Delhi District Court
State vs Rahul Kumar on 9 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. POOJA TALWAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)WEST
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
In the matter of:
STATE
Vs.
Rahul Kumar
FIR No.41/17
Police Station: Paschim Vihar East
JUDGMENT
1. Sl. no. of case Sessions Case No.318/17
2. CNR no. DLWT010046892017
3. Date of Institution 23.05.2017
4. Date of Commission of 07.02.2017
offence
5. Name of the accused Rahul Kumar
S/o Ram Kumar
R/o H. No.1369, Mohalla-Ahiryan,
Village-Bahadurgarh, PS Derakutti,
District-Hapur, U.P.
6. Offence Complained of Section 302 IPC
Section 201 IPC
7. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of reserving the 28.01.2026
judgment
9. Final order Acquitted
POOJA
10 Date of pronouncement 09.02.2026 TALWAR
of judgment
Digitally signed
by POOJA
TALWAR
Date:
SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 1 of 52 2026.02.09
10:59:59 +0530
FIR no.41/17
Case of the prosecution
1. Story of the prosecution is based on the statement of complainant Brahmjeet Singh that he alongwith his brother Navrattan were engaged in the business of selling flower at Jawala Heri Chowk. Pushpender, brother-in-law of his brother Navrattan used to work for him. On 07.02.2017 at about 8.30 pm Pushpender left the shop informing the other employee about collection of order. He informed his sister Seema telephonically that he had collected Rs.30,000/- and would reach home at the earliest. When he did not return back home, around 1:00 am, his sister Seema informed his brother-in-law Brahmjeet about the same. They started searching him and around 3:00 am they found his motorcycle at Paschim Vihar Main road. They went inside the park and found the dead body of Pushpender. He had head injury and his face had been crushed with a stone. He called the police. Crime Team inspected the place of incident and seized the currency notes of Rs.100/-x100/-, 20/- and 10/-. Dead body was sent for postmortem.
2. During investigation on 12.02.2017 IO scrutinized the CDRs of deceased and suspect persons. It was revealed that location of mobile phone of deceased Pushpender was at Siraspur around 2:00 am and in outer Ring Road Rohini at 6:00 am Keeping in mind the location, the IO inquired from brother-in- law of the deceased who informed that their relative Pinku resides there. When they reached the house of Pinku one Pawan and Rahul were present there. When Rahul was interrogated he gave misleading answers and accordingly his personal search POOJA was carried out during which one mobile phone was recovered.
TALWAR The said mobile phone was identified by Navrattan as the one Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 2 of 52 Date: 2026.02.09 FIR no.41/17 11:00:05 +0530 belonging to deceased. Upon interrogation Rahul confessed to his guilt and was accordingly arrested.
3. On the basis of complaint, FIR under Section 302/201 IPC was registered.
Charge
4. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302 IPC and Section 201 IPC vide order dated 31.07.2017.
Prosecution evidence
5. In order to prove its case prosecution examined twenty four witnesses as under :-
Material Witnesses:
(i) PW3: Brahmjeet Singh deposed in his testimony that:
"I am a floweriest. I am having a shop at Jawala Heri Chowk, in front of Green Apartment, Paschim Vihar. We are six brothers who are doing the same business in nearby locations. My 3rd brother namely Navrattan is also having a shop at Jawala Heri Chowk, in front of Green Apartment, Paschim Vihar. On 07.02.2017, in the day time my aforesaid brother had received information that wife of his brother-in-law (sala) was not well, so he went to Bulandshahar to see her. Pushpender (since deceased) who was the brother-in-law (sala) of Navrattan used to work for him since childhood. On the aforesaid date Navrattan had directed Pushpender for collection of money from the clients. Sister of Pushpender namely Seema (wife of Navrattan) POOJA had called Pushpender and he had informed her that he had collected TALWAR Rs.30,000/-. At about 8.30 p.m., Pushpender had told Pawan who Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 3 of 52 Date:
FIR no.41/17 2026.02.09
11:00:10 +0530
was also working at the shop of Navrattan that he was going to take order at Multan Nagar. Thereafter, Seema had called Pushpender 1-2 times around 10.00 p.m. and asked him as to why he had not come by that time. Pushpender had informed her that he had collection of Rs.30,000/- and he would be coming soon. Thereafter, the mobile phone of Pushpender was found switched off. Seema kept on waiting for Pushpender till 12.00 midnight but he did not come. Thereafter, she called up Navrattan and told him that Pushpender had informed her that he had collected Rs.30,000/- and he would be coming soon but he had not reached home and his phone was going switched off. Navrattan asked her to inform me and my brothers Bobby, Ankit and Rambir, so that they could go and search for Pushpender. At about 1.00 a.m., Seema came to my house and apprised me about the aforesaid fact. Thereafter, I alongwith Bobby, Ankit, Rambir and other boys (who were working with us) started searching for Pushpender. At about 2.30 a.m., when I reached at the road of B-3, Paschim Vihar, I saw that a white colour bike make TVS was parked on the road on the side of park. So far as I remember, the aforesaid bike bearing No.8304 and the same was used by Pushpender for going to Multan Nagar for taking order. I called up my other brothers and asked them to come at the aforesaid place. After some time, my bothers namely Bobby, Ankit, Rambir and Himmat alongwith other boys came there. We went inside the park and we used the flash light of our mobile phones for searching for Pushpender. When we reached 20-25 meters inside the park, we saw that blood was lying on two places on the track (hard surface). We got scared and we started searching the other areas of the said park. During the search, my brother Bobby found that dead body of Pushpender was lying near a bush 20-25 meters ahead of the place where blood was lying. POOJA Bobby called all of us at the spot and when we reached there we TALWAR Digitally signed SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 4 of 52 by POOJA FIR no.41/17 TALWAR Date:
2026.02.09 11:00:15 +0530 found that the dead body of Pushpender was lying on the right side of the track (from the side of B-3 entrance gate). We saw that he was having injury on his head and there was a lot of blood over the right side ear of Pushpender and his face was crushed. We also noticed that a big size stone having blood was lying at some distance from his body. I called at 100 number and PCR van arrived at the spot. After some time, police officials of P.S. Paschim Vihar also arrived at the spot. The spot was cordoned by the PCR officials. After some time, dog squad also arrived at the spot. Thereafter, another team of police officials also arrived at the spot, out of which one official had clicked photographs of the dead body and the spot. My statement was recorded by the IO. The same is Ex.PW3/A bearing my signature at point A. On the basis of my complaint FIR was registered. Dead body was sent to SGM Hospital, Mangolpuri by the IO. The IO had lifted blood from blood stained heavy stone, from the spot nearby the stone with the help of cotton. The currency notes (two notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- one note of the denomination of Rs.20/- and one note of the denomination of Rs.10/-) which were wet due to dew, one white colour mobile lead, one artificial golden colour chain which were lying near the dead body and one key of the white colour TVS bike were lifted by the IO. The IO had also lifted blood from two places of the cemented way by breaking the blood stained cemented material.
IO had placed the blood stained exhibits in plastic dibis and separately seal the same with his seal. IO had placed artificial chain and mobile lead, Key and currency notes in plastic polythene and sealed the same with his seal. IO had seized the aforesaid exhibits POOJA and articles vide seizure memos Ex.PW3/B Ex.PW3/C and TALWAR Ex.PW3/D all bearing my signature at point A. The IO had also Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 5 of 52 Date:
FIR no.41/17 2026.02.09
11:00:20 +0530
seized the white colour TVS motorcycle which was standing on the service road between IFCI and B-III Block Park vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/E bearing my signature at point A. Heavy stone was also seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/F bearing my signature at point A. The aforesaid bike was got released by my brother Naw Rattan Singh on superdari and I had signed on the punchnama Ex.PW3/G bearing my signature at point A. I can also identify the case property, if shown to me. At this stage, MHC(M) has produced one sealed polythene bearing case particulars of the present case and sealed with the seal of "MS". After breaking the seal of the polythene, one artificial golden chain, one key alongwith key ring of TVS bike, one white colour mobile lead and currency notes to the tune of Rs.230/- (two notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- one note of the denomination of Rs.20 and one note of the denomination of Rs.10/-) are taken out of it. The same are shown to the witness and the witness has correctly identified the same. Same are now exhibited as Ex.P-1 (colly).
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced one sealed plastic katta bearing case particulars of the present case and sealed with the seal of "FSL". After breaking the seal of the plastic katta, one heavy stone having brown stains is taken out of it. The same is shown to the witness and the witness has correctly identified the same. Same is now exhibited as Ex.P-2.
At this stage, 4 photographs of white colour TVS bike bearing No.DL-8SBV-8304 alongwith CD from the judicial record are shown to the witness and witness has correctly identified the bike. POOJA TALWAR The same are collectively Ex.P-3. (The identity of bike is not disputed by the Ld. Counsel of accused.)" Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date:
2026.02.09 11:00:31 +0530 SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 6 of 52 FIR no.41/17
(ii) PW8: Nav Rattan deposed in his testimony that:
"I sell flowers on the road side in the area of Paschim Vihar. It was on 07th of February, before two years, I went Bulandsher. U.P. as my sister-in-law was to be admitted in the hospital due to her advanced pregnancy. I reached there at about 8.00 p.m. in Bulandsher. On that day, at my instance my friend Ravinder had given an amount of Rs.23,000/- to my brother-in- law Puspender. On that day, Puspender sold flowers for an amount of Rs.7,000/-. I asked Puspender to handover the total amount of Rs.30,000/- to my wife namely Seema (sister of Puspender), at Delhi.
On 07 of February itself at about 8.30 p.m., I made a call to my wife. I inquired about Puspender. She stated that Puspender had not yet reached and would be coming to her. Again at about 9.00 p.m., I made another call to my wife but even by that time Puspender did not meet my wife. Finally, I made a call to my at about 11.00 p.m. and at that time my wife stated that she had a talk with her brother and Puspender was saying that he would be reaching within 5 minutes. Then I went to sleep. At about 1.00 a.m., I received a missed call from my wife and then I made a call to my wife. My wife stated that Puspender had not yet reached there. I asked my wife to contact my elder brother Brahmjeet, so, that he would be able to trace Puspender. Even I also had a talk with my brother Brahmjeet through my wife. I asked my brother Brahmjeet to trace Puspender.
At about 2.00 a.m. I received a call from Brahmjeet and he stated that someone had murdered Puspender in a park situated in POOJA TALWAR the area of Paschim Vihar, near water tank, Delhi. Immediately, 1 alongwith my father-in-law, mother-in-law and elder brother- Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 7 of 52 Date:
2026.02.09
FIR no.41/17 11:00:39 +0530
in-law namely Udyaveer, whose wife was admitted in the hospital for delivery, started from Bulandsher in Maruti Van and within 2-2½ hours, we reached Delhi.
After reaching at Delhi, I was told by the CBI Officers and Local Police Officials that the location of the mobile of deceased Puspender was that of Siraspur, Rohini, Delhi. Police officials inquired about from me regarding Siraspur and then I stated that sister of Rahul resides in the area of Siraspur. Rahul is my nephew (bhanja). I alongwith other 10-12 police officials went at the house of Babita sister of Rahul. We did not find any person there except Pinku, husband of Babita, who was lifted from there by the police.
I made a call to Rahul and I asked him to meet with the police official. Later on, Rahul was apprehended from Badli Railway Station. Police officials conduct the search of accused Rahul and from the pocket of jeans pant, one black colour mobile was recovered. I identified that mobile as the same was Puspender, my brother-in-law. The mobile phone was seized by the police. I inquired from Rahul as to from where he got the mobile phone of Puspender. He was also interrogated by the police and he admitted his guilt that he has murdered Puspender. I identify accused Rahul, who is present before the Court (witness has identified the accused).
Later on, one SIM of mobile of deceased Puspender was also got recovered at the instance of accused Rahul but I do not remember the exact area from where the SIM was recovered. The SIM was also seized by the police.
I have seen the seizure memo of the mobile phone of deceased Puspender, which is now Ex.PW-8/A which bears my signature at POOJA point 'A'. Accused Rahul was arrested by the police vide arrest memo TALWAR now Ex.PW-8/B which bears my signature at point A. Personal Digitally signed by POOJA search memo of the accused is Ex.PW-8/C which bears my signature TALWAR Date: 2026.02.09 11:00:45 +0530 SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 8 of 52 FIR no.41/17 at point A. Police officials recorded the disclosure statement of accused vide Ex.PW-8/D which bears my signature at point A. I have also seen the seizure memo of the SIM prepared by the police, the same is now Ex.PW-8/E which bears my signature at point A. The mobile phone recovered from accused Rahul Kumar was kept in a pulanda and pulanda was sealed and taken into possession. Thereafter, on the same day accused led us to village Bajit Pur. Accused got recovered one sim card, probably of Vodaphone company, from a dug up hole near a wall in a jungle. However, the other sim card could not be recovered. The said sim card was also sealed in a pulanda and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/E. On next day, accused led us to Farak Nagar, Gurugram. Accused got recovered one pair of black leather shoes and same was sealed in a pulanda and same was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/F bearing my signature at Point 'A'.
On next day accused led us to 'badi wali nahar jisme pani aata hai and IO called the gotakhor and they tried to trace the cloths which was worn by the accused at the time of the incident but same could not be recovered. Thereafter, accused led us to Jwala Heri and accused got recovered one mobile phone make Nokia from under the tyre and same was sealed and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/G bearing my signatures at point 'A'. Same belongs to accused Rahul. Thereafter, accused led us to the place of incident and pointing out the place where he had committed the murder of Pushpender. IO prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW8/H bearing my signatures at point 'A'. IO prepared the site plan from where mobile phone and sim was recovered which is Ex.PW8/I and POOJA Ex.PW8/J respectively. Accused Rahul Kumar present in the court is TALWAR correctly identified. I can identify the case property if shown to me.Digitally signed
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced one sealed parcel with by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.09 SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 9 of 52 11:00:51 +0530 FIR no.41/17 the seal of MS. Parcel is opened after breaking the seal one mobile phone of white colour make Nokia is taken out and same is shown to the witness. Witness identifies that the same was got recovered by the accused and belongs to the accused. Mobile phone is Ex.PW8/A1.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced one sealed parcel with the seal of MS. Parcel is opened after breaking the seal one mobile phone of gray colour make MI is taken out and same is shown to the witness. Witness identifies that the same was got recovered by the accused and belongs to the deceased. Mobile phone is Ex.PW8/A2.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced one sealed parcel with the seal of MS. Parcel is opened after breaking the seal one sim card of JIO company is taken out and same is shown to the witness. Witness identifies that the same was got recovered by the accused and belongs to the accused. Sim card is Ex.PW8/A3.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced one sealed parcel with the seal of FSL SNn Delhi (Ld. Defence counsel has pointed out that the seal on the parcel is already broken and the parcel has been stapled). Parcel is opened after opening the staples. One pair of green/gray colour of sports shoes is taken out and same is shown to the witness. Witness identifies that the same was got recovered by the accused and belongs to the accused. The shoes are Ex.PW8/A4.
I have not brought the case property motorcycle as the same has been sold out".
(iii) PW9: Seema deposed in her testimony that:
"I alongwith my family reside the aforesaid address. My POOJA husband is flower vendor and I am a housewife. TALWAR As I am illiterate, so I do not remember the month and year Digitally signed specifically but the date was 6th. The incident is more than two years by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.09 11:00:58 +0530 SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 10 of 52 FIR no.41/17 old. At about 11 pm on 6th, I received a call from my brother Pushpender (since deceased) that he was coming back to the home. Thereafter when I called him, his phone was switched off. Thereafter I was not able to contact him. Thereafter, at about 1 am, I called my husband and told him that Pushpender had not returned. At that time, my husband was present at Bullandshahar, UP as my sister in law was not well as her delivery was due. My husband asked me to inform my brother in law (jeth) namely Brahmjeet. I informed him and Brahmjeet alongwith his brothers went in search of my brother. In the late night, I came to know that my brother has been murdered.
At this state, Addl. P.P. for State seeks permission to cross- examine the witness as she is not disclosing the complete facts.
Heard. Allowed.
XXXXXX by Ms. Suchitra Singh Chauhan, Addl. P.P. for State. IO had examined me.
I cannot say if I had mentioned the date as 06/02/2017, as I am illiterate but it is correct that I had stated to the IO that on 6 th my husband had gone to see my sister in law namely Sunita, who was hospitalized in Bullandshahar for delivery.
It is correct that on 07th my husband called me and told me that Ravinder had given Rs 23,000/- to Pushpender and there was sale of about Rs 7000/-, so Pushpender was having Rs 30,000/-, which he would bring and he asked me to take that amount from Pushpender. It is correct that when I called Pushpender on his phone, he informed me that he was going for taking orders and it would take some time and then he would come. I do not remember the exact time when I received information via telephone from my brother in law regarding the murder of my brother. It is correct that I was not able to recollect POOJA the aforesaid facts due to lapse of time". TALWAR Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 11 of 52 2026.02.09 11:01:05 +0530 FIR no.41/17
(iv) PW10: Ravinder Kumar deposed in his testimony that:
"In the year 2017, I had worked with Janata Diagnostic Centre Pvt Ltd, Pachim Vihar, Delhi as a peon. Navratan is my friend and I used to visit his flowers shop. Pushpender and Rahul were also my friend. I obtained three SIM cards in my name and same were used by the Rahul, Pushpender and one SIM was used for the purpose of shop of Navratan because Pushpender was minor at that time.
The relations between accused Rahul and deceased Pushpender were cordial and they were close friends. Accused Rahul is present in court today (correctly identified).
The sim card which was being used by Navarattan on my ID was having the no. as 9999008730. Deceased Pushpendra was having 2 sim cards on my ID i.e. Vodafone and Jio cellular company. The mobile no of Jio sim card started from 836 and the last digits was either 37 or 97. The vodafone mobile no. started from 85 and the last digits was 03. I do not remember the complete mobile numbers. The said vodafone mobile sim card was given by Pushpendra to accused Rahul who is present in the court today(correctly identified), for his use. The jio sim card was kept with him by deceased Pushpendra. The mobile no.9999008730 was kept at flower shop and was being used either by Navrattan or by Pushpendra.
At this stage, Ld. Additional PP for state seeks permission to put leading questions with regard to mobile numbers. Heard. Allowed.
Que. Is it correct that Pushpendra was using mobile no.
8368680997? POOJA
Ans. Yes. TALWAR
Que. Is it correct that Rahul was using mobile no. 8585968403? Digitally signed
by POOJA
TALWAR
Date: 2026.02.09
SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 12 of 52 11:01:12 +0530
FIR no.41/17
Ans. Yes.
Accused Rahul was sacked out from his job by Navrattan as some quarrel took place between them. I do not know the reason of quarrel.
At this stage, Ld. Additional PP for state seeks permission to cross examination the witness as he is resiling from his previous statement. Heard. Allowed.
Xxxx by Sh. Parvesh Kumar Ranga, Ld. Additional PP for state.
It is correct that accused Rahul used to consume liquor. However, it is wrong to suggest that once accused Rahul urinated at the shop of Navarattan after consuming liquor and due to this reason Navarattan sacked out Rahul from his job.
At this stage, witness is confronted from A to Al of his statement u/s 161 Crpc (Mark PW 10/A) and witness submits that he does not remember about the same. It is wrong to suggest that I am giving evasive reply in this regard as I have been won over by the accused".
(v) PW11: Pinku deposed in his testimony that:
"Accused Rahul who is present in the court today is my brother in law (My wife's brother). The accused was working at the shop of Navratan who was running business of flowers. The accused Rahul was regularly working at the shop of Navratan and he was not dismissed from his job by Navratan.
On 7.8.2017, I was not informed by Pawan about any person by the name of Pushpender. Pawan is my brother in law (My wife's brother). Pawan was also working in the shop of POOJA Navratan. I never made any enquiries about any Pushpender TALWAR from Rahul.Digitally signed
On the day of incident, at about 11.00-11.30 pm 1 returned by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.09 11:01:17 +0530 SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 13 of 52 FIR no.41/17 to my house and found that accused Rahul was present there.
At this stage, permission is sought by Learned Addl. PP for the State to cross examine the witness as witness is resiling from his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
Heard and Allowed.
xxxxxxx by Learned Addl. PP for the State It is wrong to suggest that accused Rahul used to steal money from the shop of Navratan and used to bring liquor. It is also wrong to suggest that once accused Rahul urinated in the shop of Navratan. It is wrong to suggest that on account of misconduct of Rahul, Navratan had dismissed him from his job. It is further wrong to suggest that in the intervening night of 7/8.2.2017, Pawan had informed me at about 12.00 midnight that Pushpender who had gone to take orders, had not returned back and his phone was out of range. It is correct that Pushpender was brother in law of Navratan. It is wrong to suggest that I made a call to Rahul on his mobile number 8585968403 from my mobile phone number 9069019337 at around 1.30 am and asked from him about his location, on which he replied that he was on his way to home and when I asked about Pushpender, he stated that he was not aware of Pushpender (vol. Mobile number 9069019337 does not belong to me).
It is further wrong to suggest that when accused Rahul did not return home, I called him twice-thrice and each time he stated that he was on his way back home. It is wrong to suggest that Pawan had already informed me that Pushpender had been murdered in a park. It is wrong to suggest that in the morning at POOJA around 6.00am, accused Rahul returned home and thereafter I TALWAR took him to PS Paschim Vihar (vol. during the entire night, Digitally signed accused Rahul was with me and in the morning we both went to by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.09 11:01:22 +0530 SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 14 of 52 FIR no.41/17 PS Paschim Vihar alongwith police officials). At this stage witness is confronted with portion A to Al of his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Mark A and witness denied the entire statement by stating that he did not make any such statement before the police. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely being won over by the accused or being related to the accused".
(vi) PW14: Pawan Kumar deposed that:-
"In the year 2017, I was doing flower work at the shop of my maternal uncle (Mama) Navratan. I used to stay at the shop. Pushpender (deceased) who was brother in law of my Mama was also working with me in the same shop.
On 7.2.2017 at about 7.00-8.00pm, Pushpender left the shop for taking order at Multan Nagar. Pushpender did not return till 10.00pm and therefore I informed about the same to my Mama Navrathan and Mami through mobile call. Efforts were made to trace out Pushpender and at about 3.00 am he was found dead at water tank park, Jawlaheri.
Accused Rahul who is present in the court today is my real brother. He also used to work at the said shop around 1-1½ years ago from 2017. Rahul went to native place as there was agriculture land and to maintain the same, he left the job. Rahul was not sacked out from job by my Mama Navratan. Rahul was having good conduct while working at the shop of my Mama.
At this stage, permission is sought by learned Addl. PP for the State to cross examine the witness as witness is resiling from POOJA his earlier statement given to the police. TALWAR Heard and allowed.
It is correct that dead body of Pushpender was found at Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.09 SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 15 of 52 11:01:27 +0530 FIR no.41/17 Paschim Vihar Park (vol. The spot is also known as Water Tank park.). It is wrong to suggest that due to bad conduct of Rahul, he was sacked out from the job by my Mama Navrathan about one year back from the date of incident. It is also wrong to suggest that accused Rahul used to steal the money from the shop and used to consume liquor. It is also wrong to suggest that once accused urinate in the shop itself. Confronted with portion A to Al of statement marked as Mark A where it is so recorded. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely being brother of accused or being won over by the accused".
Formal Witnesses:
(i) PW4: Ram Prasad deposed that on 08.02.2017, he went to mortuary and there he identified the dead body of his son Pushpender vide dead body identification memo Ex.PW4/A bearing his thumb impression at point A. After postmortem dead body of his son was handed over to him vide memo Ex.PW4/B bearing his thumb impression at point A.
(ii) PW6: Dr. Gurdeep CMO, SGM Hospital deposed that on 14.02.2017, he was posted at SGM Hospital Mangolpuri as Casualty Medical Officer. On that day at about 5.14 p.m., one person namely Rahul Kumar S/o Sh Ram Kumar, aged about 22 years male was brought by police for medical examination and collection of blood sample. Rahul Kumar was examined by him vide MLC No.02388. Patient had no external injury. Blood sample was collected and handed over to the police in sealed POOJA condition. Aforesaid MLC is Ex.PW-6/A bearing his signature at TALWAR point A. Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 16 of 52 Date: 2026.02.09 FIR no.41/17 11:01:33 +0530
(iii) PW13: Dr. Anurag Thapar deposed that on 08.02.2017 at about 03.00 pm, he conducted postmortem examination on the body deceased Pushpender aged 18 years after receiving request to conduct postmortem from Insp. Madhav Krishna, PS Paschim Vihar. The dead body was duly identified by Ram Prasad (father of deceased) and Udayveer (brother of deceased). The videography of the postmortem examination was done by the IO concerned. His detailed postmortem report is Ex.PW13/A bearing his signatures at point A on each page.
In his opinion, the cause of death was due to combined effect of asphyxia as a result of manual strangulation and cranio cerebral damage subsequent to blunt force impact on the head. However, blood and viscera were preserved to rule out any intoxication.
After postmortem, PM report in original along with dead body and 13 inquest papers, blood and viscera, blood sample in gauze piece, clothes and nail clippings of the deceased were handed over to the IO along with sample seal of the department.
On 17.03.2017, he gave his subsequent opinion in the present on the application filed by IO. Subsequent opinion is Ex.PW13/B bearing his signatures at point A.
(iv) PW15: Pawan Singh Nodal Officer deposed that on the request of Insp. Madhav Krishna of PS Paschim Vihar regarding providing of CAF and CDR details in r/o mobile Nos.9999008730, 8585968403, 7291080275 and 7291080285, the then Alternate Nodal Officer Israr Babu had issued certified copy of CAF and CDR details. He had seen the certified copy of POOJA CAF, CDR details and certificate u/s 658 of Indian Evidence Act TALWAR issued by Sh. Israr Babu. Since, Sh. Israr Babu was working with Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 17 of 52 Date: 2026.02.09 FIR no.41/17 11:01:39 +0530 him, he recognized his signatures. Sh. Israr Babu has left his services and his present whereabouts were not known. The certified copy of CAF in r/o of mobile No.9999008730 issued in the name of Ravinder Kumar and its CDR are Ex.PW15/A and Ex.PW15/B respectively. The CAF in respect of mobile No.8585968403 issued in the name of Ravinder Kumar and its CDR are Ex.PW15/C and Ex.PW15/D respectively. The certificate u/s 65B issued by Sh. Israr Babu is Ex.PW15/E.
(v) PW18: Yatin Chawla, Alternate Nodal Officer produced the original record i.e. customer application form pertaining to the mobile no.8368680997 issued in the name of Ravinder Kumar, S/o Sh. Maheshwar Yadav, R/o 455 K2B, Nihal Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi. The customer of application form is Ex.PW18/A bearing his initial and seal of the company at point A. The CDRs of the above said mobile number w.e.f. 15.01.2017 to 10.02.2017 is Ex.PW18/B bearing his initial and seal of the company at point A on each page. He issued the certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act to IO which is Ex.PW18/C bearing his initial and seal of the company at point A. He also issued the letter to the IO of this case and provided the above said record vide his letter which is Ex.PW18/D and PW18/E both bears his signature at point A. He had not brought location cell Id chart.
He brought the certified Cell ID Chart of mobile number 8368680997 as Ex.PW18/F.
(vi) PW19: Dr. Rohit Kumar Casualty Medical Officer deposed POOJA that on 12.02.2017 at about 8.41 p.m., accused Rahul Kumar was TALWAR brought to the Casualty for medical examination. He examined Digitally signed the accused and prepared his MLC Ex.PW 19/A bearing his by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.09 SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 18 of 52 11:01:44 +0530 FIR no.41/17 signatures at point A. During the examination of accused, he found that he had healed abrasions over the nose, neck and right hand. Left middle finger dorsum and scab were found present. Injuries appeared approximately three to four days old. The nature of injury was opined by him as simple.
(vii) PW20: Sanjay Singh produced the original record i.e. customer application form pertaining to the mobile number 9069019337 which was issued in the name of Pinku S/o Sh. Rajpal, R/o Flat No. 85, Village Siraspur, Delhi-42. The certified copy of said customer application form is Ex.PW20/A. Supporting document i.e. copy of voter identity card in the name of Pinku S/o Sh. Rajpal is attached with the said CAF. The same is Ex.PW20/B. The CDRs of the aforesaid mobile number from dated 15.01.2017 to 10.02.2017 are Ex.PW20/C. Certified Cell ID Chart of the aforesaid mobile number is Ex.PW20/D. The certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, issued in respect of the aforesaid documents, is Ex.PW20/E, bearing the signature of Sh. Shishir Malhotra, the then Nodal Officer at point A Covering letter is Ex.PW20/F bearing the signature of Sh. Shishir Malhotra, the then Nodal Officer at point A. He identified the signature of Sh. Shishir Malhotra as he had worked with him and seen him writing and signing during his course of duty. He left the job in 2018 and his present whereabouts were not known.
(viii) PW21: Dr. Subhra Kumar Paul, Sr. Scientific Officer deposed that on 12.04.2017 she received one sealed wooden box POOJA TALWAR seal of SGMH MORTUARY MANGOLPURI DELHI-83 for chemical examination. After opening this parcel, three exhibits Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 19 of 52 Date: 2026.02.09 11:01:51 +0530 FIR no.41/17 were found having viscera sample of deceased. On chemical microscopy, TLC and GCHS examination, metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected in exhibits 1A, 1B & 1C. She prepared her detailed report Ex.PW21/A bearing her signature at point A. After examination, the remnants of the exhibits were sealed with the seal of SKP FSL DELHI.
(ix) PW22: Seema Nain, Asst. Director Biology deposed that on 12.04.2017, 11 sealed parcels were received in their laboratories along with letter of SHO PS Paschim Vihar through Ct. Rohit in relation to the present case. The same were marked to her for biology and DNA examination. All the said parcels were sealed and its seal was intact. She examined the said parcels after opening the same and, thereafter prepared her report Ex.PW22/A bearing her signature at Point A. Thereafter, she sealed the said parcels with the seal of FSLSN Delhi and sent the same to PS Paschim Vihar with her report.
Witnesses of Investigation:
(i) PW1: SI Kalyan Singh deposed that on 08.02.2017 at about 3.45 a.m., he received information from West District Control Room regarding the incident. Thereafter, he alongwith ASI Mukesh (Fingerprint Proficient), ASI Sanjeev (Photographer), and driver reached at DDA Park (Tanki Wala Park), opposite B-3 Block, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. Dog squad consisting of dog namely Mirza and dog handler, also accompanied them. There he POOJA met S.I. Rajender Singh and other staff. Inside the park one dead TALWAR body was lying on the ground. He inspected the spot. Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 20 of 52 Date: 2026.02.09 FIR no.41/17 11:01:57 +0530 Photographs of the spot and the dead body were clicked by ASI Sanjeev from different angles. He prepared the Scene of Crime Report Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point A and handed over the same to S.I. Rajender Singh.
(ii) PW2: ASI Sanjeev deposed that on 08.02.2017 he was posted as Photographer in Mobile Crime Team West District, Janakpuri. On that day, they received information from West District Control Room about some incident at DDA Park (Tanki Wala Park), Opposite Block-B Pocket-3, Paschim Vihar. Thereafter, he alongwith S.I. Kalyan Singh (In-charge), ASI Mukesh (Fingerprint Proficient), driver H.Ct. Ramesh and dog squad reached there. They went inside the park and they saw that one dead body was lying on the ground which had blood on face and hair and blood was also lying on the ground. He clicked photographs of the dead body and the spot from different angles. ASI Mukesh tried to lift chance prints from the spot but in vain. S.I. Kalyan Singh (In-charge Crime Team) prepared scene of crime report and same was handed over to the IO. Photographs clicked by him on that day Ex.PW2/A-1 to Ex.PW2/A-23. He produced the negatives of the aforesaid photographs as Ex.PW2/B-1 to Ex.PW2/B-24.
(iii) PW5: ASI Om Prakash deposed that on 21.03.2017, he was posted at Mapping Section West District as Draftsman. On the request of IO, he reached the spot i.e. DDA Tanki Wala Park POOJA Paschim Vihar Delhi he took rough notes and measurements of TALWAR the spot at the instance of Insp. Madav Krishana. Thereafter, on Digitally signed 28.03.2017 he prepared scaled site plan on the basis of rough by POOJA TALWAR notes and thereafter the rough notes were destroyed. He handed Date: 2026.02.09 11:02:04 +0530 SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 21 of 52 FIR no.41/17 over the scaled site plan Ex.PW5/A bearing his signature at point A.
(iv) PW7: Ct. Ravi Sharma deposed that on 14.02.2017 he took accused Rahul Kumar for his medical examination to SGM Hospital. After medical examination concerned doctor handed over the blood sample of accused in sealed condition alongwith sample seal. He returned to the police station alongwith the accused and handed over the aforesaid blood sample and sample seal to IO/Insp. Madav Krishana, seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A bearing his signature at point A. His statement was recorded by the IO.
(v) PW12: Ct. Shaminder Singh deposed that on 7/8.2.2017, he was on night duty. On that day on receipt of DD No.4A qua a dead body lying at Tanki Wala Park, B3 Paschim Vihar, he alongwith SI Rajender reached Tanki Wala Park.
At Tanki Wala Park, they found blood stains at two places and a dead body lying close to the stains. The deceased was identified as Pushpender aged 18 years and he sustained injuries on his head as well as upper side of right ear. Face of deceased was also found crushed. One stone was also found lying near the dead body. One artificial chain, one lead of mobile and two currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination and that of Rs.20/- denomination were also found lying near the dead body. Key of motorcycle was also found lying there at some distance of the dead body. Meanwhile Inspector Madhav Krishna and other senior officials also reached the spot. Dog Squad and Mobile POOJA TALWAR Crime Team reached the spot. Spot was photographed by the photographer of Mobile Crime Team. Report was prepared by Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date:
SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 22 of 52 2026.02.09 FIR no.41/17 11:02:10 +0530 Crime Team which was handed over to SI Rajender. Dog squad also inspected the spot. The statement of complainant Brahamjeet Singh, who was present at the spot, was recorded by SI Rajender. rukka was prepared which was handed over to him for getting the case FIR registered. Accordingly, he alongwith rukka reached the PS, got the case FIR registered and returned to the spot alongwith copy of FIR and rukka which were handed over to Inspector Madhav Krishna. Body of deceased was kept in mortuary, SGM Hospital. After postmortem, dead body was handed over to relatives of deceased. His statement was recorded.
(vi) PW16: ASI Satyaveer Singh deposed that on 08.02.2017 he received five sealed parcels having seal of SGMH, Mangolpuri, Delhi from the IO to deposit the same in the malkhana. He deposited the same in the malkhana vide entry no.3407 dated 08.02.2017. Again on 12.02.2017, he received two sealed parcels from the IO having seal of MS to deposit the same in the malkhana. Accordingly, he deposited the said parcels vide entry no.3414 dated 12.02.2017. On 14.02.2017, he received two sealed parcels from the IO having seal of MS to deposit the same in the malkhana. Accordingly, he deposited the said parcels vide entry no.3416 dated 14.02.2017. On 15.02.2017, he received one sealed parcels from the IO having seal of MS to deposit the same in the malkhana. Accordingly, he deposited the said parcels vide entry no.3417 dated 15.02.2017. On 12.04.2017, he send all the above said ten parcels to FSL, Rohini through Ct. Rohit vide RC No.20/21/17 and vide RC No.21/21/17 along with the FSL form.
POOJA After deposited the same, Ct. Rohit handed over him the copy of TALWAR the RC and receipt. So long as the parcels remained in his Digitally signed custody those were not tempered with in any manner and by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.09 SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 23 of 52 11:02:16 +0530 FIR no.41/17 remained intact. The relevant entry of the register no.19 pertaining to the above said entries, running into 13 pages is Ex.PW16/A. The copy of the RC No.20/21/17, acknowledgment of receipt, copy of the RC No.21/21/17 and copy of RC are Ex.PW16/B, PW16/C, PW16/D and PW16/E.
(vii) PW17: SI Ummed Singh deposed that on 08.02.2017, CPCR DD No.08FEB171150035 was recorded in the control room Police Headquarter at about 3:00:13 by the operator on the basis of call received from mobile no.9350820342 on Delhi Police Control Room form which is Ex.PW17/A. On the request of the IO, he provided the print out of the PCR form Ex.PW17/A. He also issued certificate U/s 65 of Indian Evidence Act related to the above said PCR form Ex.PW17/B bearing his signatures at point A.
(viii) PW23: HC Vikas Sharma deposed that in the intervening night of 07/08.02.2017, he was on duty as rider on motorcycle bearing registration no.DL1SZ5091 and his duty hours were from 8 pm to 8 am. On that day at about 6.15 am duty officer handed over copy of FIR of the present case handed over to same to Ld. Concerned MM and senior officers vide DD no.7A. He went to Ld. MM and handed over copy of FIR of present case. He also handed over copy of present FIR to senior police officials. IO recorded his statement in this regard.
(ix) PW24: Insp. Madhav Krishna deposed that on 07-08.02.2017 SI Rajender Singh was performing emergency duty in the PS POOJA TALWAR Paschim Vihar and he received a PCR call vide DD no.4A. On the basis of said DD entry no.4A, he visited the spot and prepared Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.09 SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 24 of 52 11:02:22 +0530 FIR no.41/17 a tehrir and got registered the FIR no.41/2017. After the registration of said FIR, further investigation of said case was marked to him. The duty officer PS Paschim Vihar handed over the copy of the said FIR along with original tehrir to him. Thereafter he went to the spot and SI Rajender along with other police staff were present there on the spot i.e. Tanki wala park, B-3, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. Dead body of one boy was lying there on the spot in a pool of blood. He inspected the said dead body as well as the spot and nearby area. Crime Team and dog squad were called at the spot. The spot was got photographed through the crime team photographer. Thereafter he collected the blood samples, blood stained earth and earth control from the spot and sealed the same with the seal of MS and thereafter seized them vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B bearing his signatures at point B. At that time SI Rajender Singh and public witness Bharamjeet Singh were also present at the spot.
He identified the signature of SI Rajender Singh as he had worked with him and he had seen writing and signing. The seizure memo Ex.PW3/B bears the signature of SI Rajender at point C. There was a pagdandi near the dead body and blood was there on the said pagdandi. Thereafter, he collected the blood samples from near the gate of pagdandi and also collected the blood which was lying at little distance from the said pagdandi. He further collected the blood stained earth and earth control (concrete) from the spot and sealed the same with the seal of MS and thereafter seized them vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/C bearing his signature at point B and the signature of SI Rajender Singh at point C. He further collected one blood stained stone which was POOJA lying there on the spot vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/F bearing his TALWAR signatures at point X and SI Rajender at point Y. There was one Digitally signed by POOJA SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 25 of 52 TALWAR FIR no.41/17 Date: 2026.02.09 11:02:29 +0530 artificial chain of yellow color, one key of motorcycle, two currency notes of denomination Rs.100/- one currency note of Rs.20/- and one currency note of Rs.10/-, on the spot, which were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/D bearing his signatures at point B and signature of SI Rajender at point C. He also seized the motorcycle no.DL 8SBV 8304 which was near the gate of tanki wala park at the instance of Bharamjeet Singh vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/E bearing his signature at point B and signature of SI Rajender at point C. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW24/A bearing his signature at point A and signature of SI Rajender at point B. Thereafter he prepared the inquest paper Ex.PW24/B bearing his signatures at point X. The dead body has been shifted to SGM Hospital through SI Rajender and one constable. Thereafter postmortem was got conducted in the SGM Hospital after the identification of dead body by the relative of deceased. After the postmortem, dead body was handed over to father of the deceased vide dead body handing over memo Ex.PW24/B. Thereafter he recorded the statement of witness. In the SGM Hospital, the doctor handed over medical exhibits of the victim, to him and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW24/C bearing his signatures at point A and signatures of SI Rajender at point A. All the said exhibits were in duly sealed condition and sealed with the seal of SGMH Mortuary. He deposited all the case property seized by him in the malkhana. He also deposited the said medical exhibits in the malkhana. During investigation, location of one mobile number, of deceased i.e. 8368680997 was found near Siraspur, Delhi, in the night of 08.02.2017 at around 2:30 AM. In pursuance of that POOJA TALWAR clue he reached Siraspur on 12.02.2017 along with SI Rajender and witness Navratan. One person namely Pinku who was Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 26 of 52 Date: 2026.02.09 FIR no.41/17 11:02:34 +0530 relative of deceased as well as accused, was found there at Siraspur. Accused Rahul was found present there in Siraspur at the house of Pinku, in suspicious condition, having superficial injury marks. He interrogated Rahul and conducted his search and one mobile phone was recovered from the pocket of his pant which was identified by witness Navratan (relative of accused and deceased), as the mobile phone of deceased. Thereafter he conducted sustained interrogation of accused Rahul and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW8/D bearing his signature at point D and the signature of SI Rajender at point C. Accused Rahul disclosed that after the commission of offence he had thrown the SIM of the mobile of the deceased, near a park in Bajitpur, Delhi. He seized the said mobile phone make MI after sealing the same with the seal of MS vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/A bearing his signature at point B and signatures of SI Rajender at point C. Thereafter he arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW8/B bearing his signatures at point B and C and signature of SI Rajender at point D. He conducted the personal search of the accused and prepared personal search memo Ex.PW8/C bearing his signatures at point B and the signature of SI Rajender at point C. Thereafter accused was taken to Bajitpur and there in pursuance of disclosure of the accused JIO SIM was recovered and the same seized by him after sealing the same with the seal of MS vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/E bearing his signature at point B and signatures of Sl Rajender at point C. Thereafter they all went to the police station and there he deposited the recover case property in the malkhana. Witness Navratan was also POOJA TALWAR accompanying them. He recorded the statement of witnesses.
On 13.02.2017, the accused was produced in the court and Digitally signed by POOJA his PC remand of three days were obtained for the recovery of TALWAR Date:
2026.02.09 11:02:40 +0530 SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 27 of 52 FIR no.41/17 blood stain clothes and other articles. On 14.02.2017, accused Rahul took them to Farrukh Nagar, Gurugram and he got recovered one pair of shoes which he was wearing at the time of commission of offence, from rented house situated in the fields where he used to cultivate the flowers. He sealed the said shoes with the seal of MS and then seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/F bearing his signature at point B and the signature of SI Rajender at point C. Witness Navratan was also with him at that time. He prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of the said shoes Ex.PW24/D bearing his signatures at point X and signatures of SI Rajender at point Y. He also prepared the site plan of that place of recovery of above-mentioned SIM Ex.PW8/J bearing his signatures at point X and signatures of SI Rajender at point Y. Thereafter accused took them to Munnak Canal, Siraspur, Rohini where as per his disclosure, efforts were made to search his blood stain clothes which he thrown near Munnak Canal, Siraspur, Rohini. However the said clothes could not be recovered despite their best efforts. Thereafter the accused Rahul was taken to the SGM Hospital and there his blood samples was collected which was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A bearing his signature at point B. He deposited the all case property in the malkhana. On 14.02.2017, accused took them to the place of incident and there he prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence at the instance of the accused Ex.PW8/H bearing his signature at point B and signature of SI Rajender at point C. At that time he also prepared the pointing out memo of POOJA the place of occurrence Ex.PW24/E bearing his signature at point TALWAR X and the signatures of SI Rajender at point Y. On 12.02.2017 Digitally signed accused got the medically examined in SGM Hospital vide MLC by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.09 11:02:56 +0530 SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 28 of 52 FIR no.41/17 no.2333 where opined that the injuries found in the body of accused were 3-4 days old.
On 15.02.2017, accused Rahul got recovered his mobile phone which he had hidden under an old vehicle stationed in a vacant plot near PS Paschim Vihar and he seized the said mobile phone make Nokia vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/G bears his signatures at point B and the signature of SI Rajender at point at C. Thereafter he deposited the recovered case property in the malkhana. He recorded the statement of witnesses including the witness Navratan who were accompanying him. On 15.02.2017 he had recorded the supplementary disclosure statement of the accused Ex.PW24/F bearing his signatures at point X and signature of SI Rajender at point Y. The above-mentioned mobile phone of the accused was recovered in-pursuance to his supplementary disclosure statement.
The postmortem report was collected and thereafter 17.03.2017 he moved an application before the Incharge Mortuary SGM Hospital for getting subsequent opinion. He had also sent the blood stain stone to the incharge mortuary SGM Hospital vide RC no.13/21/17. The said RC is marked Mark24A.
His said application is Ex.PW24/G bearing his signature at point A. Subsequent opinion was obtained by him as Ex.PW13/B. He also collected the crime team report Ex.PW1/A. On 12.04.2017, he sent the 14 exhibits to the FSL vide RC no.21/21/17 through Ct Rohit. The said RC is Mark 24B. On the same day one box containing viscera of the deceased in duly sealed, were sent to FSL along with one sample sealed through Ct Rohit vide RC POOJA no.20/21/17. The said RC is Mark 24C. TALWAR He got prepared scaled site plan through Assistant Digitally signed by POOJA Draftsman Om Prakash Ex.PW5/A. Thereafter, he collected the TALWAR Date: 2026.02.09 11:03:03 +0530 SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 29 of 52 FIR no.41/17 certified copy of CAF and CDR of mobile No.8368680997 along with the report that the SIM no.89918720400037294418 pertains to the above mentioned mobile number. The said certified copy of CAF Ex.PW18/A. The said certified copies of CDRs Ex.PW18/B and the said report Ex.PW18/D. He also collected certified copies of CAF and CDRs of the mobile No.9999008730 & no.8585968403 as Ex.PW15/A, Ex.PW15/B, Ex.PW15/C, Ex.PW15/D. He also collected the certified CAF and CDR of mobile No.9069019337 Ex.PW20/A and Ex.PW20/C. The location chart of the said mobile number 9069019337 was also collected by him and certified copy of same Ex.PW20/D. Thereafter, he collected the PCR form Ex.PW17/A. He recorded the statement of witnesses. Thereafter, he prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the court. Later on, after receiving FSL result, he deposited the same before the court and the said FSL result Ex.PW21/A and Ex.PW22/A. He correctly identified 23 photographs of the spot Ex.PW2/A-1 to PW2/A-23 and the witness correctly identifies the spot, body of victim and the motorcycle bearing No.DL8SBV 8304 as shown in the said photographs. On 15.02.2017 he also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of mobile phone make Nokia Ex.PW8/1 bearing his signatures at point X and the signatures of SI Rajinder Singh at point Y. The tehrir which was prepared by SI Rajinder Singh Ex.PW24/H and the same bears the signatures of SI Rajinder Singh at point A. He identified one motorcycle key, one chain of golden colour, one ear-lead and Rs.230/- as recovered around the spot POOJA TALWAR and the same are Ex.P-1, one mobile phone make Nokia along with battery Ex.PW8/A-1, one mobile phone make MI Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 30 of 52 Date: 2026.02.09 11:03:09 +0530 FIR no.41/17 Ex.PW8/A-2, one pair of black shoes Ex.PW24/A-1, one Jio SIM No.89918720400037294418 Ex.PW8/A-3, one red colour inner, one sweater of colours white, black and gray, one pair of sports shoes of green and gray colour and one underwear, as the clothes and shoes of victim and the said pair of shoes is Ex. PW8/A-4 and the remaining articles are Ex.PW24/A-2, poly bag sealed with the seal of FSL and bearing case particulars of present case having heavy rock Ex.PW24/A-3.
6. In his statement under Section 294 CR.P.C. accused admitted the following documents and witness to thereof were dispensed with:
1. ASI/DO Mahender Singh who had recorded the FIR No.41/17 and DD No.4A, 6A, 7A, dt. 08.02.2017 at PS Paschim Vihar;
2. Ct. Rohit who had deposited the exhibits to FSL;
3. Ct. Vikas, who had taken copy of FIR as Special Messenger.
He also admitted the authenticity of videography of postmortem conducted by PW Mukesh.
Statement of accused under Section 313 CrPC.
7. Accused stated that he and deceased Pushpender were working together in a flower shop they were friends. Across the road, there was a shop of Brahmjeet and his niece Malti was living with him. Deceased Pushpender had affair with Malti. Due to this reason, Brahmjeet was annoyed with deceased Pushpender and there were several quarrels between them. On few occasions Brahmjeet also threatened Pushpender. Due to this reason he was removed from the flower shop. Police falsely implicated him at the instance of POOJA Brahmjeet and his family after 2-3 days to take the revenge of the TALWAR relationship between Pushpender and Malti. Since, he and Digitally signed by POOJA SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 31 of 52 TALWAR Date: 2026.02.09 FIR no.41/17 11:03:16 +0530 Pushpender were closed friends so Brahmjeet and his family killed Pushpender and falsely implicated him.
8. Defence Evidence:
(i) DW1: Ram Kumar deposed that in the month of October, 2016 Pushpender and Rahul were working in a flower shop in Jwalaheri Market, Paschim Vihar. Niece of his brother in law, namely Brahmjeet and Pushpender was brother in law of Naurten. Both Puspender and Niece of his brother in law (he did not remember the name of the niece) were having affairs. The relation between them came out before both the families. Brahmjeet once enquired about the relationship between the girl (niece) and Pushpender from accused Rahul. After that Brahmjeet abused Rahul and removed him from the flower shop. During the demonetization period, Rahul started living with his sister who was living in Siraspur. He stopped having any relation with his brother in laws after the abovesaid incident. On 08.02.2017 in the morning he came to know that Pushpender was murdered. They were in their native village at that time and after the information he alongwith his wife came to Delhi. The last rites of the deceased was done at his native village after his post mortem.
(ii) DW2: Angoori deposed that she was in talking terms with her brother Brahmjeet. Rahul and deceased Pushpender were working together. Her son Rahul was removed from his work so she had a quarrel with him on this issue. After that, since Rahul did not get any job she sent him to her daughter's house in Siraspur, Delhi for work. Her son in law was handicapped and Rahul was sent to help him by POOJA TALWAR earning. One day she got the information that Pushpender was murdered. After that she went to Delhi and went to PS Paschim Vihar Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR as her brother Brahmjeet and her son was already there. Her son in Date:
2026.02.09 11:03:24 +0530 SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 32 of 52 FIR no.41/17 law and 3-4 family members were already present at the PS. After the post mortem of the deceased, they went to his village and got the cremation done and returned to the PS. She was enquired by the police and both the families were at PS. After few days her son Rahul was arrested.
(iii) DW3: Babita deposed that her brother was working at flower shop at Paschim Vihar, Jawalaheri Market. The owner of the shop Brahmjeet used to have some problem with her brother for some issue which she earlier was not aware. After sometime her brother called her and informed her that Brahmjeet have fired her brother from the shop as Brahmjeet used to have suspicion that her brother supported the relation between Brahmjeet's niece and Pushpender.
Thereafter she asked her brother to stay with her and help her husband in his work. Her husband worked at Siyaspur, Rohini. On Tuesday i.e. 07.02.2017 she and her brother was at home i.e. at Rohini. They received a call from Navratan at about 10.00 PM that Pushpender was missing. After sometime Navratan again called her and informed her that they have found Pushpender and unfortunately he was dead. Her husband and her brother left for the Pushpender's place where they came to know that Pushpender was murdered.
9. Accused himself appeared in the witness box and examined himself under Section 315 CrPC. He stated that since 2013-14 he was working at flower shop situated at Paschim Vihar, Jawalaheri Market. There were some quarrels between Brahmjeet POOJA and Pushpender as Brahmjeet's niece and Pushpender were in TALWAR relationship which was not approved by Brahmjeet. He also knew the Digitally signed by POOJA relation of the Brahmjeet's niece and Pushpender. He never opposed TALWAR Date:
2026.02.09 the same and because of this reason Brahmjeet used to have quarrel 11:03:31 +0530 SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 33 of 52 FIR no.41/17 with him that why he was supporting Pushpender. Brahmjeet (owner of flower shop) used to abuse him and Pushpender. After sometime Brahmjeet asked him to leave the job. Thereafter he started stay with his sister in Rohini and helped her husband (brother in law) in his work. After sometime his real brother started working in the shop of Navratan. He was at his sister's place when his brother called him and informed him that Pushpender was missing. After an hour his brother again called him and told him that they had found Pushpender's body. He and his brother in law, left for the place where the dead body of the Pushpender was found. There they came to know from one neighbour that Pushpender had been murdered by some unknown person. After sometime he and his whole family were taken to the PS Paschim Vihar, East. Their phones were seized by police staff and they were asked to leave the PS. On 08.02.2017 about 4.00 PM the dead body of Pushpender arrived. The body of the Pushpender was shifted to the village Dhamni by the family member and they performed the cremation and he left for his sister's house.
After few days, on 11.02.2017 he received a call from PS Paschim Vihar East and the police staff asked him to visit the PS for the investigation, he willingly went to the PS and without informing anything to him, they arrested me.
During interrogation, he denied the fact that he had not done anything wrong with Pushpender and he was innocent, they tortured him and obtained his signatures on white blank papers. Thereafter, they asked him to pick up his phone which the police staff POOJA TALWAR themselves planted his phone few meters away which was near the Digitally signed flower shop of Brahmjeet and they took the video of the same. He by POOJA TALWAR Date: was in PC remand about 2 to 3 days and thereafter he was shifted to 2026.02.09 11:03:39 +0530 Tihar Jail no.4.
SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 34 of 52 FIR no.41/17 Arguments on behalf of the State
10. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the motive behind commission of murder of deceased by the accused. Accused has not been able to give any satisfactory explanation with respect to recovery of mobile phone of deceased from him. Recovery has been affected in presence of PW8 Navrattan. There is sufficient evidence on record against the accused. He deserves to be convicted.
Arguments on behalf of accused
11. Ld. defence counsel for accused per contra argued that prosecution has solely based its case on alleged recovery of mobile phone from the pocket of the accused. No evidence has been led to prove that the said mobile phone belonged to the deceased. Admittedly the sim cards allegedly used by the deceased was issued in the name of one Ravinder. The alleged recovery of shoes worn by accused at the time of commission of offence were of no resort to the prosecution as no positive forensic evidence could be adduced. Recovery of mobile phone of accused from the vehicle parked near the police station too is suspicious. The recoveries have been shown at different places at a considerable distance which too makes the recovery doubtful. Why will the accused throw the sim card and still keep the mobile phone of the deceased with himself. The said recovery is doubtful also for the reason that accused had his own mobile then why would he discard the sim card and still keep the mobile phone with him for being caught. A person would keep the POOJA mobile phone with him after commission of offence only if he is TALWAR in need of the same else would not take the risk of keeping it Digitally signed by POOJA SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 35 of 52 TALWAR FIR no.41/17 Date: 2026.02.09 11:03:44 +0530 knowing fully well that he can be caught. It is also not disputed that there is no eye witness to the offence and the only evidence which led the investigating team to the accused is recovery and ownership of the mobile phone both are not proved beyond reasonable doubt. There is absolutely no evidence available on record to connect the accused with the offence. Accused deserves to be acquitted.
Analysis of Law:
12. Murder is defined under Section 300 IPC and punishment for murder is provided under Section 302 IPC.
(a) Section 302 of the IPC provides punishment for the grave crime of murder. Murder is an act done to cause death or dangerous injury to some person, and body harm which it is known ought in all probability to cause death, or which by reckless disregard of human life would in all probability cause death. The keyword in this section is "intent" to cause death, direct or indirect.
i) Intention to Cause Death: The pre- requisite for a criminal offense to be classified under Section 302 IPC is that the perpetrator should have an intention to kill the victim.
ii) Knowledge regarding the Possibility of Death: Although death was not intended to happen, if on the part of the perpetrator knowledge of the possibility that his act might lead to death could be proved, then the offense would come within the scope of murder.
iii) Extreme Rashness: When the act has been done with such rashness that it would cause death almost certainly, then it would POOJA TALWAR be murder as per Section 302.
Digitally signed by POOJA TALWARSC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 36 of 52 Date:
2026.02.09FIR no.41/17 11:04:02 +0530
(iv) Sentence: The law under Section 302 provides for capital punishment or life imprisonment in cases of murder. In addition to the sentence, the fine may also be imposed based on the case at hand.
Section 201 IPC provides- Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.-- Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false.
13. I have heard the arguments advanced by all concerned and have perused the records including documents relied upon by the prosecution carefully.
Observation of the Court:
14. The story of the prosecution is that on 07.02.2017 one Pushpender left the shop where he was working around 8.30 pm informing the other employee about collection of order. He informed his sister Seema telephonically that he had collected Rs.30,000/- and would reach home at the earliest. When he did not return back home around 1:00 am his sister Seema informed his brother-in-law Brahmjeet about the same. They started searching him and around 3:00 am they found his motorcycle at Paschim Vihar Main road. They went inside the park and found POOJA the dead body of Pushpender. Police was informed and TALWAR investigation started. On 12.02.2017 the IO scrutinized the CDRs Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 37 of 52 Date: 2026.02.09 FIR no.41/17 11:04:16 +0530 of deceased and suspect persons. It was revealed that location of mobile phone of deceased Pushpender was at Siraspur around 2:00 am and 6:00 am and 6:00 am at outer Ring Road Rohini. Keeping in mind the location the IO inquired from brother-in-law of the deceased who informed that their relative Pinku resides there. When they reached the house of Pinku one Pawan and Rahul were present there. When Rahul was interrogated he gave misleading answers and accordingly his personal search was carried out during which one mobile phone was recovered. The said mobile phone was identified by Navrattan as the one belonging to deceased. Upon interrogation Rahul confessed to his guilt and was accordingly arrested.
15. Admittedly there is no eye witness to the incident hence the prosecution had to prove its case against the accused persons through circumstantial evidence. It has been held in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra 1984 AIR 1622 The Hon'ble Court has introduced the Panchsheel Test for the relevance and evaluation of circumstantial evidence in cases where direct evidence is not available. The five principles of the Panchsheel Test are:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must be fully established.
2. The facts established should be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one POOJA to be proved. TALWAR
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 38 of 52 Date: 2026.02.09 FIR no.41/17 11:04:26 +0530 any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that within all human consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
16. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
17. The chain of circumstances should be complete in all respects and should conclusively establish the guilt of accused. No room for suspicion or doubt should be left which point towards the innocence of the accused.
18. The prosecution has brought on record the chain of circumstances which according to them point towards the guilt of the accused.
19. Prosecution through the testimony of PW13 Dr. Anurag Thapar who conducted the postmortem of the body of deceased Pushpender proved on record that death was homicidal. He opined that the cause of death was combined effect of POOJA asphyxia as a result of manual strangulation and cranio cerebral TALWAR damage subsequent to blunt force impact on the head.
Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.09 11:04:32 +0530SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 39 of 52 FIR no.41/17
20. Prosecution tried to connect the accused with the offence through his arrest and recovery of mobile phone of deceased.
21. Prosecution story is that upon recovery of dead body of Pushpender location of one mobile number of deceased i.e. 8368680997 was found near Siraspur in the night of 08.09.2017 around 2.30 am. On 12.02.2017 IO alongwith SI Rajender and PW8 Navrattan went to the house of relative of deceased Pinku PW11. Accused Rahul was present in the house of Pinku who was his brother-in-law. Accused was interrogated and on his search one mobile phone was recovered from the pocket of his pant which was identified by PW8 Navrattan (relative of both accused and deceased) as the mobile phone of the deceased. On sustained interrogation accused admitted his guilt.
22. Recovery of mobile phone of deceased is effected in the presence of PW8 Navrattan from the house of PW11 Pinku vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/A.
23. Recovery of sim card of the number used by the deceased is alleged to be effected at the instance of accused from Bajitpur in the presence of PW8 Navrattan.
24. On 14.02.2017 one pair of shoes were got recovered by the accused which he was allegedly wearing at the time of commission of offence from Farrukh Nagar, Gurugram. The POOJA same was seized vide memo Ex.PW8/F in the presence of PW8 TALWAR Navrattan. Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.09 11:04:38 +0530 SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 40 of 52 FIR no.41/17
25. On 15.02.2017 at instance of accused one mobile phone was recovered which was hidden under an old vehicle stationed at PS Paschim Vihar. The same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/G.
26. Recovery of aforesaid phones, sim card and shoes were affected at the instance of accused Rahul in presence of SI Rajender and PW8 Navrattan. SI Rajender Singh could not be produced in the witness box due to his death.
27. The other witness who allegedly was present at the time of arrest and the recovery from the accused is PW8 Navrattan.
28. PW8 Navrattan deposed that when he was informed by the police officials that location of mobile phone of deceased is that of Siraspur, he told them that sister of accused Rahul resides in the said area. He alongwith 10-12 police officials went to house of Babita, sister of accused Rahul. They did not find anyone except PW11 Pinku, brother-in-law of accused Rahul. PW11 Pinku was lifted by the police.
29. He further stated that he called Rahul to meet the police officials and later accused Rahul was apprehended from Baadli Railway Station. Upon his search mobile phone of deceased Pushpender was recovered from the pocket of his pant. Accused admitted to his guilt.
POOJA TALWAR
30. As per PW8 Navrattan accused was arrested from Digitally signed by POOJA Baadli Railway station, per contra as per IO Inspector Madhav TALWAR Date: 2026.02.09 11:04:44 +0530 SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 41 of 52 FIR no.41/17 Krishna PW24 accused was apprehended from Siraspur. Even arrest memo Ex.PW8/B would reveal that the place of arrest is shown as "Gali in front of his sister Babita rented room Village- Siraspur, Delhi".
31. The only witness with respect to recovery of mobile phone from the pocket of pant of accused besides the IO is PW8 Navrattan. As per PW8 Navrattan 8 to 10 police officials went to Siraspur with him whereas as per the IO only SI Rajender and PW8 Navarattan went with him.
32. There are discrepancies not only with respect to the place of arrest and recovery of mobile phone but also with respect to the same being affected in the presence of number of persons.
33. It is stated by PW8 Navrattan that the mobile phone recovered from possession of accused was used by the deceased and was given by him to deceased Pushpender. In his cross- examination he stated that "The said mobile phone had been given to Pushpender by me after purchasing the same from a shop in Paschim Vihar."
34. The shopkeeper of the said shop in Paschim Vihar has not been brought in the witness box to prove that the said mobile phone was purchased from his shop by PW8 Navrattan.
35. Even if it is believed to be true that mobile phone POOJA TALWAR was purchased by PW8 Navrattan even then the fact that the Digitally signed mobile phone was being used by deceased does not stand proved. by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.09 SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 42 of 52 11:04:50 +0530 FIR no.41/17
36. As per the story of the prosecution there were two sim cards in the mobile of deceased Pushpender which as per PW8 Navrattan were in the name of one Ravinder PW10.
37. PW10 Ravinder when stepped into the witness box deposed that "I obtained three sim cards in my name and same were used by Rahul, Pushpender and one sim was used for the purpose of shop of Navrattan because Pushpender was minor at that time."
38. He further stated that the sim card used by Navrattan had no.9999008730, no.8368680997 of Jio was being used by deceased Pushpender and no.8585968403 of Vodafone was given by Pushpender to accused Rahul.
39. As per the prosecution story one sim card of Jio which was allegedly used by the deceased was recovered at instance of accused from village Bajitpur.
40. The said recovery too was affected in presence of PW8 Navrattan and SI Rajender and is Ex.PW8/E. As per the IO and the seizure memo the said sim was of Jio contrary to the statement of PW8 that the recovered sim was of Vodafone. It would also be pertinent to mention here that on 05.03.2019 when the testimony of PW8 Navrattan was recorded he deposed " Later on, one sim of mobile of deceased Pushpender was also got recovered at the instance of accused Rahul but I do not remember POOJA the exact area from where the sim was recovered." TALWAR Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.09 11:04:57 +0530 SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 43 of 52 FIR no.41/17
41. Interestingly when he is brought in the witness box on 10.01.2020 he specifically mentions "Thereafter, on the same day accused led us to village Bajitpur. Accused got recovered one sim card, probably of Vodafone company, from a dug up hole near a wall in a Jungle."
42. Once this witness categorically deposed that he does not remember the place of recovery then how he remembered the exact place from where the sim was allegedly recovered on the next date of hearing. Possibility of his tutoring on the said aspect cannot be ruled out.
43. As per PW10 Ravinder 3 sim cards were issued in his names out of which one was used by deceased Pushpender, one by Rahul and one for the purpose of shop of Navrattan PW8. He further stated that sim card which was being used by Navrattan on his ID was 9999008730. He also deposed that mobile no.9999008730 was kept at flower shop and was either used by Navrattan or by Pushpender.
44. In case testimony of PW10 Ravinder is beleived to be true then Pushpender was using mobile no.8368680997 and accused Rahul was using no.8585968403 and one no.9999008730 was kept at the shop which was used either by Navrattan or by Pushpender. Meaning thereby deceased Pushpender was using the Jio no.8368680997 exclusively and was also using no. 9999008730 at times. It cannot be presumed that deceased Pushpender had put the sim 9999008730 also in POOJA TALWAR his handset which was allegedly recovered from the accused.
Digitally signedThis fact has not been explicitly deposed by Navrattan who was by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.09 SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 44 of 52 11:05:03 +0530 FIR no.41/17 also using the aforesaid numbers at times. It is admitted by PW10 Ravinder "It is also correct that Navrattan was using his own personal mobile number."
45. The best inference that can be drawn from the aforesaid evidence is that both Pushpender and Navrattan were having their own exclusive numbers and the third no. 9999008730 was used in a different handset which was kept as a spare number at the shop to be used by either of them.
46. Prosecution has relied upon call records Ex.PW15/D which reflect an outgoing call from 8585968403 which was allegedly used by the accused to 9999008730 on 07.02.2017 at 8 pm and 8.30 pm. Location of both the mobiles at 8.30 pm is around the park.
47. It has come in evidence that both deceased and accused were good friends which is conceded by PW9 Seema in answer to question of defence counsel about relations between accused and Pushpender she deposed "They used to be together (Sath sath rehte the.)
48. Even PW10 Ravinder deposed "The relations between accused Rahul and deceased Pushpender were cordial and they were close friends."
49. In order to connect accused with the commission of POOJA murder of deceased Pushpender prosecution was required to TALWAR prove that both accused and deceased were using 8585968403 Digitally signed by POOJA and 9999008730 numbers respectively. TALWAR Date:
2026.02.09 SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 45 of 52 11:05:10 +0530 FIR no.41/17
50. However as has been discussed above, 9999008730 was also used by PW8 Navrattan and he did not specifically depose that on the relevant day this number was being used by deceased Pushpender. Moreover, only sim of no.8368680997 which was allegedly used by deceased exclusively was recovered.
51. Prosecution though has tried to connect the accused with the offence by showing the recovery of mobile phone of deceased from possession of accused alongwith the call records from the number of accused to the deceased around the place where the murder was committed.
52. It is a cardinal principle of criminal law that case against the accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in case two views are possible the benefit of same accrues in favour of the accused.
53. In Bhagwan Singh & Ors. V. State of M.P. (2002) 4 SCC 85, the court repeated one of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The Court observed as under:-
7... "The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views POOJA are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to TALWAR the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view Digitally signed which is favourable to accused should be adopted." by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.09 SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 46 of 52 11:05:18 +0530 FIR no.41/17
54. Prosecution failed to prove on record that the mobile phone which was allegedly recovered from the possession of accused Rahul was owned by deceased Pushpender. Despite Navarattan PW8 categorically deposing that he purchased the same from a specific shop, neither the bill was produced nor the shopkeeper brought in the witness box to prove the ownership of the said mobile phone.
55. Not only the ownership of mobile is disputed but also the sim cards were not in the name of either deceased or the accused. PW10 Ravinder claimed to have handed over the said sims to deceased Pushpender and accused Rahul appear to be suspicious as Navrattan who was brother-in-law of deceased Pushpender had a fix place of abode and a business running for considerable time was the person who would have got a sim card for his relative and not an outsider. Moreover, no.9999008730 which was claimed to have been kept in the shop of PW8 Navrattan also appears to be doubtful as to why Navrattan who already has his own number would keep a sim card for use in his shop issued in the name of Ravinder.
56. Possibility of the sim cards being used by Ravinder himself cannot be ruled out.
57. As per the prosecution story the mobile phone was recovered from the pocket of pant of accused Rahul. Though an independent witness Navrattan PW8 has been examined in whose POOJA presence the alleged recovery was affected but there is TALWAR discrepancy with respect to the place of recovery in the version Digitally signed of PW8 Navrattan and IO PW24 Inspector Madhav Krishna. by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.09 11:05:25 +0530 SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 47 of 52 FIR no.41/17
58. As per PW8 Navrattan accused Rahul was apprehended from Badli Railway Station and as per the IO PW24 accused was arrested from Siraspur and accordingly the personal search and recovery was affected at the respective places.
59. Once the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of mobile phone which is the basis of connecting the accused with the offence beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit of same would accrue in favour of the accused.
60. Moving on to the next recovery i.e. pair of black leather shoes. It is deposed by PW8 Navrattan that accused led them to Farukh Nagar Gurugram from where recovery of one pair of black leather shoes was affected.
61. Even as per PW24 IO the said recovery was affected on 14.02.2017 from a rented house in Farukh Nagar. Admittedly there is no document placed on record to prove that accused Rahul was residing in the rented house in Farukh Nagar. Even more interesting is the fact that as per PW8 Navrattan one black colour leather shoes were recovered at the instance of accused and even as per seizure memo Ex.PW8/F one black colour shoes were recovered at instance of accused is mentioned. But when the MHCM produced the same in court it is mentioned " One pair of green-gray colour of sports shoes is taken out and same is shown to the witness. Witness identifies the same was got recovered by the accused and belongs to the accused."
POOJA
62. There is discrepancy not only about the colour TALWAR which as per the seizure memo and testimony of PW8 Navrattan Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.09 SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 48 of 52 11:05:30 +0530 FIR no.41/17 was black but there is a lot of difference between a leather and sports shoes which makes the recovery suspicious.
63. In so far as recovery of mobile phone of accused Rahul hidden under an old vehicle stationed at PS Paschim Vihar is concerned the same too appears doubtful for the reason that the accused would hide his own phone and continue to keep the phone of the person whose murder he himself had committed. No person would keep the belongings of the person whom he had killed with the fear of being caught with the same always haunting him.
64. It is understood that in case the person does not have a mobile of his own would still keep the mobile picked up by him after the commission of offence but would not commit such a blunder of carrying the same in his pocket in order to be caught any time.
65. Besides the alleged recovery no other corroborative evidence has been brought on record to prove the guilt of the accused. Even the forensic evidence could be of no resort to the prosecution. IO did not lift any footprints from the spot nor did he try to lift the finger prints from the currency notes which were found near the body of the deceased.
66. It is admitted by the prosecution witnesses in cross-
examination that there was Paan Bidi khokha outside the park. POOJA
No effort has been made to join the owner of the said Khokha or TALWAR
to find out that there was any CCTV camera installed outside the Digitally signed
by POOJA
park. TALWAR
Date: 2026.02.09
11:05:46 +0530
SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 49 of 52
FIR no.41/17
67. Argument of defence counsel that the mobile phone and other recovered articles were falsely planted holds strength and cannot be discarded altogether.
68. Prosecution then tried to prove the motive to kill the deceased. As per the prosecution story accused killed the deceased as he had replaced him in the flower shop of PW8 Navrattan. PW8 Navrattan was related to both deceased and the accused and till the time deceased Pushpender was working in the shop there was no chance for accused Rahul to have made his place in the shop.
69. PW10 Ravinder deposed that "Accused Rahul was sacked out from his job by Navrattan as some quarrel took place between them. I do not know the reason of the quarrel". Suggestions were given to PW11 Pinku and PW14 Pawan Kumar that due to his misconduct accused Rahul was sacked by Navrattan PW8. However the suggestions were denied by the witnesses. In fact all the prosecution witnesses on the contrary deposed that accused Rahul and deceased Pushpender were good friends and had cordial relations. PW9 Seema sister of the deceased stated that both of them would always stay together.
70. Hence, the prosecution failed to establish motive behind commission of offence by the accused.
71. As has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs POOJA the link evidence to connect accused Rahul with the crime was TALWAR tried to be proved by the prosecution through the recovery of mobile phone from his pocket and the calls made by him to Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.02.09 SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 50 of 52 11:05:52 +0530 FIR no.41/17 deceased Pushpender soon before the incident.
72. Accused Rahul has also been charged for causing disappearance of evidence. Neither the recovery of mobile phone nor the sim cards issued in the name of PW10 Ravinder being used by both deceased and accused could be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The recovery of shoes itself is doubtful hence accused cannot be held liable for cleaning the same in order to cause disappearance of evidence.
73. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to establish the relevant factors of circumstantial evidence i.e. :
(1) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) The circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
74. The prosecution has not been able to prove that all POOJA the facts so established are consistent only with the hypothesis of TALWAR the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has not been able to Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 51 of 52 Date: 2026.02.09 FIR no.41/17 11:06:00 +0530 establish a chain of evidence so complete so as to establish that it was only the accused and nobody else who could have murdered the victim. In view of the aforesaid discussion, prosecution failed to prove the offence with which the accused has been charged. Accordingly accused deserve to be acquitted under Section 302 IPC and Section 201 IPC.
Conclusion:
75. In view of aforesaid findings, prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused. Accordingly accused Rahul Kumar is acquitted for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC and Section 201 IPC.
POOJA
Announced in the open court (POOJA TALWAR)
on 09.02.2026 ASJ-01(FTC) West District,
TALWAR
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi Digitally signed
by POOJA
TALWAR
Date: 2026.02.09
11:06:08 +0530
SC No.318/17 State. Vs. Rahul Kumar Page : 52 of 52
FIR no.41/17