Delhi District Court
State vs Mandeep Singh on 24 July, 2025
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN GUPTA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04, NEW DELHI
DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC NO. 9346/2016
STATE VS. MANDEEP SINGH
FIR NO. 2/2016
PS VASANT KUNJ SOUTH
(More than 9 years old case)
DLND010025362016
SC No. : 9346/2016
Date of offence : Intervening night of 31.12.2015 &
01.01.2016
Accused : Mandeep Singh
S/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh
R/o K-409, Room No. 102, Gali no.
10, Mahipalpur, New Delhi
State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 1 of 59
2
Permanent R/o L-H, Sugar Factor,
Pili Bhit, U.P.
Offence : U/s 302/201 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused is acquitted for all the
offences.
Date of committal : 12.05.2016
Date of conclusion
of final arguments : 11.07.2025
Date of judgment : 24.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The accused is facing trial for the offence U/s 302/201 IPC.
2. The case of prosecution is that on 01.01.2016 at about 8.05 am, call was received about a dead body outside house no. 257, Gali no. 9, L-Block, Mahipalpur Extension, behind Radisson Hotel. On reaching the spot, the dead body was State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 2 of 59 3 found of a young boy aged 24-25 years. Since the body could not be identified, the same was sent to mortuary and FIR U/s 302 IPC was lodged. The exhibits were seized from the place of incident. For the purpose of the identification of the body, 'HUE and CRY' notice was sent and pasted at various nearby places. Since the body could not be identified, the photo of the body was put on photo zip-net and details were sent to NCRB and other agencies.
2.1. That on 06.01.2016, one person by the name of Surender Singh came to the police station and stated that he along with Ravinder Singh and Mandeep Singh was residing in a rented accommodation for the last two years and Ravinder Singh is missing since 31.12.2015 from 6.00 pm. He searched for him and when he saw the poster of the body, it was similar to that of Ravinder Singh. When he was shown the photograph of the body, he identified him that of Ravinder. In this way, the identity of the deceased was revealed. After investigation, the accused Mandeep was arrested and charge-sheet was filed against him U/s 302/201 IPC.
State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 3 of 59 4CHARGE
3. After hearing arguments on the point of charge and finding a prima facie case against the accused, requisite charge U/s. 302/201 IPC was framed against him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined following witnesses:
A. PW1 HC Rakesh Kumar proved the DD no. 39-A as Ex.PW1/A, FIR as Ex.PW1/B, endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW1/C, the certificate u/s 65-B IEA as Ex.PW1/D. B. PW-2 Dr. Hansraj Singh proved the postmortem report of the deceased Ravinder Singh as Ex.PW2/A. He deposed that the cause of death was cranio cerebral injury and asphyxia due to pressure on neck and face. He deposed that on 21.01.2016, the IO moved the application for subsequent opinion and he State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 4 of 59 5 proved the subsequent opinion as Ex.PW2/B. C. PW-3 Ct. Sandeep proved the DD No. 47B regarding handing over the FIR to the concerned Ld. MM, Joint CP ACP, Vasant Vihar by PW-9 Ct. Mahender as Ex.PW3/A. D. PW-4 Insp. Mukesh Kumar Jain proved the scaled site plan dated 11.02.2016 as Ex.PW4/A. E. PW-5 HC Baldan proved the photographs of the spot from various angles as Ex.PW5/A (1-9) and its negatives as Ex.PW5/B (1-9).
F. PW-6 Dr. Pooja proved the MLC of deceased as Ex.PW6/A. She deposed that the patient Ravinder Singh was brought dead and she observed external injuries on the face and lacerated wound on the back of the head of the body.
G. PW-7 Narender Singh deposed that he, Hayat Singh (PW11) and Ravinder were good friends and they stayed together in the room of Ravinder at Mahipalpur from 29.12.2015 State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 5 of 59 6 to 31.12.2015. On 31.12.2015, while they were present in the room of Ravinder alongwith their other friend Vinod, in the evening, brother of Ravinder, who used to reside in the same room came there and he borrowed Rs. 5000/- from him for the night of 31.12.2015. Thereafter, he alongwith Vinod, Hayat and Ravinder went for attending the New Year Party in Hauz Khas Village. When they were returning back to the room of Ravinder and had reached near Mahipalpur Flyover at about 01:30 am, Ravinder asked them for more drink. Thereafter, they went to toll tax in Chinar, Haryana Border for purchase of liquor. At about 04:00 am in the morning, they reached the room of Ravinder. At the room, Ravinder introduced them to accused Mandeep Singh and informed them about his birthday. Ravinder asked Mandeep to have drinks. They all consumed liquor. After consuming 2-3 drinks, accused Mandeep went to sleep in another room in the front. He alongwith Hayat, Vinod and Ravinder continued to take drinks. While drinking, Ravinder became aggressive and started using abusive language. He was asking for more drink, but they refused. Ravinder threw the liquor upon him. As he became upset, he picked his bag and alongwith Hayat and Vinod left the place. Ravinder was trying to stop them from going, in the State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 6 of 59 7 meantime, accused Mandeep woke up and stopped Ravinder not to do silly things to stop them.
Ravinder pushed Mandeep. He asked Mandeep to handle Ravinder and all three of them left the place. Thereafter, he alongwith Hayat and Vinod went to Chattarpur Metro Station and boarded the metro towards Arjangarh. Thereafter, they went to the room of Vinod. They remained in the room of Vinod on 01.01.2016. Thereafter in the evening of 01.01.2016, they again went to the room of Ravinder as Hayat/PW-11 had left his belongings there. Ravinder had earlier informed them about the place where he used to keep the keys. He opened the room with the keys and collected the belongings of Hayat and left the place. Thereafter, they all returned back to Arjangarh. They stayed there. On 02.01.2016, he received a call from Surender in the afternoon and he was inquiring about Ravinder. He informed him that they had left Ravinder at his room in the morning of 01.01.2016 and also disclosed him the entire incident.
On 03.01.2016, he alongwith Hayat, went to the room of Ravinder and met his brother there and returned back the State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 7 of 59 8 amount of Rs. 5000/- which he had borrowed from him for the New Year Party. Then he and Hayat left for Dehradun. He was called by police on 08.01.2016 and his statement was recorded. He correctly identified accused Mandeep in the court.
During cross-examination, he deposed that he knows Ravinder since 2007 as they were neighbors in Uttrakhand. He and Ravinder used to remain in touch on phone while Ravinder was in Delhi and he was in Uttrakhand. He admitted that Ravinder used to get aggressive after drinking. On 1-2 occasions, he had seen Ravinder becoming aggressive with persons near him after drinking. Last time also, Ravinder created a scene at his cousin sister's wedding after getting drunk and they had to leave him there. He met with Ravinder's cousin namely Surender for the first time 3-4 years back and have met him 2-3 times since then. He, Vinod and Hayat reached Ravinder's flat at about 6-7 pm on 30.12.2015. Surender reached the flat at around 8-8:30 pm. He borrowed money from Surender as he had no money and the banks and ATMs were closed. Surender reached the flat at about 7 pm on 31.12.2015.
State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 8 of 59 9He deposed that when they reached back to the flat of Ravinder, Mandeep opened the door. Mandeep consumed 2-3 pegs of alcohol with them as it was his birthday and he was invited to drink. After drinking, he left to sleep. They also refused to drink any further, however, Ravinder forced them to drink. On this, Ravinder got aggressive and started saying that they will have to drink with him and threw a drink on him (PW7). At this, he got angry. He said to Ravinder that he always does like this whenever he comes and he does not want to stay in his room. They started packing their luggage and Ravinder stopped them. After Ravinder threw drink at him, he got aggressive and they all started abusing each other. Ravinder got further aggressive with him and his friends had to hold him back as he was approaching towards him. He was also throwing the stuff lying in the room all over the place. He started throwing the household items which included pots, table stand, etc. They left the place at around 5 am. At the time when they were leaving, Mandeep was holding Ravinder to allow them to go. While leaving, they asked Mandeep to hold Ravinder back as they knew that Ravinder would not allow them to go out. The landlord had come at around 4:30 -4:40 am when all this ruckus was going on State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 9 of 59 10 and he advised them not to create any nuisance and Ravinder apologized him for the same. They traveled from Mahipalpur after leaving Ravinder's house to Chhattarpur at around 5 am in a car. At 5-6 pm on 01.01.2016, he Vinod and Hayat went to Ravinder's room as Hayat had left his slippers and jeans in the room. They opened the room with the key. On 02.01.2016, when Surender called him and asked about Ravinder, he explained to him all that happened on the night of 31st. On this, Surender said that Ravinder would probably come back as he had done this in the past also. On 3rd, he returned the money to Surender. On 7 th, he received call from Surender to come to Delhi before police. He denied the remaining suggestions given by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
H. PW-8 SI Ajay, the incharge of mobile crime team proved his report as Ex.PW8/A. I. PW-10 Dharender Singh deposed that his son Ravinder was residing with his cousin Surender at Mahipalpur, Delhi. On 06.01.2016, Surender informed him that Ravinder has been murdered. He proved the identification statement of the State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 10 of 59 11 body as Ex.PW10/A and the handing over memo as Ex.PW10/B. J. PW-11 Hayat Singh Khati deposed that he along with PW-7 and Ravinder stayed together in the room of Ravinder at Mahipalpur from 29.12.2015 to 31.12.2015. On 31.12.2015, they started drinking alcohol in the afternoon. Ravinder also joined them in drinking alcohol. In the evening, Surender, cousin of Ravinder arrived at the room. Narender had taken Rs. 5000/- from Surender and thereafter, he along with Narender, Vinod and Ravinder went to Hauz Khas Village for celebrating New Year. They consumed liquor and reached back to the room of Ravinder at around 3.00/4.00 am. Thereafter, Ravinder, Vinod and Narender started taking liquor. As it was birthday of Mandeep, Ravinder asked Mandeep for liquor. They consumed liquor while he was lying besides them. He did not consume liquor. After taking 2-3 pegs, Mandeep went inside his room to sleep as he told them that he had to attend his duty in the morning. Due to consumption of excess liquor, generally Ravinder used to become aggressive and on that day also he became aggressive and started throwing glasses etc. He kicked the cooler and cooler fell down. He threw the small mandir installed in the house. On State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 11 of 59 12 hearing the noise, Mandeep also came there from his room to inquire what was happening. Due to excessive drink, Ravinder was abusive. They told him that they were leaving the room and told Mandeep to take care of Ravinder. Thereafter, Mandeep pushed Ravinder in front of them. He, Vinod and Narender left the room and went to the room of Vinod and stayed there during day time. In the evening, they went to the house of Ravinder as he had left his trouser in the room. Nobody was present there. Ravinder had already told them where the keys were lying. They took the keys and opened the door and he took his trouser and returned back from there. That one person met them outside the house and Narender/PW7 gave him his mobile number for returning back the money which he had taken from Surender. Thereafter, they went to Chinar for drinks and then to the room of Vinod. On 02.01.2016, Surender called Narender and asked about Ravinder. Narender/PW-7 informed him that Ravinder was with Mandeep at the room when they left the room. Surender asked them to call other friends of Ravinder to know his whereabouts. They called his two friends but did not get any information.
State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 12 of 59 13On 03.01.2016, they went to the room of Ravinder to meet Surender. They met him and inquired about Ravinder. Surender told them that earlier also whenever there was a quarrel, Ravinder used to leave the room for few days and he used to return back later on. Surender told them that a murder had taken place in the adjacent Gali on 31.12.2015. On hearing this, Narender told Surender that he should tell the matter to the police. Thereafter, they left for Dehradun and asked Surender to inform them whenever he gets any information about Ravinder. On 06.01.2016 Surender called Narender and asked them to come to Delhi.
He during his cross-examination deposed that he along with Narender reached Delhi on 29.12.2015. They came to Delhi as Ravinder had asked them to come to Delhi for celebrating 31st December. That whenever he met with Ravinder, they used to consume liquor. Ravinder was in the habit of creating ruckus and fighting after consuming alcohol. They used to take care of him whenever he got involved in such a situation. On the occasion of the marriage ceremony of sister of Narender, Ravinder had created an ugly scene after consuming liquor. On State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 13 of 59 14 31.12.2015, they kept drinking liquor from 11.30 am to 4.00 pm in the evening. Then, Surender came to the room. Narender asked for money from Surender. Vinod was also with them since morning. Narender took Rs. 5,000/- from Surender. They left Mahipalpur at around 8-8.30 pm on 31.12.2015 and returned back to the room of Ravinder. They all started drinking. Mandeep sat with them for 15-20 minutes and then went inside. After about half an hour of Mandeep leaving, Ravinder got really drunk and started getting aggressive. There was no issue between them but Ravinder still got aggressive as it was his habit. There was nothing unusual that Ravinder was doing as they had seen him getting aggressive after drinks everytime. He does not know, if, Ravinder threw a drink at Narender or not but he saw him throwing glasses at the wall and on the floor and throwing down the small temple and cooler on the floor which made a lot of noise. Upto that point, Mandeep was not with them as he was in his room. On hearing the noises, Mandeep came out of his room. It would be around 4.30/5.00 am at that point. That time, they immediately got up to leave Ravinder's house for Vinod's house. Since Ravinder had started throwing stuff and was making a lot of noise, the landlord came to the room and knocked. He does State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 14 of 59 15 not remember who opened the door. It would be around 5-5.15 am. When the landlord came, Ravinder was very loud and abusive. When the landlord left, they also left the room after 5 minutes. They had requested Mandeep while leaving to take care of Ravinder. While they were leaving, Ravinder tried to stop them from going and Mandeep tried to stop him as they had requested Mandeep. This was the last when they had seen that Mandeep tried to stop Ravinder from stopping them to leave by pushing him back. He again said "pura dhakka de dia side pe".
He deposed that on 01.01.2016, they got up at around 12.00 pm. In the evening, at around 5-6.00 pm, they went to Mahipalpur at Ravinder's room. They did not try to call any of the three occupants of the house/room. They went to the room as he had left his pant there. He does not remember, if, he called Ravinder, Surender or Mandeep after opening Ravinder's room and leaving without their permission. They knew where the keys were kept. When they left the house, they met a man who was around 20-25 years old outside the gate of the house. Thereafter, they again went to drink and from there they left for the house of Vinod and slept there. He does not remember whether they State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 15 of 59 16 returned the money to Surender on 03.01.2016, when they went for returning the money. Thereafter, they left for Dehradun and came back to Delhi on 06.01.2016 after receiving call from Surender.
K. PW-12 Surender Singh deposed that Mandeep was residing with him at Room No. 102, 1st Floor, H. No. 409, Gali No. 10, A Block, Mahipalpur Extension, New Delhi for the last 2-3 years prior to the incident. His cousin Ravinder Singh started residing in the said room prior to 7-8 months of the incident. On 31.12.2015, at about 06:00 pm, Ravinder alongwith his friends namely Narender, Hayat and Vinod were present at the room. They had planned to celebrate New Year eve at Hauz Khas. He received a call from Ravinder that his friend is demanding Rs.5,000/-. He went to his room. Ravinder asked him to give Rs.5,000/- to his friend Narender. He withdrew money from ATM and gave to Narender. After taking money, Ravinder alongwith his friend Narender, Hayat and Vinod left the room. After some time, he went to the house of his uncle namely Hemraj at Nirman Vihar.
State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 16 of 59 17On 01.01.2016, at about 01:00 pm, when he came to his room from the house of Hemraj, Mandeep was present in the room and all the articles in the room i.e. cooler, temple, glasses and empty bottle of liquor were lying on the floor of the room. When he asked Mandeep as to why the articles were lying scattered, he told him that at 04:00 am, Ravinder alongwith his friends Narender, Hayat and Vinod came to the room alongwith bottle of Old Monk rum. He told him that Ravinder got him up and wished him as it was his birthday on 1st January. He further told him that Ravinder and his friends asked him to join for taking drink. All five persons took liquor. Initially, it was alright and later on there was hot exchange of words between Ravinder and his friends. He further told him that Ravinder was under
influence of heavy liquor and he was abusing other persons under the influence of liquor. He told him that after finishing second drink, he (Mandeep) went to sleep in the room situated towards outside. After that, Ravinder and his friends started making conversation in a loud pitch. On hearing the noise, landlord Kaushal Chaudhary came at the room and scolded and went away. When Kaushal Chaudhary went away from the room, all the three friends of Ravinder also started going away from State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 17 of 59 18 there. He told him that when Ravinder went to the main gate with his friends for requesting them to stay, he (Mandeep) got up and asked Ravinder as to where he is going with his friends and pulled Ravinder inside the room as a result of which Ravinder fell down on the floor of the room. The accused told him that quarrel started between him and Ravinder. The accused told him that Ravinder had given two slaps on his face and started abusing him and gave beatings. The accused told him that thereafter, Ravinder went outside and bolted the room from outside. The accused told him that during the quarrel between him and Ravinder, Ravinder had scattered the articles like cooler, temple, etc. due to which same were broken. When he asked accused Mandeep as to who had opened the gate of the room from outside, he told him that it was unbolted by the son of the landlord. After hearing the said facts from him, he went away to his duty.
On the same day in the evening, he made calls 2-3 times from his two mobile phones bearing No. 9971300204 and 9999439151 on the mobile phone of Ravinder bearing No. 7065668100 for asking his whereabouts but his mobile phone State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 18 of 59 19 was switched off. He called accused on his mobile phone and asked whether Ravinder had come to the room, to which he replied that Ravinder had not come. In the evening, when he came back to his room, he saw all the scattered articles were still lying in the same position. He cleaned the room and went to sleep. When accused returned late night, he asked him whether he had any conversation / contact with Ravinder and he told him that he had not contacted him. On 02.01.2016, in the morning, he went to his duty and in the day hours he made calls many times on the mobile number of Ravinder but it was found switched off. He made calls to the friends of Ravinder namely Narender, Hayat and Vinod but they told him that they did not know about the whereabouts of Ravinder as they had left the room in the early morning of 01.01.2016. He also made call to accused and asked him whether Ravinder had come to the room or he had contacted Ravinder. The accused told him that he had not contacted with Ravinder and he had not come to the room. He deposed that he was not able to find out the whereabouts of Ravinder. On 03.01.2016, he made a call at his house and told all the facts to his mother. His mother made a call to his mausi and his mausi told her that "koi baat nahi hai, Ravinder kahi gaya hoga, aa State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 19 of 59 20 jaayga, kyuki Ravinder pahle bhi aise chala jata tha." He was trying to find out the whereabouts of deceased Ravinder, but, he could not succeed. On 05.01.2016, he was coming to his room from his duty and saw a hue and cry notice in gali No. 9 L-
Block, Mahipalpur, Delhi. The face in the poster was not clear, however, from the clothes and physique, it was appearing of Ravinder. He went to his room and from there he called the accused Mandeep and told about the hue and cry notice. He asked accused Mandeep to tell him the clothes which were worn by Ravinder last time when he left the room. He told him that Ravinder was wearing jacket and blue color jeans. Accused also reached the room from his duty. He asked accused to go to gali No. 9 and to see the poster. After coming back to room, he told him that by the wearing clothes and details, the body shown in hue and cry notice was appearing to be of that Ravinder. He called his mother at his native village and told all the facts to his mother. On 06.01.2016, he alongwith accused Mandeep went to PS Vasant Kunj South. The police officials showed him the photographs through a mobile phone. He identified from the photographs the body to be of his Mausi's son Ravinder. Police officials made inquiries from him and recorded his statement.
State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 20 of 59 21He deposed that when he was in the house of Hem Raj, son of his uncle, at about around 09:30 am, when he got up on 01.01.2016, he saw there were many missed calls of accused Mandeep on his mobile phone. He called accused Mandeep and asked as to why he had made so many calls to him, on which accused told him that "raat ko Ravinder ne bahot Sharab pee aur apne dosto ke saath khub shor sharaba kiya, aur mujhe bhi sharab pilai". He deposed that accused told him other facts on 01.01.2016 when he came to his room. He had called at the house of deceased with regard to his whereabouts and parents of the deceased told him that deceased had not reached and asked him not to worry as he was habitual of the same.
On 02.01.2016, in the morning he went to his duties. He called accused Mandeep from his office as he came to know that one person had been murdered in gali No. 9 and he made inquiries from him and he told him that murder was of one Nepali. He further deposed that initially deceased Ravinder was unemployed and he used to stay with him (PW-12) and accused Mandeep. He and Mandeep used to share the room rent.
State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 21 of 59 22Mandeep was having a girl friend and due to Ravinder (deceased), he was in difficulty to call his girl friend. He told all these facts to the police officials and his statement was recorded by police officials.
On 08.01.2016, he went to the PS and Mandeep was also called there. Narender, Hayat and Vinod, friends of deceased were also called there including their landlord Kaushal Chaudhary. IO recorded the statement of landlord and friends of deceased. The accused Mandeep was arrested on 08.01.2016. IO recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW12/A bearing his signature at point A. Mobile phone make Micromax belonging to accused Mandeep was taken in the police possession by the police and his supplementary statement was recorded. On 09.01.2016, he joined the investigation of the present case and accused took him and the police party at Nelson Mandela Marg about 500 meter ahead of DLF Promenade Mall. There was jungle. At the instance of accused, one polythene containing black color t-shirt, white color t-shirt (full sleeves) and one lower belonging to accused having blood stains was recovered, which was seized vide memo Ex.PW12/C bearing his signature at point State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 22 of 59 23 A. He further deposed that accused stated that the said clothes were worn by him at the time of incident and later on the same were thrown by him. IO prepared the site plan of the above stated place Ex.PW12/C bearing signature of PW12 at point A. On 10.01.2016, he again joined the investigation of the present case and on that day accused took him and police officials to a vacant plot situated at Gali No. 9, L-Block, Mahipalpur. There was garbage in the aforesaid plot. At the instance of accused, one purse belonging to deceased cousin brother was recovered. On checking the said purse, I card of deceased Ravinder, some pieces of paper and one slip of bank were found in the said purse. The accused disclosed that after murdering Ravinder, he had thrown the said purse in the aforesaid plot. The said purse was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/D and site plan of the said place of recovery of purse is Ex.PW12/E bearing signature of PW-12 at point A respectively. He identified the black color t-shirt, another full sleeves white color t-shirt and one lower of black color as Ex.P12/1 to Ex.P12/3, to be the same which were recovered at your instance and were worn by accused at the time of incident. He also State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 23 of 59 24 identified mobile phone make Micromax as Ex.P12/4 and the purse containing ID card of the deceased and one piece of paper recovered at your instance and belonging to the deceased as Ex.P12/5.
He during his cross-examination deposed that on 06.01.2016, he had told all the facts to the police in his statement. He had not stated in his examination in chief that initially it was alright but lateron there was hot exchange of words between Ravinder and his friends as there was discussion with regard to Hauz Khas visit. He does not remember, if, he had asked the friends of Ravinder on what aspect hot words were exchanged amongst them. He had not raised suspicion over friends of Ravinder, even though he had knowledge that hot exchange of words had taken place amongst them on the night of the incident. He had stated before the police on 06.01.2016 and in his testimony recorded on 31.05.2017 regarding call made by him on telephone of accused Mandeep. He admitted that there is no mention of the discussion of any murder with Mandeep on the calls made on 02.01.2016 in both the statements. As far as he remember, he had told to the police that he made call to Mandeep State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 24 of 59 25 and asked about Ravinder. He does not remember, if, he had stated in his statement before the police dated 06.01.2016 and his testimony before the court that he had seen hue and cry notice on 02.01.2016. Till 06.01.2016, he was not having suspicion upon Mandeep in murder of Ravinder. He denied the suggestion that he had stated that Mandeep told him about the murder of Nepali on 02.01.2016 for the first time on 03.05.2018 before the court in order to fill the lacunae of prosecution. He admitted that initially he had seen the hue and cry notice alone and after that he alongwith Mandeep went again to see the same. He admitted that after seeing the photograph in the hue and cry notice, Mandeep told him that from the photographs and the clothes in the said notice, it appeared that the same might be of Ravinder. He admitted that he had not stated to the police in his statement dated 06.01.2016 that at around 9:30 am, when he got up on 01.01.2016, he saw that there were many missed calls of Mandeep on his mobile phone and that he called back Mandeep as to why he made so many calls to him. He had not stated to the police that accused told all the facts to him on 01.01.2016 when he came to the room or that he had called the house of deceased Ravinder to know about his whereabouts and that his parents State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 25 of 59 26 told him that he had not reached the house. He had not stated to the police that Mandeep came late in the night 01.01.2016 as his daily routine and that he had asked whether Mandeep had conversation or contact with Ravinder.
He deposed that he had not stated to the police on 06.01.2016 that Mandeep was having a girlfriend and due to Ravinder he was in difficulty to call his girlfriend at the room. He does not remember the date on which the blood stained clothes of Mandeep were recovered. The distance between the place of recovery and PS is about 400-500 mts. 4-5 police officials were accompanying at that time. It was around 11 am - 12 noon when they went there. It took about two hours in recovery and proceedings on that day. The distance between the place of recovery and the road was about 50-100 mts. The road situated near the place of recovery is a very busy road and it is having three malls. Many persons were passing through the road at that time. No guard or employee was called from the malls to join the investigation. He admitted that except him, no other public person was joined in the investigation at the time of recovery. When he was shown the clothes of the accused and State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 26 of 59 27 asked whether they are blood stained. He deposed "No". He denied the remaining suggestions given by Ld. Defence Counsel.
L. PW-13 Ct. Ravi deposed that on 01.01.2016, on receiving the information about DD 39 A, he went to the spot i.e. H No. 257, Gali no. 9, L Block, Mahipalpur Extn. New Delhi where he met the other police officials. There, he saw the dead body of a young boy was lying with deep wound on the face, head and near the eyebrows. He seemed about 24 years old. On the left side of the dead body, one big piece of brick was lying and on the right side of the head, one small brick piece was lying. Both the pieces of the bricks were stained with blood. Towards the right side of head of the deceased, one blood stained stone (silli type) of red color was lying and one small stone was also lying near the said stone and it appeared that the said small piece of the stone was broken piece of the other stone lying near the said stone. One car make Chevrolet Spark bearing no. DL 9CT 0749 was parked there belonging to Suneet Kaushik. There were blood stains on the left side of the said car. He took the rukka to the PS and got the FIR registered. The exhibits were lifted from the spot and the seal was handed to him after use. After State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 27 of 59 28 depositing the case property, he handed over the seal to IO vide Ex.PW13/A. The photographs of the dead body were taken from the mobile phone. Dead body was sent to Mortuary, AIIMS Hospital. He further deposed that the caller Vineet Kaushik reached the spot and IO recorded his statement. Suneet Kaushik brother of the caller also reached the spot and IO recorded his statement. For the identification of the dead body, hue and cry notice was given to Ct. Deepak and notice was affixed at L block and K Block, Mahipalpur Rangpuri and nearby places. He identified the pieces of brick as Ex.P1 & Ex.P2; dark sticky stained piece of stone/ silli as Ex.P3; tikona piece of stone / silli having blood stains as Ex.P4. Blood contained soil as Ex.P5.
M. PW14 Vinod Singh Kaniyal, deposed that about 5- 6 years ago, his friend Narender Bagga introduced him to deceased Ravinder and they started knowing each other. On 31.12.2015, he alongwith Ravinder, Narender Bagga and Hayat watched TV in the day time and took food. They were waiting for Surender as Narender had to take money from him (borrow). In the evening Surender came at the room and Narender borrowed Rs.5,000/- from him. Then in the evening, he State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 28 of 59 29 alongwith Ravinder, Narender and Hayat left the room for going to Hauz Khas for New Year Eve party. On the way back at about 1:30 am, they purchased a bottle of liquor for Chinar Hotel Gurugram and came back to the room of Ravinder at about 4 am. Accused Mandeep was sleeping in the room. There were two rooms one in inner side and one at the outer side. You were sleeping in the room, situated at outer side. They went to the inner side room and started taking liquor. Ravinder woke up Mandeep and took him in the room where they all were sitting. He introduced all of them to Mandeep. Ravinder told them that it was Mandeep's Birthday on that day. They wished him birthday and started talking with each other. Ravinder offered drink to Mandeep and he told that he would take only 2 drinks as he had already taken liquor. After taking the drink, Mandeep went away in the room situated at the outer side for sleeping. After taking liquor, Ravinder became aggressive and started throwing liquor on the face of Narender and Hayat, due to which there was some noise. Due to the noise, Mandeep woke up and came in the room and asked Ravinder not to do so and took Ravinder to the room situated at the outer side. Narender Bagga and Hayat got angry by the behavior of Ravinder and they packed their luggage. He State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 29 of 59 30 alongwith Narender Bagga & Hayat left the room of Ravinder. Ravinder started stopping them from leaving the room. In the meanwhile, Ravinder and Mandeep started scuffling with each other.
He alongwith Narender Bagga and Hayat left the room of Ravinder, leaving Mandeep and Ravinder in the room. They went to Mahipalpur Chowk & took a cab and went to Chhattarpur Metro Station. From Chhattarpur Metro Station they came to Arjun Garh Metro Station and from there, they went to the room situated at H No. 4, Near Chetan Apartment, Arjun Garh, Aya Nagar, Delhi where he was residing at the time of incident. After taking food, they slept. In the evening, he alongwith Hayat and Narender went to the room of Ravinder as Hayat had left some of his clothes and shoes at the room of Ravinder by mistake. The room was found locked. Narender knew the place where Ravinder and Mandeep used to keep the key of the room. They took the key of the room and opened the room. Hayat took his clothes from there. They locked the room and put the key at the same place. They came downstairs. The boys who were living in the same building were standing on the State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 30 of 59 31 road. Narender gave his mobile number to those boys and asked to give the same to Surender as he had to return the borrowed money to Surender. After that they came back to his room.
On 02.01.2016, Surender called on the mobile phone of Narender and asked about the whereabouts of Ravinder. Surender told that Ravinder was missing from the room. They told him that they did not know the whereabouts of Ravinder and further told that in the morning of 01.01.2016 they had left the room of Ravinder and did not know as to where was he after that, as they did not talk with Ravinder after that. Narender called the friends of Ravinder in order to know about Ravinder. But all the friends told Narender that they did not know the whereabouts of Ravinder. Narender asked Surender to register the FIR with regard to missing of Ravinder. Surender did not register the case as Ravinder used to go from there for a week or more for some time. On 03.01.2016, Narender Bagga and Hayat left his room and went to Dehradun and lateron he was called by the police and his statement was recorded.
During cross-examination, he admitted that after State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 31 of 59 32 taking liquor, Ravinder became aggressive on the day of incident. Narender had told him that after taking liquor, Ravinder used to become aggressive. He met Surender for the first time on 31.12.2015 at the room of Mandeep. He met Mandeep for the first time on 01.01.2016 at about 3:30 - 4 am. He deposed that Ravinder got aggressive with Narender and Hayat on old issue. They tried to calm down Ravinder but could not. Due to the bad behavior of Ravinder, they left the room. He does not know, if, call was made to Ravinder or any one by Narender or Hayat prior to going to the room of Ravinder to collect the clothes and shoes which were left by Hayat. He denied the remaining suggestions given by ld. Defence Counsel.
N. PW15 Dhaan Bahadur deposed that 2 years ago at about 4:45 am / 5 am, he went to clean the cars of Vineet Kaushik and his brother. At about 6:30 am, when he went inside the house of Vineet Kaushik to clean his car which was parked inside the house, he saw a dead body of a young person aged 25 years was lying in the gali between the car of Vineet Kaushik and his brother. Due to fear, he did not tell this fact to anyone and went back to Culcutta Dhaba, Mahipalpur, where he was State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 32 of 59 33 working. After that he went to the house of his niece. When he finished his tea, his niece told him that the owner of the car who was residing in the gali no 9, L Block, Mahipal Pur was calling him. He went to the house of Vineet Kaushik where police met him.
He during his cross-examination deposed that on the day of incident, he woke at about 4:45 am. After waking up, he reached for cleaning the vehicles at around 5 am near the spot. He cleaned 5 vehicles and left the spot at about 5:30 am. He did not notice any person coming or going when he was going from there. He noticed the dead body for the first time at about 6:30 am. At that time, he had not noticed any person running from there. He did not hear any noise of cries even though it was extremely quiet at that time. When he saw the body, he was alone.
O. PW16 Kushal Kumar deposed that he is the owner of house bearing no K-409, Gali no 10, Mahipalpur, Delhi. That accused Mandeep and Surender were residing in his house as tenants in room no. 102 first floor, prior to about 2 years of the State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 33 of 59 34 incident. About 6-7 months prior to the incident, one Ravinder, who was the son of mausi of Surender, also started residing with them. On 01.01.2016 at about 5-5:15 am, he heard noise of abuses from the room no. 102. When he went there, he saw accused Mandeep and Ravinder were scuffling (aapas me chipat rahe the) and were abusing each other. He saw that Mandeep and Ravinder were taking liquor. He asked both of them not to make noise and they both stated that it would not be repeated again and felt sorry.
He during his cross-examination deposed that he does not remember as to who had opened the door on the day of incident, when he went upstairs after hearing the noise. On opening the door, he saw Mandeep and Ravinder. He did not see anybody else in the room as he did not go inside the room. After admonishing them, he came down and lied down. He must have slept after about half an hour. After coming down, he did not hear accused Mandeep calling anybody from the ground.
P. PW17 Suneet Kaushik deposed that on 01.01.2016 at about 8/8:30 am, when he came outside his house in the gali, State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 34 of 59 35 he saw many police officials and public persons were present there. On the date of incident, he saw one dead body of a young male stained with blood was lying adjacent to his vehicle. There is a vacant plot in the Southern Side of the dead body. Two silli types stones of red color were lying near the right side of the wheel of car of his brother which was parked just ahead of his vehicle. One piece of silli was big and another was small. Two pieces of brick were also lying stained with blood. He identified the spot in photograph Ex.PW5/A and the bricks and silli in the photographs as Ex.PW17/1 and Ex.PW17/2 which are part of Ex.PW5/A. He identified the stone / silli as Ex.PW17/ME1 and Ex.PW17/ME2 and the pieces of brick as Ex.PW17/ME3 and Ex.PW17/ME4.
Q. PW18 Ct. Dharmendra Kumar deposed that on 24.02.2016, he deposited the exhibits vide RC no. 28/21 Mark PW18/A in the RFSL vide acknowledgment Mark PW18/B. .
R. PW19 Vineet Kaushik deposed that on 01.01.2016 at about 7:45 am, when he came outside his house, he saw a male dead body of a young person stained with blood lying between State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 35 of 59 36 his car make WagonR and car of his younger brother Suneet Kaushik. He made call on number 100. He deposed on the same lines as PW17 and identified the pieces of bricks and silli in photographs Ex.PW17/1 and Ex.PW17/2 forming part of Ex.PW5/A. He identified the bricks and silli as Ex.PW17/ME1 to Ex.PW17/ME4. .
S. PW20 Ganga Singh proved the identification memo / statement of the dead body of his nephew Ravinder as Ex.PW20/A. T. PW21 Nitish Chaudhary deposed that on 01.01.2016 at about 11 or 12 pm, he was playing cricket with his friends in the street. He heard loud knocking at the door on the first floor of his building. He went upstairs. He found that room no. 102 was bolted from outside and somebody was knocking from inside. When he opened the gate, accused Mandeep came out and said that Ravinder might have bolted the door from outside. Thereafter, he went back to play cricket. He deposed that accused was residing as tenant with Surender and Ravinder.
State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 36 of 59 37U. PW22 ASI Jai Prakash deposed that on 28.03.2016 on the instructions of the IO, he sent one mobile phone to RFSL Yashwant Palace vide RC NO. 21/16 Ex.PW22/1 through PW24 Ct. Manoj. He received the acknowledgment receipt vide Ex.PW22/2 from Ct. Manoj.
V. PW23 HC Bijender deposed that on 21.01.2016, he was posted at PS Vasant Kunj South and on that day MHC(M) gave him one cloth parcel with seal of VK and one viscera box sealed with the seal of AIIMS alongwith two road certificates to be taken and deposited at the Mortuary of AIIMS and RFSL, Yashwant Palace. He initially went to RFSL, Chanakaya Puri & deposited the viscera box and collected acknowledgment receipt. Thereafter, he reached Mortuary AIIMS, where he handed over the second parcel and collected acknowledgment on the RC and returned to police station and handed over the RC and acknowledgment to the MHC(M) and the RC no. 17/21/16 with regard to viscera box is Mark PW23/A and photocopy of the acknowledgment receipt issued by RFSL is Mark PW23/B. Photocopy of RC no. 16/21/16 regarding cloth parcel is Mark PW23/C. On 01.02.2016, on instruction of IO, he went to the State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 37 of 59 38 Mortuary of AIIMS, where doctor handed over one sealed parcel and opinion and he collected the same and handed over to the IO in the police station.
W. PW25 Sh. Kailash Kumar Chemical Examiner, Cyber Forensic Division, FSL, proved his detailed report dated 05.07.2016 regarding one mobile phone of Micromax and SIM Card as Ex.PW25/A. He deposed that call log dated 01.01.2016 could not be found in the retrieved data. The data which was retrieved was provided vide Annexure DVD Ex.PW25/M1. He identified the mobile phone alongwith SIM as Ex.P12/4.
X. PW26 ACP Virender Jain & PW28 SI Jagpal PW26 is the IO of the case and PW28 is the accompanying IO. They deposed that on receipt of DD no 39A, they reached the spot at 8:30 am. They found one male dead body about 25 years was lying on the road in between two vehicles. No eyewitness was found present at the spot. PW26 made endorsement Ex.PW26/A on the DD no. 39A itself and got the FIR registered. PW26 proved the site plan of the spot State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 38 of 59 39 Ex.PW26/B. PW26 & PW28 proved the seizure memo of the exhibits lifted from the spot as Ex.PW26/C. They deposed that since the body could not be identified, hue and cry notice for identification was pasted. PW26 recorded the statement of Vineet Kaushik and Suneet Kaushik. .
PW26 further deposed that on 06.01.2016, Surender came to PS and identified the body to be of Ravinder Singh. He stated that when photo of deceased was found matching with Ravinder, he told this fact to accused Mandeep, who told him that they should make a strategy before going to police station. He further told him that he requested accused to report the missing of Ravinder but he avoided by saying that there is no need of missing report, he will himself come back after some time. On 07.01.2016 after postmortem of deceased, doctor gave viscera exhibits of the deceased in sealed condition which were taken in police possession vide memo Ex.PW26/D. PW26 & PW28 further deposed that on 08.01.2016, they examined Narender, Vinod and Hayat alongwith Surender Singh and recorded their statements. PW26 deposed that as per State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 39 of 59 40 the version of Narender, Vinod and Hayat, they were present alongwith the deceased in the intervening night of 31.12.2015 & 01.01.2016 in the rented accommodation at K-409, gali no. 10, room no. 102, Mahipal Pur, Delhi. They further stated that accused was also one of the participants in the party, however, accused did not admit to have celebrated party as stated by them. On 08.01.2016, on thorough investigation accused admitted that he had murdered Ravinder and disclosed that since Ravinder was not paying the share of rent and was obstacle between him and his girlfriend, therefore, he removed him from his way by killing him. They arrested accused vide memo Ex.PW26/E, conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW26/F. The accused gave the disclosure statement Ex.PW12/A and handed over his mobile phone make Micromax vide Ex.PW26/G. They deposed that on 09.01.2016, accused got recovered one black color t-shirt, one white color t-shirt and one black color lower from the aforesaid place near a sign board of PWD, Local Malba Dumping Ground, which was seized vide memo Ex.PW12/B, the site plan of the place of recovery is Ex.PW12/C. They proved the pointing out memo of the place of incident Ex.PW26/H. They obtained the blood sample of accused in Safdarjung Hospital vide memo State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 40 of 59 41 Ex.PW26/I on 09.01.2016.
Both these witnesses deposed that on 10.01.2016, accused lead the police party to the place where he had thrown the purse and mobile of deceased. He took them in a vacant plot no. L-233, gali no. 9, L Block, Mahipal Pur in front of Royal Blue Dhaba and at his instance, one brown color purse of deceased containing his I Card issued by Pitapit Company having photograph of deceased and his name and address mentioned and other documents was recovered and seized vide memo Ex.PW12/D, the site plan of place of recovery of the purse is Ex.PW12/E. PW26 further deposed that on 14.01.2016, he took into possession sealed parcel containing cloth of deceased produced by Ct. Jitender as Ex.PW26/J. He proved the information regarding unidentified dead body as Ex.PW26/K, inquest papers as Ex.PW26/L and statement of Ganga Singh and Virendra Singh as Ex.PW20/A and Ex.PW10/A. MLC of deceased as Ex.PW6/M. Postmortem report as Ex.PW2/A. The blood sample of accused was collected vide MLC as State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 41 of 59 42 Ex.PW26/N. The FSL regarding examination of different exhibits including clothes of accused as Ex.PW26/O. The subsequent opinion is Ex.PW26/P. PW26 further deposed that on 29.03.2016, he examined Nitish Chaudhary who stated that on 01.01.2016, he opened the door of Room No. 102 which was bolted from outside on the request of accused as he was inside the room.
Both these witnesses identified the seizure memos as Ex.PW12/B to Ex.PW12/D and case property as Ex.P12/1, Ex.P12/A, Ex.P12/1 to Ex.P12/5. They also identified the case property Ex.PW26/1 to Ex.PW26/8.
PW26 during his cross-examination deposed that he had not issued any notice to the accused for joining the investigation. He volunteered that Surender, colleague of accused himself came to the police station and thereafter accused was called. He deposed that he does not know, whether, he made any efforts to get the call details of the deceased. He admitted that he had not filed any call details of the deceased on record. PW28 during his State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 42 of 59 43 cross-examination deposed that a lot of blood stains were present on the shirt of the accused. Both PW26 & PW28 denied all the suggestions given by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
Y. PW-27 Dr. V. Sankaranarainan proved the detailed biological examination report as Ex.PW26/O. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, all the incriminating material available on record was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC to which he pleaded innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He stated that nothing was recovered at his instance or in his presence. Police officials took his clothes from his room. His mobile phone was taken on 06.01.2016. He has no knowledge about the purse and other documents of the deceased as they were never recovered in his presence or at his instance. He stated that the witnesses have deposed falsely against him as he was a soft target and to protect the real accused. He chose not to lead DE.
State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 43 of 59 44ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
6. Heard arguments on behalf of ld. Addl. PP for the State, ld. Defence counsel and perused the complete record file. The accused is facing trial for the offence u/S. 302/201 IPC. The prosecution in order to prove the offence U/s.302 IPC against the accused has to prove :
A. The presence of accused on the spot at the time of incident.
B. His identification by the eye witness.
C. The injuries caused to the deceased and medical
opinion as regards cause of death.
D. The motive of the accused in causing death of
deceased.
7. In the present case, there is no eye-witness to the incident. The case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The normal approach in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused;
that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 44 of 59 45 complete that there is no escape from the conclusion, that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. [Reliance placed on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 & Mohd. Arif v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 13 SCC 621 & Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (2024) 1 SCR 248].
8. Let me therefore, examine whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt, the entire chain of circumstances, not leaving any link missing for the accused to escape from the clutches of law. The circumstances which are said to have been proved on behalf of the prosecution are as follows:
1. Last seen together
2. Presence of accused at the spot
3. Recovery of purse of deceased at the instance of accused
4. Recovery of clothes of the accused at the instance of accused
5. Motive State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 45 of 59 46 LAST SEEN TOGETHER
9. The most important circumstance, among all, must be the circumstance of the accused and deceased having been last seen together. As per prosecution, in the early morning of 01.01.2016 at around 4:30 - 5 am, when the deceased Ravinder who was taking liquor with his friends PW7 Narender Singh, PW11 Hayat and PW14 Vinod Singh, some argument took place between them. On hearing the noise, accused Mandeep who was sleeping in the other room came out. The argument increased and on hearing the noise, the landlord PW16 Kushal Kumar also came to the room. The accused Mandeep and Ravinder, who were his tenants and residing in the room assured him that they would not create ruckus. Thereafter, the landlord left. PW7, PW11 and PW14 deposed that after the landlord left, since Ravinder became aggressive, they also left the room at around 5- 5:30 am, leaving Mandeep and Ravinder in the room.
9.1. As per prosecution, the body of one male was found in the back gali at around 6:30 am on 01.01.2016 by the car cleaner PW15 Dhan Bahadur and the body was subsequently State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 46 of 59 47 identified that of Ravinder on 06.01.2016 by PW12/Surender and accused. The case of prosecution is based on the premise that Ravinder was last seen / left with Mandeep in the room and subsequently his body was found, raising suspicion on accused Mandeep.
9.2. On the issue of last seen together evidence, in State of U.P. v. Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
"The last-seen theory comes into play where the time- gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the part of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long time gap and possibility of other person coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. "
9.3. This position was reiterated in Hatti Singh v. State of Haryana (2007) 12 SCC 471.
State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 47 of 59 489.4. Bearing in mind the settled position of law regarding the applicability of the last seen theory, the Court has to examine the evidence of last seen available in the present case. The prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW7, PW11, PW12 & PW14.
9.5. It is argued by ld. Defence Counsel that the body of Ravinder was recovered from the gali and not from the room where he was last seen by the prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted that PW21 Nitish Chaudhary, who is the son of the landlord, deposed that he opened the room which was bolted from outside at around 11-12 pm on 01.01.2016 and accused Mandeep was found inside the room. It is submitted that the testimony of PW21 proves that after friends of Ravinder left the room, Ravinder also went after them bolting the room from outside, which was subsequently opened by PW21 on the next day on 01.01.2016 at around 11-12 noon /pm. 9.6. Per contra, it is argued by the ld. APP for the State that accused Mandeep in his disclosure statement Ex.PW12/C has State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 48 of 59 49 disclosed that after committing the murder of Ravinder, he returned back to the room and asked one passerby to lock the room from outside.
9.7. Admittedly, the concerned passerby is not a witness in the present case. On perusal of the case file, it is revealed that no efforts were made by the IO to trace the said passerby. The fact remains that PW21 Nitish Chaudhary, who was also residing in the same building had deposed that he heard loud knocking at the door on the first floor of his building. He went upstairs and saw that room no. 102 was bolted from outside and somebody was knocking from inside. When he opened the door, Mandeep came out and said that Ravinder might have bolted the door from outside.
9.8. It is not the case of prosecution that the accused was seen with the deceased Ravinder by someone in the gali where his body was found. PW15 Dhan Bahadur during his cross- examination has deposed that he reached for cleaning the vehicles at around 5 am near the spot. He cleaned 5 vehicles and left the spot at about 5:30 am. He did not notice any person coming or State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 49 of 59 50 going when he was going from there. He noticed the dead body for the first time at about 6:30 am. At that time, he had not noticed any person running from there. He did not hear any noise of cries even though it was extremely quiet at that time. When he saw the body, he was alone.
9.9. It is not the case of prosecution that accused after committing the murder of deceased shifted the body in the gali from where it was recovered. There is no evidence on the said aspect.
9.10. Thus, in view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused was last seen together with the deceased at or nearby the place where the body of the deceased was found by PW15 in the morning of 01.01.2016.
PRESENCE OF ACCUSED AT THE SPOT
10. The prosecution has not lead any evidence to show that the accused was present at the spot where the body of the State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 50 of 59 51 deceased was discovered. There is no witness who had seen the accused going with the deceased at the said place or near to the said place on the date and time of the incident. In the present case, the IO had seized the mobile phone of the accused, however, the prosecution has not filed the CDR details of the accused to prove that he went or was present on the spot where the body was recovered and the places where he threw his clothes and purse of the deceased. In the absence of any such evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove the presence of accused at the place of incident, where the body of deceased was found.
RECOVERY OF ARTICLES AT THE INSTANCE OF ACCUSED:
11. Before discussing in detail the articles which were recovered at the instance of the accused, it is relevant to discuss the law on this aspect. The conditions necessary for the applicability of Section 27 of the Act are broadly as under:
(1) Discovery of fact in consequence of an
information received from accused;
State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 51 of 59
52
(2) Discovery of such fact to be deposed to;
(3) The accused must be in police custody when he
gave information; and
(4) So much of information as relates distinctly to the
fact thereby discovered is admissible - Mohd. Inayatullah v. The State of Maharashtra: AIR (1976) SC 483 Two conditions for application -
(1) information must be such as has caused discovery of the fact; and (2) information must relate distinctly to the fact discovered − Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka: AIR (1983) SC 446"
11.1. It is no more res-integra that need of examining independent witnesses, while making recoveries pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused is a rule of caution evolved by the Judiciary, which aims at protecting the right of the accused by ensuring transparency and credibility in the investigation of a criminal case. In the present case, PW8 is the independent witness in addition to the police officials in whose presence recovery was effected.
11.2. In the landmark case of Pulukuri Kottaya v. King-State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 52 of 59 53
Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67, the Privy Council has laid down the relevance of information received from the accused for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Relevant extracts from the judgment are as under:
"10. Section 27, which is not artistically worded, provides an exception to the prohibition imposed by the preceding section, and enables certain statements made by a person in police custody to be proved. The condition necessary to bring the section into operation is that the discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of a Police officer must be deposed to, and thereupon so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved. The section seems to be based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true, and accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in evidence; but clearly the extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate."
RECOVERY OF PURSE OF THE DECEASED AND BLOOD STAINED CLOTHES OF ACCUSED AT THE INSTANCE OF ACCUSED:
12. The prosecution has relied upon the recovery of purse of the deceased at the instance of accused. PW12, PW26 & PW28 deposed that on 09.01.2016, accused took them to Nelson State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 53 of 59 54 Mandela Marg, about 500 mts ahead of DLF Promenade Mall. There was jungle. At the instance of accused, one polythene was recovered. Same was having one black color t-shirt, one white color t-shirt and one lower belonging to accused. They were having blood stains. The same were seized vide memo Ex.PW12/B. 12.1. These witnesses further deposed that On 10.01.2016, accused took them to a vacant plot situated in gali no. 9, L Block, Mahipalpur. There was garbage in the aforesaid plot. At the instance of accused, one purse belonging to deceased was recovered. It was found containing ID card of deceased, some pieces of paper and one slip of bank. It was seized vide memo Ex.PW12/D. 12.2. Admittedly, both the recoveries were made from open pieces of land which are accessible to general public. PW12 during his testimony deposed that the road situated near the place of recovery is a very busy road and it is having three malls. Many persons were passing through the road at that time. No guard or employee was called from the malls to join the investigation. He State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 54 of 59 55 admitted that except him, no other public person was joined in the investigation at the time of recovery.
12.3. In the present case, the IO has not joined any independent witness despite the fact that the place of recovery is a crowded place and a lot of public persons were available, which creates doubt about the said recovery at the instance of the accused.
12.4. As per the prosecution, the blood stained clothes of the accused were recovered. The said clothes were sent to FSL. As per the FSL report Ex.PW26/O, the blood stains were found only on the Ex.17a i.e. t-shirt (of accused) and the blood which was found was of the accused himself and not the deceased. As per the FSL report Ex.PW26/O, the blood of deceased was not found on the clothes of the accused which were allegedly recovered at his instance.
12.5. Thus, the prosecution has not only failed to prove the alleged recovery at the instance of accused but has also failed State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 55 of 59 56 to prove that the accused was wearing the same clothes at the time of incident which were recovered at his instance or that they contain the blood of the deceased.
MOTIVE
13. The prosecution has also failed to prove the motive behind the murder. In a case where the other circumstances have not been convincingly proved its becomes imperative for the prosecution to prove the motive for the crime as explained by the Supreme Court in Arjun Marik vs. State of Bihar; 1994 Supp (2) SCC 372 in the following words: "..........mere absence of proof of motive for commission of a crime cannot be a ground to presume the innocence of an accused, if, the involvement of the accused is otherwise established. But it has to be remembered that in incidents in which the only evidence available is circumstantial evidence, then in that event, the motive does assume importance, if, it is established from the evidence on record that the accused had a strong motive and also an opportunity to commit the crime and the established circumstances along with the explanation of the accused, if any, exclude the reasonable possibility of anybody State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 56 of 59 57 else being the perpetrator of the crime then the chain of evidence may be considered to show that within all human probability the crime must have been committed by the accused".
13.1. It is relevant to evaluate the testimony of the cousin brother of deceased i.e. PW12 Surender on this aspect. He during his testimony deposed that Mandeep was having a girl friend and due to Ravinder (deceased), he was in difficulty to call his girl friend. The statement of PW12 u/s 161 CrPC was recorded on 06.01.2016, however, he did not disclose any such fact in the said statement. The said fact was disclosed by him for the first time in his statement recorded on 07.01.2016. It is a settled canon of appreciation of evidence that a presumption cannot be raised against the accused either of fact or in evidence. Equally true is the rule that evidence must be read as it is available on record. Nothing has been brought by the prosecution to show that there was any fight or quarrel between the accused and Ravinder on the said aspect earlier. The statement made by PW12 is a general statement and does not prove any motive.
14. The entire case of prosecution is based on suspicion State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 57 of 59 58 of PW12 Surender. It is a trite proposition of law, that suspicion however grave, it cannot take the place of proof and that the prosecution in order to succeed on a criminal charge cannot afford to lodge its case in the realm of "may be true" but has to essentially elevate it to the grade of "must be true".
15. In a criminal prosecution, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof and in a situation where a reasonable doubt is entertained in the backdrop of the evidence available, to prevent miscarriage of justice, benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused. Such a doubt essentially has to be reasonable and not imaginary, fanciful, intangible or non-existent but as entertainable by an impartial prudent and analytical mind, judged on the touch stone of reason and common sense. It is also a primary postulation in criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence available, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the one favourable to the accused ought to be adopted".
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the material State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 58 of 59 59 available on record, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish the circumstances in which the accused alleged to have killed the deceased. The testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution is insufficient to prove the involvement of the accused in the incident. As the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused Mandeep Singh, he is hereby acquitted of the charges for the commission of offences punishable under Section 302/201 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (KIRAN GUPTA) COURT ON 24.07.2025 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-04 NEW DELHI DISTRICT PATIALA HOUSE COURTS NEW DELHI State Vs. Mandeep Singh Page No. 59 of 59