GTB Hospital and met complainant Prashant and collected MLC of deceased Yash. SI Nipender called Ct. Juber Khan, who was the beat Constable of the area, where the above said murder was committed. Ct. Juber Khan reached at GTB Hospital and met them. The dead body of Yash was shifted to the mortuary of GTB Hospital in the supervision of Ct. Juber. Meanwhile, complainant Prashant had left to his home. Thereafter, he along with SI Nipender reached at the house of deceased Yash at E-3/243, Block, Nand Nagri, Delhi. Complainant Prashant was younger brother of deceased. SI Nipender inquired him again and recorded his statement, Ex.PW1/C. Mobile Crime Team and Forensic Team was called at the spot. Crime Team inspected the scene of crime and also clicked the photographs of the spot. Thereafter, IO prepared rukka and handed over the same to him. He went to PS and got the present FIR registered.
15. PW7 further deposed that the investigation was marked to Inspector Nitin Pal Singh. He along with Inspector Nitin Pal Singh reached the spot. SI Nipender handed over the documents to Inspector Nitin Pal Singh and also briefed about the facts of the case. Inspector Nitin Pal Singh prepared the site plan, Ex.PW7/A at his instance and that of complainant. Thereafter, they started search of accused Rohit. PW7 along with State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 8 of 37 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.04.24 12:14:38 +0530 Inspector Nitin Pal Singh reached Pili Mitti, Sunder Nagri, Delhi and met one secret informer, who disclosed that accused Rohit was standing at the parking of E-Block Nand Nagri, Delhi. IO requested some public persons to join the investigation, but they refused and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. No written notice could be served due to paucity of time. Thereafter, they reached at the parking of E-4, Nand Nagri, Delhi where accused Rohit was apprehended at the instance of secret informer. Meanwhile, complainant Prashant reached at the spot and he also identified the accused Rohit as his brother.
16. PW7 further deposed that thereafter, IO interrogated and arrested accused Rohit vide arrest memo, Ex.PW1/D and he was personally searched vide memo, Ex.PW1/E. Complainant Prashant left the spot and they took accused Rohit to PS. Disclosure statement of accused Rohit was recorded by the IO vide statement, Ex.PW7/B. Thereafter, accused was taken to GTB Hospital for his medical examination and after medical, he was produced before concerned Court by the IO, who obtained his one day PC remand to recover the scissors i.e. weapon of offence. Thereafter, they took accused Rohit to PS initially, where the wearing cloths of the accused Rohit i.e. one navy blue colour lower, orange colour T-shirt were removed with his consent. The T-shirt was having bloodstains. Some other clothes were brought from the house of accused and handed over to him for wearing. IO kept the above wearing clothes of the accused in a white colour cloth and prepared a pulanda and affixed the seal of NPS, which was handed over to him after using. IO prepared State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 9 of 37 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.04.24 12:14:44 +0530 seizure memo, Ex.PW7/C in this regard.
17. PW7 further deposed that accused Rohit took them to the pile of garbage (kudakatta) near Gagan Cinema T-point, Delhi and lifted a scissors having handle of yellow colour from that garbage and handed over the same to IO and disclosed that it was the same scissors by which he had committed murder of his brother. The scissors was also having blood stains. IO prepared the sketch of above said scissors, Ex.PW7/D. Thereafter, he kept the same in a plastic box and obtained his seal i.e. NPS from PW7 and affixed on the plastic box. IO prepared the seizure memo in this regard, Ex.PW7/E and also prepared the site plan of place of recovery, Ex.PW7/F. Seal after use, was handed over to PW7. Thereafter, they returned back to the PS. The case property was deposited in the malkhana and accused Rohit was lodged in the lock-up. PW7 had correctly identified one scissors having yellow plastic handle, Ex.P1, which was recovered at accused Rohit's instance and also correctly identified one orange T-shirt having blood stains and one lower (navy blue colour), Ex.P3 (colly), which were worn by accused Rohit at the time of his arrest and seized in his presence. PW7 had correctly identified accused Rohit in the Court.
18. PW8 Ct. Deepak deposed that on 18.09.2022, he was posted as Constable at PS Nand Nagri and on that day, he along with SI Ankur Singh went to GTB Hospital Mortuary where the postmortem of deceased Yash was conducted by the doctor. After postmortem, dead body was handed over to his family members. The concerned doctor also preserved the exhibits and handed State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 10 of 37 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2026.04.24 12:14:50 +0530 over the same to SI Ankur.
19. PW9 SI Nipendra Kumar deposed that on 17.09.2022, he was posted as SI at PS Nand Nagri and on that day, on receiving DD No. 121A at about 10:30 pm, he along with HC Ajay went to GTB Hospital where crowd was gathered. After waiting for sometime, PW9 managed to collect the MLC of injured/deceased Yash. PW9 called beat staff Juber Khan to the GTB Hospital to look after the dead body of deceased Yash in the mortuary. Complainant Prashant met him in the hospital and he requested PW9 to give his statement later on as he was going to his mother at his house. PW9 completed the formalities regarding the deceased Yash and left for the spot i.e. E-3/243, Nand Nagri, Delhi. PW9 reached the spot and met complainant Prashant and recorded his statement/complaint, Ex.PW1/C.
20. PW9 further deposed that he called mobile crime team and forensic team for the inspection. The officials of mobile crime team inspected the spot and took the photographs of the same. Thereafter, PW9 prepared the rukka, dt. 18.09.2022, Ex.PW9/A and handed over the same to HC Ajay for registration of FIR. After sometime, HC Ajay and 2 nd IO/Insp. Nitin Pal Singh came at the spot as the further investigation of the present case was marked to 2nd IO, who prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant.
21. PW10 Ct. Ashok Bhati deposed that on 17.09.2022, he was posted as Constable at PS GTB Enclave and on that day, he was working as duty constable at GTB Hospital, Delhi and on that day, at about 10:30 pm, he gave information at PS Nand State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 11 of 37 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.04.24 12:14:55 +0530 Nagri regarding the admission of patient/injured/deceased namely Yash vide MLC No. BD-2120/08/22.
22. PW11 HC Sanjay deposed that on 26.09.2022, he was posted as Head Constable at PS Nand Nagri and on that day, he was working in the malkhana of PS Nand Nagri. On that day, as per the directions of the IO/Insp. Nitin Pal Singh, he collected the sealed exhibits with the seal of A1 i.e. one wooden box and one sealed envelope from MHC(M)/CP vide RC No. 249/21/22 dt. 26.09.2022, Ex.PW11/A and deposited the same at FSL Rohini vide acknowledgment bearing no. 3099 dt. 26.09.2022, Ex.PW11/B. There was no tampering in the above said sealed exhibits during the period, it remained in his possession.
23. PW12 SI Ankur Singh deposed that on 18.09.2022, he was posted as SI at PS Nand Nagri and on that day, he along with Ct. Deepak went to Mortuary of GTB Hospital for the postmortem of deceased Yash. After postmortem, the dead body of deceased was handed over to his brother Prashant.
24. PW13 HC Sukhveer deposed that he was working as HC/In-charge Record, CPCR at Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and he had brought attested copy of PCR call/ERSS Form (event ID 5806119, dt. 17.09.2022) along with certificate u/s 63 BSA regarding the same, Ex.PW13/A bearing his signature at point A and signature of ACP/Admn/CPCR, Police Control Room, Delhi Police at point B.
25. PW14 Ct. Jubair Khan deposed that on 17.09.2022, he was working as Duty Beat Constable at E-Block, Beat No. 5, PS Nand Nagri. In the evening, he was present in the beat area. On State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 12 of 37 KUMAR Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2026.04.24 12:15:00 +0530 the directions of SI Nipender, PW14 went to GTB Hospital where he met SI Nipender, who directed him to look after the dead body of deceased Yash. On 18.09.2022, SI Ankur and Ct. Deepak came at the mortuary and got conducted the postmortem of deceased Yash. After postmortem, his dead body was handed over to his family members. On 26.09.2022, he was present at PS Nand Nagri and on that day, on the direction of IO/Insp. Nitin Pal Singh, he collected the sealed parcel (seal of NPS) from MHC(R)/CP, PS Nand Nagri vide RC No. 250/21/22, Ex.PW14/A and deposited the same at GTB Hospital. There was no tampering with the above said parcel during it remained in his possession.
26. PW15 ASI Rajender Singh deposed that on 17.09.2022, he was working as ASI at PS Nand Nagri on emergency duty from 08:00 am to 08:00 pm. At about 06:14 pm, he received information vide DD No. 88A regarding quarrel at H. No. E-3/243, Nand Nagri, Delhi. PW15 immediately went to the above said spot where he came to know that accused Rohit had quarreled (kaha-sunni) with his family members and PCR van had taken him to GTB Hospital. PW15 went to GTB Hospital where he collected MLC of accused Rohit, but he could not be found at the hospital. Thereafter, he returned to the above said spot and came to know that accused Rohit had stabbed his brother Yash with a scissors and fled away from the spot. Yash had been taken to GTB Hospital. Even at that time, no public person gave any statement. PW15 handed over the MLC of accused Rohit to IO/Insp. Nitin Pal Singh on 19.09.2022.
State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 13 of 37Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2026.04.24 12:15:05 +0530
27. PW16 Insp. Nitin Pal Singh deposed that on
18.09.2022, he was posted as Inspector /ATO at PS Nand Nagri and on that day in the earlier morning hour, after registration of FIR, the further investigation was marked to him. PW16 along with HC Ajay reached at the spot i.e. E-3/243, E-Block, Nand Nagri, Delhi where he met SI Nipender, who handed over the documents to PW16 and also briefed about the facts of the case. He prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Prashant, Ex.PW7/A (also Mark-X). Thereafter, he along with HC Ajay started search of accused Rohit. PW16 requested nearby residents and passersby to join investigation, but they went away without disclosing their names and addresses.
28. PW16 further deposed that he formed a raiding party along with HC Ajay. Thereafter, they searched accused Rohit nearby District Park, Nand Nagri, Delhi, but in vain. Then they reached at Pilli Mitti, Sundar Nagri, Delhi and met one secret informer, who disclosed them that accused Rohit was standing at the parking of E-Block, Nand Nagri, Delhi. PW16 requested some public persons to join the investigation, but they refused and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. No written notice could be served due to paucity of time. Thereafter, they reached at the parking of E-4, Nand Nagri, Delhi where accused Rohit was apprehended at the instance of secret informer. Meanwhile, complainant Prashant also reached there, who identified accused Rohit. He interrogated and arrested accused Rohit vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/D, he was personally searched vide memo, Ex.PW1/E and his disclosure statement was State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 14 of 37 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.04.24 12:15:11 +0530 recorded vide statement, Ex.PW7/B. Thereafter, accused Rohit was taken to GTB Hospital for medical examination and after medical examination, he was produced before concerned Court by PW16. PW16 obtained one day PC remand of accused Rohit.
29. PW16 further deposed that accused Rohit took them to spot i.e. place of incident and pointed towards the spot and PW16 prepared the pointing out memo, Ex.PW16/A. Accused Rohit produced his wearing clothes i.e. one lower (navy blue colour) on which the words "Nike" were written, one T-shirt (orange colour) with blood stains having sticker of CK Calvin Klein. Some other clothes were brought from the house of accused Rohit and handed over to him for wearing. PW16 kept his above wearing clothes in a white colour cloth and prepared a pulanda and affixed seal of NPS and the seal was handed over to HC Ajay after using. PW16 prepared seizure memo in this regard, Ex.PW7/C and correctly identified the said cloths, Ex.P3.
30. PW16 further deposed that Rohit took them to the pile of garbage (kudakatta) near Gagan Cinema T-point, Sunder Nagri, Delhi and lifted a scissors having handle of yellow colour from that garbage and handed over the same to PW16 and disclosed that it was the same scissors by which he committed the murder of his brother. The scissors was also having blood stains. PW16 prepared the sketch of above-said scissors vide sketch memo, Ex.PW7/D. Thereafter, he kept the same in a plastic box and sealed it with the seal of NPS. PW16 prepared the seizure memo in this regard, Ex.PW7/E and correctly identified the scissors, Ex.P1. PW16 also prepared the site plan of place of State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 15 of 37 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2026.04.24 12:15:19 +0530 recovery, Ex.PW7/F. Seal after use, was handed over to HC Ajay. Thereafter, they returned back to the PS. The case property was deposited in the malkhana by PW16. Accused Rohit was lodged in the lock-up. PW16 got conducted the postmortem of deceased Yash at GTB Hospital through SI Ankur Singh. PW16 recorded the statements of 1st IO/SI Nipender, SI Ankur, Ct. Deepak, Ct. Juber Khan, complainant Prashant, witnesses namely Naveen Kumar and Maya Devi (mother of deceased and accused) u/s 161 Cr.PC.
31. PW16 further deposed that on 23.09.2022, he seized the sealed exhibits i.e. viscera of deceased, cloths of deceased, blood on gauze of deceased and copy of PM Report, given by Dr. Harsh (SR), GTB Hospital vide seizure memo, Ex.PW16/B. On 26.09.2022, he collected/obtained the subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence used by accused Rohit, Ex.P7.
32. PW16 further deposed that on 26.09.2022, he recorded the statements of SI Tej Singh, HC Raghubir, Ct. Jubair Khan and Ct. Ashok Bhati u/s 161 Cr.P.C. PW16 got deposited the exhibits of the present case at FSL Rohini vide RC No. 249/21/22 dt. 26.09.2022, RC No. 250/21/22 dt. 26.09.2022 through HC Sanjay and HC Pradeep (MHC(M)/CP) and recorded their statements u/s 161 Cr.PC. On 19.10.2022, he seized the sealed exhibits produced by Dr. Harsh (SR), GTB Hospital vide seizure memo, Ex.PW16/C. On 21.10.2022, he got deposited the sealed exhibits seized by PW16 vide seizure memo, Ex.PW16/B, through HC Pradeep at FSL Rohini, vide RC No. 281/21/22.
State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 16 of 37 Digitally signed by KUMARKUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.04.24 12:15:26 +0530
33. PW16 further deposed that on 08.12.2022, he along with ACP Mahesh Kumar (Draftsman) visited the spot and he prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW5/A. On 18.09.2022, he seized the original newspaper dt. 24.08.2022 produced by complainant Prashant vide seizure memo, Ex.PW1/F and also verified by PW16 through editor of newspaper Rashtriya Sahara on the request letter given by PW16, Ex.PW16/D. PW16 correctly identified 15 photographs, Ex.P2 (colly) of the spot. After completion of investigation, he prepared and filed the charge- sheet and submitted it before the Court. PW16 had correctly identified accused Rohit in the Court.
34. PW17 Dr. Sarabjit Singh, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) deposed that he was working in Biology Division of FSL Rohini, Delhi since 2014. 4 sealed parcels were received in the office of FSL, Rohini in relation to the present case on 21.10.2022, which were assigned to PW17 for examination. The above said sealed parcels were intact as per the following letter. PW17 opened the parcels and examined the exhibits and prepared his detailed report dt. 18.03.2024, Ex.PW17/A (running into 3 pages). Allelic data was also enclosed along with above said report, Ex.PW17/B. After examination, he came to conclusion that "DNA profile of male origin generated from the source of exhibit 1 (blood on gauze of deceased) is matching with the alleles of DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit '2a' (jacket of deceased) and '4' (scissors).
35. PW18 HC Parvesh Kumar deposed that he was working as MHC(M) at PS Nand Nagri. He brought register no.
State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 17 of 37 Digitally signed by KUMARKUMAR RAJAT Date:
RAJAT 2026.04.24 12:15:33 +0530 19 regarding the entry no. 4838 dt. 18.09.2022 by Insp. Nitin Pal Singh and copy of the same is Ex.PW18/A (OSR). He had also brought copy of RCs bearing no. 250/21/22 and 249/21/20 dt. 26.09.2022, No. 281/21/22 dt. 21.10.2022, Ex.PW14/A, Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW18/B (all OSR). PW16 had also brought copy of the acknowledgment receipt no. 3099 dt. 26.09.2022, Ex.PW11/B (OSR) and copy of acknowledgment receipt no.
3445 dt. 21.10.2022, Ex.PW18/C (OSR).
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED u/s 351 BNSS
36. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 351 BNSS on 07.04.2026 and he denied the incriminating evidence put to him. He stated that all witnesses are interested witnesses and he was falsely implicated by the police officials in the present case. The deceased got injured on his own and suffered injury and he was not at home at that time and later, he came to know that his brother had expired. He did not get recover any scissors or clothes during investigation and same were planted by the police.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE, ANALYSIS OF WITNESSES AND FINDING ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED
37. It is argued by Ld. counsel for accused that he has been falsely implicated by the police and accused had not committed the murder of his brother Yash and he was not present at the spot at that time. He never used any scissors in the commission of alleged crime. There is no video of the alleged incident. All the public witnesses/eye witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the case of prosecution at all and State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 18 of 37 KUMAR Digitally signed by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 12:15:37 +0530 Date: 2026.04.24 did not depose against the accused and disowned their statements recorded by the police during investigation and failed to identify accused as assailant and the scissors used in the crime to inflict injury to deceased. It could not be proved from the testimonies of eye-witnesses that motive of the crime was the property dispute between the accused and other family members and they have identified accused in the court only as a family member and not as assailant. The recovery of scissors is planted on the accused as there is no independent witness or videography/photography of the alleged recovery and nothing has come against him in the FSL report. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. ADDL. PP FOR THE STATE
38. Ld. Addl. PP for State has argued that prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt as the recovery of scissors is proved by PW7 as well as the IO PW16 and accused committed murder of his brother Yash by stabbing said scissors due to property dispute with the other family members and all the PWs have correctly identified the spot from the photographs, Ex.P2 and the accused in the Court. PW1 deposed that accused misbehaved with his mother on 17.09.2022 and all the police officials have supported the case of prosecution and proved the site plan of spot and recovery of scissors, which was recovered at the instance of accused and IO and other police officials correctly identified the scissors, Ex.P1 and supported the case of prosecution. They proved that it was the accused, who killed his brother Yash. As per PMR, the State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 19 of 37 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.04.24 12:15:43 +0530 injuries were antemortem and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and dead body of deceased was identified by his relatives, which is not disputed.
39. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the records.
40. The prosecution has examined 18 witnesses to prove its case including complainant/victim.
41. The charge against accused is u/s 302 IPC.
Section 300 IPC. Murder:
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or .......
Thirdly - If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
42. The present case was registered on the complaint of the complainant Prashant, who alleged that H.No. E-3/243, Nand Nagri was registered in the name of his father, who expired in 2020 due to Covid and the house was transferred in the name of his mother Maya Devi in August, 2012 and accused Rohit wanted to get the said house registered in his name, which led to frequent quarrels in the house. He used to pick quarrels with family members on this issue after drinking alcohol. On 17.09.2022 at 6 PM, accused Rohit started arguing with his mother and brother Yash and threatened to commit suicide, which led to scuffle between him and his brothers, who called the police and Rohit was taken by the PCR, but after medical, he returned home. At State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 20 of 37 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.04.24 12:15:48 +0530 8.45 PM, some altercation took place between him, his brother and mother and he tried to make Rohit understand, but he did not listen and accused Rohit took out a scissors and after chasing, he stabbed scissors in the chest of his brother Yash due to which he became unconscious and fell down and was declared brought dead at GTB Hospital.
PUBLIC WITNESSES
43. PW1 Prashant was an eye-witness and brother of accused Rohit and deceased Yash. He deposed that his brother Yash Kumar died on 17.09.2022 and on that day, at 5.30 PM, accused Rohit misbehaved with his mother on the issue of visiting Shri Khatu Shyam, Rajasthan and he made 100 number call and police took him to PS and he along with his mother was present at 2nd floor and talking to his mausi Hema on mobile and heard hue and cry and saw from the window that Yash @ Golu was lying in front of his house and then, he was taken to GTB Hospital where he was declared brought dead. PW1 proved dead body identification memo, Ex.PW1/A and its handing over memo, Ex.PW1/B.
44. PW1 deposed that he did not know as to who caused death of his brother Yash as he had not seen anything and he had seen him injured when he went down stairs and he did not know who caused that injury. The death of Yash is not disputed, but PW1 failed to identify accused Rohit as assailant and he was declared hostile.
45. During cross-examination of Ld. APP, PW1 denied that his father was the registered owner of said house, but State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 21 of 37 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.04.24 12:15:54 +0530 admitted that his mother became registered owner in August, 2022. PW1 denied that accused Rohit started quarreling with his mother and him as he wanted to get said house registered in his name or that he was habitual drinker and after having liquor, he used to abuse his mother, brother Yash (deceased) and him and used to say them to get the house registered in his name. PW1 also denied that due to bad behaviour of accused Rohit, he was disowned from property in August, 2022 or that on 17.09.2022 at 6 PM accused Rohit started heated argument with his mother, brother Yash and him and also threatened to commit suicide and manhandled PW1 and Yash. PW1 also denied that accused Rohit returned at above house from PS after medical or that at 8.45 PM, he started abusing and quarreling with PW1, Yash and his mother or that PW1 tried to make him understand, but in vain.
PW1 denied that accused Rohit took out a scissors from a room at ground floor of the house and came to kill them and he and his brother Yash ran out of house, but at 10 steps away, accused Rohit stabbed Yash with scissors due to which he fell unconscious or that Rohit had murdered Yash due to property dispute.
46. PW1 denied these facts even after he was confronted with his statement/complaint, Ex.PW1/C and stated that his signatures were taken on blank papers. PW1 also denied that site plan, Mark X (Ex.PW7/A) was prepared at his instance or that his cousin Naveen accompanied him to the GTB Hospital and he disclosed to the police that Rohit killed his brother Yash by stabbing scissors on left side of his chest and fled away from State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 22 of 37 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 12:15:59 Date: 2026.04.24 +0530 spot. PW1 also denied that accused was arrested in his presence and pointed place of incident and personally searched and volunteered that police obtained his signatures on blank papers and denied that he produced page 6 of Rashtriya Sahara Newspaper dated 24.08.2022 on 18.09.2022, which was seized vide memo, Ex.PW1/F or that he was deposing falsely, even though he was confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., Mark Y. PW1 failed to identify the scissors, Ex.P1 used in crime and only identified the photographs of spot, Ex.P2, being the photos of his house.
47. PW1 has not levelled any allegations against accused Rohit in his testimony and disowned his complaint, Ex.PW1/C and his statement, Mark Y and failed to identify the weapon of offence i.e. scissors, Ex.P1. In cross-examination by accused, PW1 admitted that accused Rohit was not present in the house at the time of incident, which further creates serious doubts on the case of prosecution.
48. Another eye-witness is PW3 Maya Devi, who deposed that accused Rohit is her son and his another son Yash Kumar died on 17.09.2022 and his sons including accused were running photography shop after death of her husband and on 17.09.2022 at 5.30 PM, accused Rohit misbehaved with her on the issue of visiting Khatu Shyam temple and his other son made 100 number call and police took accused Rohit to the PS. She along with her son was present at 2nd floor and talking to her sister Hema on mobile. She heard hue and cry and saw from the window that her son Yash was lying in front of her house and she State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 23 of 37 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.04.24 12:16:04 +0530 got down stairs and Yash was taken by PW1 Prashant to GTB Hospital on motorcycle where he was declared brought dead.
49. PW3 deposed that she did not know as to who caused death of her son Yash as she had not seen anything and she had seen him injured when she went down stairs and she did not know, who caused that injury. PW3 failed to identify accused Rohit as assailant and she was declared hostile.
50. During cross-examination of Ld. APP, PW3 denied that accused Rohit used to put pressure on her for registration of said house in his name, which belongs to his father or that he started drinking liquor and quarreling with her to get said house registered in his name. PW3 also denied that she stated to the IO that in the past month, due to bad behaviour of accused Rohit, she disowned him from the said property after consultations with her sons Yash and Prashant and got it published in the newspaper.
PW3 also denied that few days back when she and Yash told this fact to accused Rohit, then he abused them, which led to frequent quarrels and she decided to sale the said property or that on 17.09.2022 at 6 PM, when PW3 along with Yash started talking to accused Rohit, he got angry and started beating Yash, due to which they both sustained minor injuries. PW3 also denied that accused Rohit shouted and said that he would commit suicide, if the documents of said house was not transferred in his name or that at 8.45 PM, returned from hospital and started quarreling with PW3 and said that if, said house is not registered in his name, then he would kill Yash. PW3 denied that accused Rohit took out a scissors from the house and ran towards Yash and State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 24 of 37 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2026.04.24 12:16:10 +0530 Prashant and Yash ran out of house, but accused Rohit stabbed Yash with scissors in his chest and left the spot or that Naveen accompanied Prashant for taking Yash to GTB Hospital.
51. PW3 denied these facts even after she was confronted with her statement, Mark Y2. PW3 failed to identify the scissors, Ex.P1 used in crime and only identified the photographs of spot, Ex.P2, being the photos of her house and cloths of accused Rohit were not disputed.
52. PW3 has not levelled any allegations against accused Rohit and disowned her statement, Mark Y2 and failed to identify the weapon of offence i.e. scissors, Ex.P1. In cross-examination by accused, PW3 admitted that accused Rohit was not present in the house at the time of incident, which further creates serious doubts on the case of prosecution.
53. Thus, PW1 and PW3, who are eye witnesses, have not supported the case of prosecution by not levelling any allegation against the accused Rohit and failed to identify him as assailant and stated that he was not present at the house at the time of offence and disowned their statements recorded by the police during investigation and failed to identify the weapon of offence i.e. scissors, Ex.P1 and they made material omissions, improvements and contradictions in their testimonies.
54. PW2 Naveen Kumar deposed that on 17.09.2022, he came to know that his brother Yash was taken to GTB Hospital, who was declared dead on arrival and he identified his dead body vide statement, Ex.PW2/A. State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 25 of 37 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2026.04.24 12:16:15 +0530
55. PW2 also turned hostile and in cross-examination by Ld. APP, he denied that his cousin/accused Rohit Kumar used to fight and abuse his mother and Yash for getting the H.No. E-3/243, Nand Nagri, Delhi transferred in his name by Maya Devi or that due to bad behaviour of accused Rohit, PW3 disowned him from the said property and got it published in the newspaper and severed relations with him. PW2 also denied that in the evening of 17.09.2022, he came to know that Rohit had stabbed the scissors in the chest of Yash with intention to kill him and fled away from the spot or that he along with Prashant took Yash to GTB Hospital on motorcycle. PW2 denied these facts even after he was confronted with his statement, Mark Y1.
56. PW2 was not an eye-witness and he was a witness of hearsay evidence, but even then he is hostile on that aspect also that it was the accused Rohit, who had stabbed Yash with scissors leading to his death.
57. PW1, PW2 and PW3 have not proved the motive of the crime that accused Rohit had killed Yash as he wanted to get the house E-3/243, Nand Nagri, Delhi transferred/registered in his name and none of them have deposed against accused Rohit that he was the assailant, who killed Yash.
MEDICAL/FORENSIC EVIDENCE
58. Accused admitted the MLC of deceased Yash, Ex.P5, but in that MLC, he was only declared brought dead on 17.09.2022. Accused also admitted the PMR of deceased Yash, Ex.P6 in which there are stab wounds and abrasions on the chest as well as the foot and the cause of death is " hemorrhagic shock State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 26 of 37 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2026.04.24 12:16:19 +0530 as a result of antermortem injury to the heart produced by blunt pointed object and injury no. 1 (stab wound on chest) is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and injuries were antemortem in nature". Accused also admitted the subsequent opinion, ExP7 vide which it was opined that said injury no. 1 could be possible by the weapon under examination i.e. scissors, but injury no. 2 was not possible from that weapon.
59. This PMR proves that deceased was murdered with blunt pointed object, which caused the stab wound and injury to the heart, but the eye witnesses have not named accused Rohit as the person, who caused such injury and deposed that he was not present at the spot at the time of incident, which makes prosecution case doubtful.
60. PW17 Dr. Sarabjit Singh, SSO, FSL Rohini proved his report on DNA analysis, Ex.PW17/A along with allelic data, Ex.PW17/B and concluded that DNA profile from Ex.1 i.e. blood gauze of deceased matched with alleles of DNA profile generated from Ex.2a i.e. jacket of deceased and Ex.4, scissors, but this report does not prove the charge of killing of deceased by accused as identity of accused as assailant has not been established and eye-witnesses failed to identify the scissors as weapon of offence and such forensic report are always corroborative evidence and when there is no other evidence, which it would corroborate, such report does not have much impact to prove the case against accused.State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 27 of 37
Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.04.24 12:16:24 +0530 POLICE WITNESSES
61. PW4 HC Raghbir was the photographer, who went to the spot and clicked photographs and he proved the 15 photographs of the spot, Ex.PW4/P1 and its relevant certificate u/s 65B IEA, Ex.PW4/A. PW5 ACP Mahesh proved the scaled site plan, Ex.PW5/A. The photographs and scaled site plan shows the spot, which is not disputed by the accused during arguments.
PW6 SI Tej Singh proved the SOC report, Ex.PW6/A, but the same does not prove the offence. PW7 HC Ajay Kumar proved that on 17.09.2022, he along with SI Nipendra reached GTB Hospital after receiving DD No. 121A and collected MLC of deceased Yash and then, visited the spot i.e. E-3/243, Nand Nagri, Delhi where SI Nipendra recorded the statement/complaint of complainant Prashant, Ex.PW1/C, which is corroborated by PW9 SI Nipendra, but PW1 had disowned the contents of said statement.
62. PW7 got registered the FIR and that IO SI Nitin Pal Singh prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant, Ex.PW7/A (Mark X), which is corroborated by PW16 IO, but PW1 had denied that site plan was prepared at his instance, which makes it doubtful. PW7 proved that accused Rohit was arrested on the information of secret informer from parking of E Block, Nand Nagri, Delhi and arrested vide arrest memo, Ex.PW1/D, personally searched vide memo, Ex.PW1/E and disclosure of accused Rohit recorded by IO, Ex.PW7/B, which is corroborated PW16 IO, but the arrest of accused is not disputed and nothing was recovered from his personal search. PW7 State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 28 of 37 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.04.24 12:16:31 +0530 proved the seizure memo of cloths of accused Rohit, Ex.PW7/C, which is corroborated PW16 IO, but the said cloths does not prove anything incriminating against the accused.
63. PW7 and PW16 IO deposed that accused Rohit took them to the garbage near Gagan Cinema, Tea Point Delhi and lifted scissors from the garbage and stated that it was same, which was used by him to commit murder of his brother. There is no public witness to the scissors of said scissors, Ex.PW7/E or to the site plan of recovery, Ex.PW7/F and PW7 in his cross- examination admitted that said pile of garbage was having public access, which makes the recovery from a public place, accessible to all, doubtful, particularly when there is no CCTV footage or videography, photography or public witness of said recovery, which is admitted by PW16 in his cross-examination. PW7 and PW16 identified the said scissors, Ex.P1 and the clothes of accused, Ex.P3, but since the recovery is doubtful, their identification is inconsequential.
64. Though the recovery is not proved as per law, but even if it is considered proved, then mere recovery of weapon is not sufficient to prove the charge, when the identity of assailant is doubtful and witnesses failed to identify the scissors, Ex.P1.
65. Even if the recovery is said to be proved as per law, then also it is settled law that mere recovery of weapon, is not sufficient to prove the case against the accused, particularly if identity of assailant is not established.
66. In Radhey Shyam & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan Criminal Appeal No. 2203/2010 decided on 12.04.2023, Hon'ble State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 29 of 37 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.04.24 12:16:37 +0530 Supreme Court held that:
7. Thus, PW4, who claims to be an eye witness, could not identify a single accused by name in the Court though she claimed that she was in a position to identify the accused by their names as well as their respective father's name.
9. We are therefore, of the considered opinion that the identity of the named accused as assailants of the deceased has not been established in the Court beyond a reasonable doubt. Then what remains is the evidence of the alleged recovery of the weapons of assault at the instance of the accused. The conviction cannot be sustained only on the basis of the alleged recovery.
67. In Manjunath & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, 2023 Live Law (SC) 961, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the recovery of a weapon from an open place accessible to all is not reliable.
Hon'ble Supreme Court also held in para 27 that:
"27. Prima facie, in the present facts, the 3 conditions above appear to be met. However, the Trial Court held, given that the discoveries made were either from a public place or from an area where other persons also resided, reliance thereupon, could not be made. We find this approach of the trial court to be correct.
27.1 This Court has, in various judgments, clarified this position, illustratively, in Jaikam Khan v. State of UP, (2021) 13 SCC 716, it was observed:
"One of the alleged recoveries is from the room where deceased Asgari used to sleep. The other two recoveries are from open field, just behind the house of deceased Shaukeen Khan i.e. the place of incident. It could thus be seen that the recoveries were made from the places, which were accessible to one and all and as such, no reliance could be placed on such recoveries."State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 30 of 37 Digitally signed by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.04.24 12:16:42 +0530 27.2 Also, in Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B, (2023) 6 SCC 605, the Court held:
"20. The trial court disbelieved the recovery of cloths and weapon on two grounds. Firstly, that there was no memorandum statement of the accused as required under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and secondly, the recovery of the knife was from an open place accessible to one and all. We find that the approach adopted by the trial court was in accordance with law. However, this circumstance which, in our view, could not have been used, has been employed by the High Court to seek corroboration to the extrajudicial confession.'
68. PW8 Deepak is a witness of postmortem of deceased Yash at GTB Hospital and that concerned doctor preserved the exhibits and handed over to SI Ankur, which is corroborated by PW12 SI Ankur.
69. PW9 proved the rukka, Ex.PW9/A, but that has no affect on the case of prosecution as PW1 and PW3 are completely hostile and disowned their statements recorded by the Police. PW10 had given information to PS Nand Nagri regarding admission of injured/deceased Yash at GTB Hospital. PW11 HC Sanjay proved the collection of sealed exhibits, vide RC, Ex.PW11/A and deposition of the same to FSL Rohini vide acknowledgment, Ex.PW11/B without tampering, but the case property is not identified by PW1 and PW3.
70. PW13 HC Sukhjeet proved the PCR Form, Ex.PW13/A, but that was regarding the initial information of the offence. PW14 Jubair Khan proved that he collected sealed parcel from PS Nand Nagri vide RC Ex.PW14/A and deposited in GTB Hospital. PW15 only visited the spot after receipt of DD No. 88A regarding quarrel of accused with his family members State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 31 of 37 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.04.24 12:16:46 +0530 and he collected the MLC of injured and came to know that Rohit had stabbed his brother Yash with scissors and fled away and his evidence and that of other police officials including IO, is hearsay and not admissible.
71. PW16 IO Nitin Pal Singh proved the pointing out memo, Ex.PW16/A, but that is of spot, which is not disputed. PW16 proved the scissors and sealing of exhibit i.e. viscera of deceased, cloths and blood gauze of deceased and PMR vide seizure memo, Ex.PW16/B on 23.09.2022 and on 26.09.2022, he obtained subsequent opinion, Ex.P7 and got deposited exhibits in FSL Rohini and on 19.10.2022, he seized sealed exhibits produced by Dr. Harsh of GTB Hospital vide seizure memo, Ex.PW16/C. Nothing has come in the deposition of PW16 to prove the charge against accused Rohit.
72. PW18 HC Pravesh corroborated the version of PW16 that entries were made in register no. 19 by IO on 18.09.2022, Ex.PW18/A (OSR) and proved the RCs of the exhibits, which were sent to FSL, Ex.PW14/A, Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW18/B (all OSRs) and also the acknowledgments, Ex.PW11/B and Ex.PW18/C (OSR).
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
73. The accused Rohit had taken defence that all the witnesses are interested witnesses and he was falsely implicated and deceased suffered injury on his own and he was not at home at time of incident and later, he came to know that his brother had expired. He did not get recover any scissors or clothes during investigation and same were planted by the police.
State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 32 of 37 Digitally signedKUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 12:16:52 Date: 2026.04.24 +0530
74. The eye-witnesses i.e. PW1 and PW3 failed to identify accused Rohit as assailant in Court and also the weapon i.e. scissors and admitted in their cross-examination that accused Rohit was not at home at the time of alleged incident and thus, the defence of the accused appears to be probable and plausible. The prosecution has not laid the foundational facts to show that accused had committed crime against the deceased, so the defence of accused is not material as prosecution has to stand on its own legs.
75. Prosecution could not prove that the accused had caused any injury to the deceased Yash with intention to kill him by scissors. Even the motive is not proved as PW1 and PW3 have denied that accused killed Yash due to property dispute, rather they only deposed that on the date of incident, accused misbehaved with his mother PW3 on account of visiting Khatu Shyam Temple, Rajasthan and not due to registration of property in his name. and thus, accused cannot be held liable for the offence u/s 302 IPC.
76. The PW1 and PW3 have made material omissions, improvements, variations and contradictions in their testimonies and their testimonies are at variance with the testimonies of police witnesses, which makes them further, unreliable witnesses, more so when they failed to identify the accused as assailant during the trial.
77. In Kailash Gour and Ors. Vs. State of Assam reported in MANU/SC/1505/2011, (2012) 2 SCC 34, Apex Court has observed that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 33 of 37 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.04.24 12:16:58 +0530 guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is a principle that cannot be sacrificed on the altar or inefficiency, inadequacy or inept handling of the investigation by the police. The benefit arising from any such faulty investigation ought to go to the accused and not to the prosecution.
78. In Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka, dt. 13.10.2022, in Crl. Appeal No. 242/2022, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that it is settled principle of law that when two views are possible from the prosecution evidence, the one which is favourable to the accused shall have to be taken and the benefit of doubt shall have to be given to the accused.
79. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon the prosecution and prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the accused, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Reference may be made to the Judgments titled as 'Nallapati Sivaiah Vs. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur', reported as VIII (2007) SLT 454 (SC) in this respect. Reference may also be made to the Judgment titled as 'Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya Vs. State of Rajasthan', reported as (2013) 5 SCC 722.
CONCLUSION
80. In the totality of the circumstances brought on record by way of evidence, it is observed that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Rohit qua offence punishable u/s 302 IPC.
State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 34 of 37 Digitally signedKUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2026.04.24 12:17:03 +0530
81. Consequently, the accused Rohit is acquitted of the charge u/s 302 IPC.
82. The charts as per the judgment of Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat, (CA No. 2973/2023) of Hon'ble Supreme Court are annexed herewith.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary Digitally signed compliance. by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT RAJAT Date:
2026.04.24 ON THIS 24th DAY OF APRIL, 2026 12:17:13 +0530 (KUMAR RAJAT) ASJ-07/SHD/KKD Court/Delhi 24.04.2026 State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 35 of 37 Specimen Chart for Witnesses Examined.
Prosecution Name of Witness Description Witnesses No.
1. PW1 & Prashant and Maya Injured/Eye Witnesses PW3 Devi
2. NA Witness of last seen circumstances.
3. Admitted MLC/PMR and Medical Jurists by accused. subsequent opinion, Ex.P5, Ex.P6 & Ex.P7.
4. PW16 IO/SI Nitin Pal Singh Investigating Officer
5. PW1 Prashant Complainant/First Informant Specimen Chart for Exhibited Documents. Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by No.
1. Inquest PW1 Panchnama/Memo.
2. Recovery PW7 and PW16 of scissors/Memo, Ex.PW7/E
3. Arrest Memo of accused: PW7 and PW16 Rohit, Ex.PW1/D.
4. Post-mortem Report, Ex.P6 Admitted by accused.
5. FSL Report, Ex.PW17/A. PW17 State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 36 of 37 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2026.04.24 12:17:24 +0530 Specimen Chart for Material Objects/Muddamals.
Material Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested
Object No. by
1. Weapon of offence, Scissors, PW7 and PW16
Ex.P1
2. Clothing accused/victim, PW7 and PW16
Ex.P3
3. Mobile Phone/Electronic NA
Object
4. Vehicle NA
5. Purse/earrings/identity card NA
State Vs. Rohit FIR No. 742/2022 PS Nand Nagri Page 37 of 37
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.04.24
12:17:29 +0530