Delhi District Court
State vs Md. Munna @ Arjun on 18 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHIRENDRA RANA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-07, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS:
NEW DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 9267/2016)
CNR No. DLND01-002797-2015
FIR No. 200/2015
Police Station Parliament Street
Charge sheet filed 302 IPC
Under Section
Charge framed Under 302 IPC
Section
Mohd. Munna @ Arjun s/o
Mohd. Yasin r/o Vegabond
State Vs. Indra Gandhi Rastriya Kala
Kendra, New Delhi.
Permanent Address: Village
Madanpur Anchal, District
Arariya, Bihar.
Date of institution 21.12.2015
Arguments concluded on 27.02.2026
Judgment Pronounced on 18.03.2026
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS 1.1 Events which set the prosecution machinery into motion is that on 07.09.2015 on receipt of DD No. 9A that at about 08:15 AM an information SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 1 of 42 FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.18 15:54:49 +0530 was received regarding recovery of dead body inside Bhuta Singh Chambery Park, Ashoka Road and IO SI Sanjeev received at the spot. SI Lokesh, HC Ashok, Ct. Rajender, Ct. Mukesh were already present at the spot. Inside the park near the fountain adjacent to hedge, one male dead body aged about 34-35 years wearing black and dark green colour strips shirt and black colour lower, whose head was crushed and blood was collected beneath the head. One cycle was also lying near the dead body. One pair of sandals were lying near feet of deceased. During investigation, one piece of blood stained stone was also lying at the spot. IO prepared site plan of the spot. Dead body was identified by Seema as of his sworn brother Santosh and she revealed that deceased used to live with her and was doing work of waiter. She further revealed that deceased went with accused Arjun @ Munna for consuming liquor and she had suspicion that accused had committed murder of Santosh. Thereafter, FIR was registered under section 302 IPC.
1.2 Crime team was called at the spot. Scene of crime was inspected by crime team members and they also clicked the photographs. Dead body was shifted to Dr. RML Hospital where vide MLC No. E/203691/15 injured was declared brought dead. Dead body was preserved in mortuary. Thereafter, IO seized the exhibits i.e., blood stained earth, blood in gauze, earth control, blood stained stone, stone control, cycle make Neelam, black colour sandals make Player, one empty beer bottle Officer Choice Blue, one empty water bottle and two plastic glasses and deposited the same in malkhana. 1.3 On 08.09.2015, postmortem of deceased was conducted vide postmortem report No. 468/15 in Lady Harding Hospital where concerned doctor handed over viscera, clothes, blood in gauze and tooth of deceased to IO which were deposited in malkhana. After postmortem dead body was handed over to his relatives. Thereafter, efforts were made to trace out accused SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 2 of 42 FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.18 15:54:55 +0530 Md. Munna @ Arjun and police team reached at Windsor Place Round About where at the instance of Pritam Rana (husband of Seema), accused was apprehended. During interrogation, accused confessed his involvement in the commission of crime. Accused was arrested, his personal search was conducted and his disclosure statement was recorded. Slippers of accused which were worn by him during the incident were seized. Pointing out memo of place of incident was prepared at the instance of accused. As per postmortem report cause of death was cranio ceretral damage consequent upon multiple hard and blunt force impacts to head. During investigation, scaled site plan was prepared by draughtsman and exhibits were sent to FSL. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence under section 302 IPC against accused was filed in the court. Later on FSL result was obtained by IO which was filed in the court in the form of supplementary charge sheet.
CHARGE
2. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 19.01.2016, charge under section 302 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case have examined 23 witnesses in all.
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED BY WITNESSES S. Name of Witness Exhibit number Description of documents N. 1 PW1 Inspector K. L. Ex. PW1/A Filed supplementary charge Yadav sheet SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 3 of 42 FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.18 15:55:00 +0530
2. PW2 Dr. Rahul Band, Ex. PW2/A Postmortem report Senior Resident, Lady Harding Medical College
3. PW3 HC Kaptan Singh Ex. PW3/A Arrest memo Ex. PW3/B Personal Search memo Ex. PW3/C Body Inspection memo of accused Ex. PW3/D Disclosure statement Ex. PW3/E Site plan regarding place of arrest and seizure Ex. PW3/F Seizure memo qua slipper of accused Ex. PW3/G Pointing out memo at the instance of accused Ex. PW3/H Pointing out memo from where deceased was taken by accused Ex. PW3/P-1 Pair of sandal
4. PW4 Dr. Sushma Ex. PW4/A MLC No. E-203691/15
5. PW5 ASI Vinod Ex. PW5/A FIR Madhur Ex. PW5/B Endorsement on rukka Ex. PW5/C Certificate under section 65-
B of Indian Evidence Act
Ex. PW5/D DD No. 9A dated 07.09.2015
6. PW6 Seema - -
SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 4 of 42
FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.03.18
15:55:05 +0530
7. PW7 SI Ajay Kumar Ex. PW7/A SOC No. 184/15 dated
(Incharge Crime Team) 07.09.2015
8. PW8 HC Pushkar - Finger Print Proficient in
Mobile Crime Team
9. PW9 Pritam Rana Ex. PW9/A Dead body identification
statement
10. PW10 HC Ashok Ex. PW10/A Seizure memo of blood
Kumar stained earth
Ex. PW10/B Seizure memo of blood
gauze
Ex. PW/10/C Seizure memo of earth
control
Ex. PW10/D Seizure memo of blood
stained concrete
Ex. PW10/E Seizure memo of other
concrete stone control
Ex. PW10/F Seizure memo of cycle
Ex. PW10/G Seizure memo of slipper
Ex. PW10/H Seizure memo of empty
bottle and plastic glass
Ex. PW10/Ia Beer Bottle
Ex. PW10/Ib Empty water bottle
Ex. PW10/Ic Empty bottle
Ex. PW10/Id Two empty plastic glasses
(colly)
Ex. PW10/Ja Jar containing cotton
SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 5 of 42
FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.03.18
15:55:11 +0530
bandage soiled with some
dark brown spots/substance
Ex. PW10/Jb Soiled bandage with some
dark brown spots/substance
Ex. PW10/Ka One big concrete stone
Ex. PW10/La One pair of black colour
slippers (word Player was
written)
Ex. PW10/Ma Jar containing piece of
cemented stones
Ex. PW10/Mb Pieces of cemented stones
Ex. PW10/Na Jar containing soil
Ex. PW10/Nb Soil
Ex. PW10/Oa Jar containing soil with
grass
Ex. PW10/Ob Soil with grass
Ex. PW10/Pa Cycle
11. PW11 Ct. Jony Kumar Ex. PW11/P-1 to Photographs
(photographer Crime Ex. PW11/P-12
Team)
12. PW12 HC Sunil Ex. PW12/A RC No. 113, 114, 115/21/15
(MHC(M)) (colly)
Ex. PW12/B Entries in register No. 19
(colly)
13. PW13 SI Shrikant Ex. PW13/A Seizure memo of pullandas
(with IO during containing viscera of
investigation) deceased, blood in gauze,
clothes and tooth of deceased
SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 6 of 42
FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.03.18
15:55:19 +0530
Ex. PW13/B and Acknowledgment slips of
Ex. PW13/C FSL
14. PW14 SI Dharmender - -
15. PW15 Ct. Kapil Kumar - Special messenger
16. PW16 Surjeet Singh Ex. PW16/A Identification statement
(employer of deceased)
17. PW17 SI Lokesh (with Ex. PW17/1 Pair of sandals (word Player
IO SI Sanjeev during was written) recovered from
investigation) near the dead body
18. PW18 Ct. Rajinder - -
Kumar (with IO SI
Sanjeev during
investigation)
19. PW19 Inspector Ex. PW19/A Scaled site plan
Mukesh Kumar Jain
(draughtsman)
20. PW20 HC Sanjeev - -
Kumar (with IO SI
Sanjeev during
investigation)
21. PW21 Dr. Kanak Lata Ex. PW21/A Detailed report
Verma, Senior
Scientific Officer
(Chemistry), RFSL,
Chanakyapuri
22. PW22 D. S. Paliwal, Ex. PW22/A Detailed report
Senior Scientific
Officer (Biology), Ex. PW22/B Genotype Data
RFSL, Chanakyapuri
23. PW23 Inspector Ex. PW23/A Endorsement
Sanjeev Kumar (IO)
Ex. PW23/B Site plan
Ex. PW23/C Inquest papers
Ex. PW23/D DD No. 3A
SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 7 of 42
FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.03.18
15:55:25 +0530
Ex. PW23/E DD No. 67B
FORMAL WITNESSES
4. PW1 Inspector K. L. Yadav deposed that on 08.10.2015, further investigation was marked to him. He further deposed that exhibits comprising of 9 exhibits and one viscera box alongwith two sample seals were got deposited in FSL Chanakyapuri through SI Srikant on 03.11.2015. He further deposed that he prepared the challan and filed the same in the court. 4.1 He further deposed that he obtained biological result alongwith Genotype analysis for establishing identity of stains using micro-satellites and viscera report from FSL. He further deposed that he filed supplementary charge sheet which is Ex. PW1/A.
5. PW2 Dr. Rahul Band deposed that on 08.09.2015 dead body of Santosh @ Taant was brought for postmortem at LHMC mortuary which was identified by two relatives named Pritam Rana and Sumit Singh. He further deposed that he and Dr. Rishabh Kumar Singh conducted the postmortem. 5.1 He further deposed that cause of death was cranio cerebral damage consequent upon multiple hard and blunt force impacts to head. All injuries were ante mortem in nature and fresh in duration. External injuries No.1-10 alongwith their internal injuries were sufficient enough to collectively cause death in ordinary course of nature and were produced by hard and blunt force or object. Injury No. 1-5 were also individually sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He proved postmortem report as Ex. PW2/A.
6. PW4 Dr. Sushma deposed that on 07.10.2015, he examined SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 8 of 42 FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.03.18 15:55:30 +0530 patient Santosh vide MLC No. E-203691/15 which is Ex. PW4/A and opined that there was no pulse, no BP, pupils were dilated fixed and non reacting to light. He further deposed that patient was declared brought dead and dead body was sent to mortuary for postmortem.
7. PW5 ASI Vinod Mathur, being duty officer, exhibited FIR as Ex. PW5/A, endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW5/B, certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW5/C and DD No. 9A dated 07.09.2015 as Ex. PW5/D.
8. PW7 SI Ajay Kumar, deposed that on 07.09.2015 at about 08:35 AM, on receipt of information from Control Room, he alongwith Ct. Jonny (photographer) and Ct. Pushkar (finger print proficient) went to the spot i.e., at Buta Singh Round About (Chamberi), Ashoka Road, New Delhi and found that one dead body of one male aged about 30-35 years was lying on the ground. He further deposed that he had seen one cycle make Neelam lying near the body and blood stained stone. He further deposed that he also observed one empty beer bottle and one empty half bottle whiskey at the spot. He further deposed that when they reached at the spot IO Inspector Sanjeev Kumar alongwith other staff were already present there. He further deposed that the spot was photographed by the photographer and proficient tried to lift chance print but in vain. He further deposed that he prepared his report bearing No. SOC No. 184/15 dated 07.09.2015 which is Ex. PW7/A and handed over the same to IO.
9. PW8 HC Pushkar is the finger print expert and he deposed on the lines of PW7 SI Ajay.
SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 9 of 42
FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.03.18
15:55:36 +0530
10. PW11 Ct. Jony Kumar, being the photographer in crime team, clicked 12 photographs of the scene from different angles on the instructions of IO and Incharge of Crime Team which are Ex. PW11/P-1 to Ex. PW11/P-12.
11.1 PW12 HC Sunil deposed that on 03.11.2015 on the instructions of Inspector K. L. Yadav, he handed over exhibits of the case to SI Shrikant vide RC No. 113, 114, 115/21/15 for depositing the same in RFSL, Chanakyapuri for opinion. He further deposed that after depositing the same in RFSL, SI Shrikant handed over copies of RC and copies of receipt of RFSL to him. 11.2 He further exhibited copies of RC as Ex. PW12/A (colly) and entries in register No. 19 as Ex. PW12/B (colly).
12. PW15 Ct. Kapil Kumar, being the special messenger, delivered the copy of FIR to the office of DCP, Additional DCP, ACO and to Illaka Magistrate.
13. PW16 Surjeet Singh deposed that he used to supply cold drinks and water bottles at India Gate to the hawkers as they used to sell the said articles to the customers at India Gate. He further deposed that deceased Santosh @ Taat was known to him since 2003 as he was his employee. He further deposed that deceased Santosh @ Taat used to sell the water bottles and cold drinks at India Gate for him in summer season and used to work as waiter in winter season in the marriage parties. He further deposed that accused Arjun @ Munna was also known to him as he used to stay at India Gate. 13.1 He further deposed that on 08.09.2015, he went to mortuary Dr. RML Hospital where he identified dead body of Santosh @ Taat vide identification statement which is Ex. PW16/A. He further deposed that after SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 10 of 42 FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.03.18 15:55:41 +0530 postmortem, dead body was handed over to him and Pritam for last rites.
14. PW19 Inspector Mukesh Kumar Jain, deposed that on 17.09.2015, on request of Inspector Sanjeev, he went to police station Parliament Street and from there he alongwith Inspector Sanjeev and 2-3 other police officials went to the spot i.e., Park Inside, Buta Singh Round About, Ashoka Road, New Delhi. He further deposed that on the pointing out of Inspector Sanjeev, he prepared rough notes of the spot and on the basis of rough notes, he prepared scaled site plan which is Ex. PW19/A on 18.09.2015 and handed over the same to IO.
15. PW21 Dr. Kanak Lata Verma, Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry), deposed that on 03.11.2015, one sealed wooden box found to be containing Ex. 7A i.e., stomach, pieces of small intestine with contents, Ex. 7B i.e., pieces of liver, spleen and kidney, Ex. 7C i.e., blood sample volume approx. 20 ml and Ex. 9D i.e., preservative sample, saturated solution of common salt received by her for examination.
15.1 She further deposed that she examined the exhibits from 07.12.2015 to 21.12.2015 and on chemical, microscopic, TLC and GC-HS examination, metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected. She proved her report as Ex. PW21/A.
16. PW22 D. S. Paliwal, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) deposed that on 03.11.2015, nine sealed parcels were received in RFSL and same were marked to him for examination.
16.1 He further deposed that upon examination of exhibits contained
SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 11 of 42
FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.03.18
15:55:48 +0530
in parcel No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 blood was detected on Ex. 1, Ex. 3, Ex. 5, Ex. 6a, Ex. 6b, Ex. 7 and Ex. 8, however, blood was not detected on Ex. 2 and Ex. 4. He further deposed that Ex. 1, Ex. 3, Ex. 5, Ex. 6a, Ex. 6b,, Ex. 7 and Ex. 8 were subjected to DNA isolation. He further deposed that DNA was isolated from Ex. 3, Ex. 5, Ex. 6a, Ex. 6b, Ex. 7 and Ex. 8 and DNA profile for Ex. 3, Ex. 5, Ex. 6a, Ex. 6b and Ex. 8 was prepared by using AMP FL STR Identifiler PCR amplification kit. He further deposed that STR analysis was used for the sample and data was analyzed by using GENE Mapper IDX software. However, DNA could not be isolated from Ex. 1 and DNA profile from the source of Ex. 7 could not be generated either due to degradation of stains or presence of inhibitors.
16.2 He further deposed that as per his report DNA profile of male origin generated from the source of Ex. 3 (blood stained pathar/stone/suspected weapon of offence), Ex. 5 (blood stained cycle) and Ex. 8 ( chappal of accused) was similar with DNA profile generated from the source of Ex. 6a (full sleeve shirt) and Ex. 6b (sports pyajama). He proved his report as Ex.PW22/A and genotype data as Ex. PW22/B. MATERIAL WITNESSES
17. PW6 Seema deposed that on 07.09.2015, she was residing at Janpath road, Near Indra Gandhi Kala Kendra with her husband and sworn brother Santosh (muh bola bhai). He further deposed that on that day at about 06:30 PM, accused Munna came to the place and took Santosh with him. She further deposed that while going with Munna, Santosh told her not to wait for him for dinner. She further deposed that at about 01:30-02:30 AM, accused Munna came at her place and started quarreling with her husband. On hearing the noise, she woke up and inquired from accused about Santosh and accused SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 12 of 42 FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.18 15:55:54 +0530 told her that 3-4 persons took away Santosh in an auto rickshaw alongwith the cycle from Teen Haddi Chowk. She further deposed that she questioned accused as to how in an auto 3-4 persons alongwith cycle and her brother could fit. She also questioned accused as to why he had not noted down the number of auto rickshaw and asked her to call at number 100 but accused did not make the call. She further deposed that accused threw his mobile phone on the floor in anger and stated that he would not call to anybody. 17.1 She further deposed that they stopped one PCR van and narrated them the entire incident. Thereafter, PCR personnel sent information to PS Parliament Street about the quarrel between her husband and accused. She further deposed that after that one police official Dharmender came there and interrogated accused and assured that he would search Santosh. She further deposed that they had also searched his brother at Teen Haddi Chowk in the night but he was not found. She further deposed that in the morning, she was informed regarding murder of Santosh and his dead body was lying at Teen Haddi Chowk. Thereafter, she alongwith her husband went to police station Parliament Street and informed them about the lying of dead body of her brother at Teen Haddi Chowk. She further deposed that thereafter, she alongwith her husband and police officials went to Teen Haddi Chowk where they saw the dead body of her brother.
17.2 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, she stated that there was no quarrel between accused Munna and her husband and there was no enmity between her brother Santosh and Munna. She admitted that neither her husband nor her brother Santosh told her about any enmity or rivalry with Munna.
17.3 She was further cross examined on behalf of accused under section 311 CrPC wherein she stated that she had never seen Munna earlier and SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 13 of 42 FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.18 15:56:02 +0530 saw him for the first time when he had taken her brother Santosh. She stated that she came to know about name of Munna from police station. She could not tell whether or not her brother was acquainted with accused. She stated that at the time of incident, her husband did not consume liquor. She stated that deceased Santosh never consumed liquor and he was not having any mobile phone at the time of incident. She stated that she was also not having any mobile phone at that time. She stated that she did not inform the police on that day when Santosh did not come back. She stated that she was informed by one person that dead body of her brother Santosh was lying at Teen Haddi Chowk near Gol Chakkar. She stated that when she had gone to Teen Haddi Chowk Near Gol Chakkar in the night to search Santosh, he was not present there his dead body was lying there in the next morning.
18. PW9 Pritam Rana deposed that at the time of incident i.e., on 06- 07.09.2015, he alongwith his wife and deceased Santosh were residing near Gate No. 2, Indra Gandhi Kala Kendra. He further deposed that Santosh was sworn brother of his wife, who brought one quarter bottle of liquor on the date of incident and they both consumed about a peg from it. He further deposed that in the meantime, at about 07:00-07:15 PM, accused Munna @ Arjun had come there and asked Santosh to accompany him for consuming liquor as he had liquor with him. He further deposed that thereafter, Santosh and Munna went from there.
18.1 He further deposed that at about 01:30-02:00 AM, Munna came there, awoke him and her wife and told them that 4-5 persons had taken away Santosh in their auto alongwith bicycle of Santosh. He further deposed that he asked accused, how bicycle would accommodate in an auto when there were already 4-5 persons sitting inside the auto. He further deposed that he also SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 14 of 42 FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.18 15:56:08 +0530 asked him about the number of that auto and told that he could not get the number of that auto as he was hit by the person by the danda. Accused started quarreling with him. He further deposed that he called PCR personnel as PCR van was stationed opposite gate No. 1 of Indira Gandhi Kala Kendra and informed them about the quarrel with accused Munna. PCR personnel had called at police station Parliament Street from there and IO SI Dharmender came there and made enquiries from him. He further deposed that he told SI Dharmender that Santosh had accompanied accused Munna and accused was saying that Santosh had been taken away in an auto by 4-5 persons. He further deposed that thereafter, IO SI Dharmender inquired from Munna about the whereabouts of Santosh, who told that he was not aware about him. He further deposed that in the meantime, accused Munna told that he would search Santosh and fled away from there.
18.2 He further deposed that in the morning at about 05:00-05:30 AM, they came to know that a dead body was lying at Teen Haddi Chowk. He alongwith his wife went there and saw that number of police persons had gathered there. The dead body was of his brother-in-law Santosh. They went to police station and narrated all the incident to SI Dharmender. Her brother in law was hit by stone on his neck and leg. They identified the dead body vide identification statement which is Ex. PW9/A and postmortem on the dead body was got done and after postmortem dead body was handed over to him. 18.3 After cremation of deceased, they went for the search of accused alongwith police staff at Bangla Saheb, Hanuman Mandir and several other places but accused could not be found. He further deposed that he saw accused sitting in a park and he pointed out towards accused, who was apprehended and arrested by police. Accused was taken to the spot at Teen Haddi Chowk and confessed his guilt of killing Santosh. He further deposed that police also SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 15 of 42 FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.18 15:56:14 +0530 seized slippers of Mohd. Munna.
18.4 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he admitted that he had not seen Munna @ Arjun killing brother in law Santosh, however, he took Santosh with him on that night.
18.5 He was further cross examined on behalf of accused under section 311 CrPC, he stated that he knew accused Munna prior to the incident. He stated that Santosh was acquainted with accused Munna. He stated that he never consumed liquor. Deceased used to consume liquor occasionally. He stated that he as well as Santosh was not having any mobile phone at that time.
He stated that he was informed by one person that the dead body of Santosh was lying at teen haadi Chowk near gol chakkar. He stated that when he had gone to teen haddi chowk near gol chakar in night to search Santosh, he was not present there but his dead body was lying there in the next morning.
WITNESSES OF INVESTIGATION
19. PW3 HC Kaptan Singh deposed that on 08.09.2015, he joined the investigation with Inspector Sanjeev Kumar, SI Srikant and Ct. Devinder and left the police station for search of accused alongwith Pritam Rana. He further deposed that they searched the area of Gurudwara Bangla Sahib, New Delhi Railway Station, Nizammudin Railway Station, India Gate and lastly they reached round about Windsor Place at about 08:00 PM. Near the Windsor Place round about, Pritam Rana pointed out towards one person, who was standing inside the park and identified him to be accused Munna @ Arjun, who had taken deceased Santosh @ Tant alongwith him and after recovery of dead body, he had ran away.
19.1 He further deposed that accused Mohd. Munna @ Arjun was apprehended and during interrogation, accused disclosed that he had murdered SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 16 of 42 FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.18 15:56:57 +0530 Santosh. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW3/A and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo which is Ex. PW3/B. The body inspection memo of accused was prepared which is Ex. PW3/C and his disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex. PW3/D. He deposed that site plan regarding the place of arrest and seizure was prepared which is Ex. PW3/E. The wearing slippers of accused were taken into possession vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW3/F. He further deposed that accused pointed out the place of occurrence inside the park at Buta Singh Chambri where the alleged offence was committed by him vide pointing out memo which is Ex. PW3/G. The pointing out memo of the place where accused took the deceased was prepared which is Ex. PW3/H. He identified the pair of sandal of accused as Ex. PW3/P1.
19.2 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he stated that they went to spot by government gypsy bearing No. DL-1CM-1609 and left the police station with a public person Pritam Rana. He stated that Sandal of accused were seized from Windsor place at his instance.
20. PW10 HC Ashok Kumar deposed that on 07.09.2015, he was on beat duty and was asked by Inspector Sanjiv Kumar to reach at the spot. He further deposed that he reached at the spot i.e., Buta Singh Chambery, Windsor Place where one person was found unconscious. SI Lokesh, Ct. Mukesh and Ct. Rajender was also present there. After some time Inspector Sanjiv Kumar also reached there. One bicycle of black colour of make Neelam company was lying near the head of that person. There was also black colour slippers near his feet. He further deposed that he observed a concrete stone which was blood stained was also lying nearby bush. Thereafter, IO called the crime team and they took the photographs of the spot from different angles. IO seized the SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 17 of 42 FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.18 15:57:04 +0530 bicycle, slippers, concrete stone, one empty bottle of liquor make Officer's Choice, two plastic empty glasses and one water bottle. IO also seized blood stained soil from the spot and other stones lying near the spot. All the pullandas were sealed with the seal of DKP and seal after use was handed over to SI Lokesh by Inspector Sanjiv Kumar. He proved seizure memo of blood stained earth as Ex. PW10/A, seizure memo of blood gauze as Ex. PW10/B, seizure memo of earth control as Ex. PW10/C, seizure memo of blood stained concrete as Ex. PW10/D, seizure memo of other concrete stone control as Ex. PW10/E, seizure memo of cycle as Ex. PW10/F, seizure memo of slippers as Ex. PW10/G and seizure memo of empty bottle and plastic glass as Ex. PW10/H.
20.1 He exhibited beer bottle of make Dare Devil as Ex. PW10/Ia, water bottle of make Acquafina as Ex. PW10/Ib, empty bottle of Officers Choice as Ex. PW10/IC and two empty plastic glasses as Ex. PW10/Id. He further exhibited jar containing cotton bandage soiled with some dark brown spots/substance (stated to be blood which was picked up with the bandage from the spot) as Ex.PW10/Ja and soiled bandage with some dark brown spots/substance as Ex. PW10/Jb.
20.2 He further exhibited one big concrete stone which was recovered from the bushes as Ex. PW10/Ka. He further exhibited one pair of black colour slippers on which 'Player' was written as Ex. PW10/La. He further exhibited one plastic transparent jar containing pieces of cemented stones as Ex. PW10/Ma and pieces of cemented stones as Ex. PW10/Mb. He further exhibited plastic transparent jar containing soil inside the jar as Ex. PW10/Na and soil as Ex. PW10/Nb.
20.3 He further exhibited plastic transparent jar containing soil and grass as Ex. PW10/Oa and soil with grass as Ex. PW10/Ob. He further SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 18 of 42 FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.03.18 15:57:10 +0530 exhibited cycle as Ex. PW10/Pa.
21. PW13 SI Shrikant deposed that on 08.09.2015, he joined the investigation with Inspector Sanjeev Kumar and on the instructions of IO, he alongwith Preetam @ Rana and Surjeet Singh heirs of deceased Santosh @ Taant, Ct. Mukesh went to mortuary RML Hospital from where dead body was shifted to LHMC. He further deposed that Inspector Sanjeev Kumar also reached at mortuary LHMC where IO prepared inquest papers, postmortem on the dead body of deceased Santosh @ Taant was conducted in LHMC vide PM No. 468/2015. After postmortem dead body was handed over to family members of deceased. The autopsy surgeon preserved blood in gauze, tooth, viscera and clothes of the deceased for DNA profiling. 21.1 He further deposed that on the same day at about 05:45 PM, he alongwith Inspector Sanjeev, HC Kaptan, Ct. Devender, Preetam were searching accused Md. Munna @ Arjun. At about 08:00 PM, they were present inside park Windsor place round about Ashoka Road where one person was sitting which was identified by Preetam as accused Md. Munna @ Arjun. At the instance of Preetam, accused was apprehended and arrested. Disclosure statement of accused regarding involvement in the present was recorded by Inspector Sanjeev. Slippers of accused make Sparx white colour with blue strips were taken into police possession after sealing the same with the seal of DKP. At the instance of accused, pointing out memo of spot and place of quarrel which had taken place prior to one day of the present incident i.e., gate No.3, Indira Gandhi Kalakendra were prepared. 21.2 He further deposed that on 09.09.2015, on the instructions of Inspector Sanjeev, he alongwith Ct. Mukesh to LHMC where concerned doctor handed over four sealed pullandas with the seal of FMTLHMC containing SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 19 of 42 FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.03.18 15:57:15 +0530 viscera of deceased, blood in gauze, cloths and tooth of deceased alongwith four sample seal and he seized the same vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW13/A. He deposited the case property with MHC(M) and handed over the seizure memo to the IO.
21.3 On 03.11.2015 on the instructions of IO, Inspector B. L.Yadav, he collected sealed exhibits from MHC(M) vide RC No. 113/21, 114/21 and 115/21 and deposited the same in FSL. He obtained the acknowledgment slips from FSL which are Ex. PW13/B and Ex. PW13/C and handed over the same to MHC(M).
21.4 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he stated that private ambulance was called for removal of the dead body. He could not tell the name of the driver of the said ambulance and could not tell as to from where the said ambulance was called. He stated that they searched accused at New Delhi Railway Station, Sarai Kale Khan ISBT, India Gate, etc. He denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf of accused.
22. PW14 SI Dharmender deposed that in the intervening night of 06- 07.09.2015 at about 02:00 AM, he received a PCR call " Janpath Indira Gandhi Kala Kendra bus stop Munna veh Pritam ka jhagada" (quarrel between Munna and Pritam at Janpath Indira Gandhi Kala Kendra). Oon reaching there, Pritam Rana and his wife Seema met them and accused Arjun @ Munna was also present there. Accused was appearing to be under influence of intoxication and on interrogation, he was saying "Santosh @ Taat ko char log saikal samet auto main teen hadi gole chakkar se utha kar legaye". He further deposed that on more inquiry, accused Arjun @ Munna went away from there and later on he came to know that body of Santosh @ Taat was found Butta Singh Chambri and his face was found in crushed condition.
SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 20 of 42
FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.03.18
15:57:23 +0530
22.1 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he admitted
that there was no mention of anything which was told by accused to him in DD No. 67B which was registered by him. He denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf of accused.
23. PW17 SI Lokesh deposed on the lines of PW10 HC Ashok Kumar in his examination in chief.
23.1 In addition, he deposed that IO Inspector Sanjeev made endorsement on DD No. 9A and prepared rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Rajinder for getting the FIR registered. He further deposed that Ct. Rajinder reached at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to IO. He further deposed that IO handed over seal after use to him. IO prepared site plan and recorded statement of Seema and Pritam Rana. He searched for accused but he could not be traced despite best efforts. 23.2 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he stated that 8-10 public persons were found present there, however, they were watching the proceedings from some distance. He denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf of accused.
24. PW18 Ct. Rajinder Kumar deposed on the lines of PW10 HC Ashok Kumar and PW17 SI Lokesh Kumar in his examination in chief.
25. PW20 HC Mukesh Kumar deposed that on 07.09.2015, duty officer entrusted DD No. 9 to him regarding dead body found at Buta Singh Chambery for handing over the same to Inspector Sanjeev. He handed over the DD entry to Inspector Sanjeev, who instructed him, SI Lokesh, HC Ashok and Ct. Rajender to reach at the spot. He further deposed that he alongwith SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 21 of 42 FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.18 15:57:29 +0530 aforesaid police officials went to the spot i.e., Park inside Buta Singh Round about, Ashoka Road, New Delhi. One dead body was lying near the edge of fountain inside the park. He further deposed that age of the dead body was about 34-35 years and was wearing one black colour lower and black colour shirt having green strips. He further deposed that one cycle was lying near the head of the dead body, one pair black colour sandal were lying near the legs of the dead body. He further deposed that one empty beer bottle, one empty half bottle of liquor make Officer's Choice Blue, two empty plastic glasses and one empty plastic bottle of water were lying near the tree and other side of the tree one big piece of stone of concrete was lying which was having blood stains. He further deposed that the face of the dead body in crushed condition and there was cut mark on the right ear on the dead body. He further deposed that huge quantity blood was lying at the spot and it was appearing that the person was murdered by the stone lying at the spot. He further deposed that Seema and her husband Sh. Pritam Rana identified the dead body to be of Santosh. He further deposed that Seema told that deceased was her brother in relation and she made suspicion over Arjun @ Munna that he might had committed murder of Santosh. He further deposed that IO Inspector Sanjeev called the crime team. Crime team inspected the scene of crime and clicked the photographs. 25.1 He further deposed that IO Inspector Sanjeev made endorsement on DD No. 9A and prepared rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Rajinder for registration of FIR. Incharge Crime Team gave his report to IO after inspection of scene of crime. On the instructions of IO, he took the dead body to RML Hospital Mortuary and remained with the dead body for safeguards. 25.2 On 08.02.2015, SI Shrikant alongwith known persons of deceased namely Surjeet Singh and Pritam Rana came in mortuary where they identified the dead body of deceased Santosh. IO had prepared inquest proceedings and SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 22 of 42 FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.18 15:57:34 +0530 thereafter, postmortem on the dead body was conducted vide postmortem report No. 468/2015. After postmortem dead body was handed over to his family members.
25.3 On 09.09.2015, he alongwith SI Shrikant went to LHMC where the concerned doctor handed over one sealed wooden box containing viscera of deceased and one sealed parcel containing clothes of deceased, two sealed brown envelopes containing blood in gauze, tooth of deceased, all sealed with the seal of FMTLHMC alongwith four sample seals to SI Shrikant, who seized the same.
25.4 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he denied that he never visited the spot and he never took the dead body to mortuary. He further denied that no inquest proceedings took place in his presence.
26. PW23 Inspector Sanjiv Kumar, being the IO of this case deposed about the investigation carried out by him and on the lines of PW3 HC Kaptan Singh, PW10 HC Ashok Kumar, PW13 SI Shrikant, PW17 SI Lokesh, PW18 Ct. Rajinder and PW20 HC Mukesh Kumar in his examination in chief.
26.1 He exhibited endorsement as Ex. PW23/A, site plan as Ex. PW23/B, inquest papers as Ex.PW23/C, DD No. 3A as Ex. PW23/D and DD No. 67B as Ex. PW23/E. 26.2 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he stated that he denied that he did not met SI Lokesh, HC Ashok, Ct. Rajinder and Ct. Mukesh at the spot. He further denied that no concrete stone having blood stain was found at the spot and no eye witness was found during investigation. He stated that Seema was already present at the spot when he reached there. He denied that he had taken the signature of accused on number of blank papers. He further denied that nothing was recovered at the spot and bottle of liquor SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 23 of 42 FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.18 15:57:40 +0530 and beer was not found near the dead body and same was planted later on to make case against accused. He further denied that Seema never informed him that deceased had gone with accused to take drink on previous night of recovery of death body. He further denied that Seema never told him that she suspected that accused had murdered her brother Santosh. He further denied that no crime team was called at the spot or no photograph of the spot was taken. He further denied that no finger print from the empty bottle of liquor was lifted. He further denied that accused was arrested at the instance of Preetam from the park of Windsor Place Round About, Near Le Meridian, Ashoka Road. He further denied that accused was not wearing blood stained sandal when he was arrested or that he never informed that he was wearing that very sandal at the time of commission of offence. 26.3 He was further cross examined on behalf of accused under section 311 CrPC wherein he stated that during investigation, witness Surjeet told that accused and deceased used to work with him, however, he did not collect any document from Surjeet regarding his occupation. He stated that during investigation, he came to know that accused was involved in another case. He stated that he was carrying dossier of the accused when he searched for him. He stated that there was no public person when he apprehended the accused. He could not tell whether accused was taken to the spot where he had thrown his wearing clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident. He denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf of accused.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C
27. After closure of PE, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 07.12.2022, wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence put to him. He stated that he is innocent. He hardly knew Seema and Pritam except SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 24 of 42 FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.18 15:57:45 +0530 that they were residing in the same area. He stated that on 06.09.2015, he had gone to Mathura for Janmasthami and when he returned in the evening of 07.09.2015, he was informed that police was looking for him in connection with murder. He stated that since he had not committed any murder, he spoke to police and went to police station on their false assurance that it was a small case of theft and he was detained.
27.1 Accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
28. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
29. I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for State and Mr. S. A. Khan, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for accused Mohd. Munna @ Arjun.
30. It was argued by Ld. Addl. PP that the allegations levelled against the accused are of serious nature. He took the deceased with him around 07:00- 07:30 PM on 06.09.2015 on the pretext of having a drinking session but thereafter, deceased was never seen alive by anyone. Around 01:30 AM on 07.09.2015, he came back and informed PW6 Seema and PW9 Preetam Rana that some unknown 3-4 persons had abducted the deceased in an auto rickshaw alongwith his bicycle. When PW6 and PW9 raised suspicion over his version, an altercation took place between the accused and PW9 and police was informed at number 100. When police officials reached at the spot, accused fled away. Subsequently, dead body was recovered in the morning of 07.09.2015 at Teen Haddi Chowk around 05:00-05:30 AM. When accused was arrested, blood of the deceased was detected on his slippers which proved his involvement in the murder. The last seen evidence has been duly proved by SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 25 of 42 FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.18 15:57:52 +0530 PW6 and PW9. The subsequent conduct of the accused as he fled away when the police arrived and blood stains on his slippers are strong evidence against the accused. He crushed the head of the deceased with the help of a heavy stone which was recovered from the spot itself having blood stains over it. Therefore, prosecution has successfully proved the chain of circumstances against the accused and he is liable to be held guilty for commission of an offence punishable under section 302 IPC.
It was further argued that all the police officials have clearly proved the chain and the manner of investigation and merely because the witnesses are police officials their testimony cannot be disbelieved and for this reliance is placed on the case of Girija Prasad Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC 625 .
31. Per contra, Mr. S. A. Khan, Ld. counsel for accused has argued that this is a false and concocted case foisted against the accused. It is submitted that prosecution could not prove the motive against the accused.
PW6 and PW9 have not stated whether there was any previous enmity between the accused and deceased. The last seen evidence is a tainted one and in fact, accused had informed the abduction of the deceased by unknown persons, who could have possibly murdered him subsequently. If accused was involved in the murder of the deceased then he had no reason to visit the house of PW6 and PW9 at 01:30 AM. Moreover, the contents of DD No. 67B which is Ex. PW23/E are self explanatory that PW6 and PW9 never raised any suspicion upon the accused when the police reached at the spot at the first call. 31.1 The blood on the slippers of the accused is a tainted evidence and cannot be relied upon by the Court in a case which is based upon circumstantial evidence. The seizure proceedings are also doubtful as IO never SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 26 of 42 FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.18 15:57:59 +0530 used his seal in sealing the exhibits. Meaning thereby, the investigation is full of loop holes and a person cannot be convicted under section 302 IPC on the basis of such investigation. The testimonies of PW6 and PW9 are not credit worthy as they are interested witnesses. PW6 Seema claims herself to be sister (muh boli behen). So, both these witnesses had the reason to depose against the accused. IO had falsely implicate the accused as he was a vegabond and it was a safe bid for the IO to work out a blind murder case by arresting the accused at the instance of PW6 and PW9. Hence, accused is entitled to be given benefit of doubt and he may be acquitted accordingly.
32. I have heard the arguments at length and perused the entire record.
FINDINGS
33. The accused Mohd. Munna @ Arjun is charged for the commission of offence punishable under section 302 IPC.
34. The relevant section is reproduced as under:
SECTION 302 IPC Punishment for murder.--Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.
35. It is a settled law of criminal jurisprudence that a person is believed to be innocent till the guilt is proved against him. This principle is called The Presumption of Innocence. In another words, the accused is entitled to take advantage of reasonable doubt in respect of his crime.
Presumption of Innocence is a re-statement of the rule that in SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 27 of 42 FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.18 15:58:05 +0530 criminal matters the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt of the accused in order to be convicted of the crime of which he is charged.
In Chandrashekhar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 06.07.2018 relying on judgment of Data Ram Singh Vs. State of UP passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.02.2018, it was held that:
"the freedom of an individual is utmost important and cannot be curtailed specially when guilt if any, is yet to be proved.It is settled law that till such time guilt of a person is proved, he is deemed to be innocent........ A fundamental postulate of criminal juris prudence is a presumption of innocence meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.........."
36. Thus, the inference which is culled out from the above is that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Ram Gopal in "India of Vedic Kalpsutras" has stated that even under the ancient system of Administration of Criminal Justice, the benefit of doubt was always be given to the accused. So, Apasthamba laid down that the king should not punish any person in case of doubt.
37. It appears seemly to trace the concept of proof beyond reasonable doubt as evolved by Superior Law Courts of England and India. In Miller Vs. Minister of Pensions, (1947) all England law reports 372 Volume 2 Lord Denning J. observed, "I ..... prove beyond reasonable doubt does not mean prove beyond the shadow of a doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to lead only to a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence, "of course, it is possible, but not in the least probable" the case is proved beyond doubt......"
SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 28 of 42
FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street
Digitally
signed by
DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.03.18
15:58:11
+0530
38. The concept of benefit of doubt has been explained in numerous decisions which are being followed in catena of cases. A stream of rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court commencing with the M. G. Aggarwal, Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1963 2 SCR 405,491; AIR 1963 SC 200 and Climax by Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam 2013 (82) ACC 467 (SC) has settled the law wherein it was held that prove beyond reasonable doubt is not imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt. It is a fair doubt based upon reason or common sense.
39. This court cannot be oblivious that in a criminal trial suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is quite large and divides vagues conjectures from sure conclusions.
40. In Narender Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2012 7 SCC 171, it has been held that the prosecution has to prove its own case beyond reasonable doubts and cannot take support from the weakness of the defence and hence, there must be proper and legal evidence to record the conviction of the accused.
41. As stated above, deceased Santosh was allegedly murdered by accused Mohd. Munna in the intervening night of 06-07.09.2015 by crushing his head with the help of a stone. As there is no eye witness of this heinous offence, this case is based upon circumstantial evidence. Therefore, it would be appropriate to discuss the relevant case laws on the point of circumstantial evidence.
SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 29 of 42
FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street
Digitally signed
DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA
RANA
RANA Date: 2026.03.18
15:58:18 +0530
LAW ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
42. In Deonandan Mishra Vs. State of Bihar 1955 2 SCR 570 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"9....It is true that in a case of circumstantial evidence not only should the various links in the chain of evidence be clearly established, but the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. But in a case like this where the various links as stated above have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the appellant as the probable assailant, with reasonable definiteness and in proximity to the deceased as regards time and situation, and he offers no explanation, which if accepted, though not proved, would afford a reasonable basis for a conclusion on the entire case consistent with his innocence, such absence of explanation or false explanation would itself be an additional link which completes the chain."
42.1 The landmark judgment on appreciation of circumstantial evidence is passed by Honb'ble Supreme Court in case titled as in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622 . Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down five golden principles while evaluating the circumstantial evidence and same have been reiterated by Hon'ble Apex court in case titled as Dr. Sunil Clifford Daniel vs. State of Punjab (Crl. Appeal No. 2001 of 2010 decided on 14.09.2012), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"17. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622, it was held by this Court that, the onus is on the prosecution to prove, that the chain is complete and that falsity or untenability of the defence set up by the accused, cannot be made the basis for ignoring any serious infirmity or lacuna in the case of the prosecution. The Court then proceeded to indicate the conditions which must be fully established before a conviction can be made on the basis of circumstantial evidence. These are:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established;
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 30 of 42 FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.18 15:58:24 +0530 (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
42.2 In Sharda Birdhichand Sarda's case (discussed supra), it has been held that a false explanation or false plea taken by the accused can be used as an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence subject to the satisfaction of the essential conditions namely :
1.) various link in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved.
2.) the said circumstance points to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness.
3.) circumstance is in proximity to the time and situation.
42.3 In Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2022 SC 5110, it has been held that in the case of circumstantial evidence, the judgment remains essentially inferential. The inference is drawn from the established fact as the circumstances lead to particular inferences. The court has to draw an inference with respect whether the chain of circumstance is complete and the circumstances when collectively considered they must read only to the irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is perpetrator of the crime in question. All these circumstances so established must be of conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
42.4 In Neeraj Dutta Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi AIR 2023 SC 330, it has been held that in case of circumstantial evidence, which is indirect evidence, a complete chain without a snap must point to hypothesis that except accused, no one had committed offence. It is held that witnesses may lie but SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 31 of 42 FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.18 15:58:30 +0530 not the circumstances but the court must adopt a cautious approach while basis its conviction purely on circumstantial evidence. Inference of guilt can be drawn only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of an accused.
42.5 In Nikhil Chandra Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal AIR 2023, SC 1323, it has been held that the circumstances concerned "must or should"
and not "may be" established. It has been held that there is not only grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved". The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. However, strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt.
42.6 In Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2023 SC 2795 it has held that in a criminal trial the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. This heavy burden has to be discharged by the prosecution. It becomes even more difficult in a case of circumstantial evidence. The chain of evidence must be complete and must point out to one and only one conclusion which is that it is only accused, who had committed the crime and none else.
42.7 Therefore, it has been categorically held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that if the case is based upon circumstantial evidence then the prosecution is duty bound to prove the chain of circumstances to the extent of such certainty that there is no other hypothesis left but that the accused is a person, who had murdered the deceased.
SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 32 of 42
FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.03.18
15:58:35 +0530
RELEVANCE OF MOTIVE
43. In cases based upon circumstantial evidence, motive assumes utmost importance. Though, motive is significant in those cases also wherein eye witnesses are there but in circumstantial evidence, prosecution has to prove the motive without any error or confusion.
43.1 In Ravi Sharma Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi AIR 2022 SC 4810, it has been held that in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes significance. Though, the motive may have significance in a case of involving eye witnesses but when an accused is implicated based upon the circumstantial evidence, it is imperative to prove the notice against the accused.
43.2 In Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2022 SC 5110, it was held that even if it is believed that the accused had a motive to commit the crime, the same may be an important circumstance but cannot take the place as the conclusive proof that the person concerned was the author of the crime.
43.3 In Indrajeet Das Vs. State of Tripura Criminal Appeal No. 609/2015 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 28.02.2023, it was held that in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important role. Motive may also have a role to play in a case based upon direct evidence but it carries much greater importance in case of circumstantial evidence then a case of direct evidence. It is an important link in the chain of circumstances.
43.4 In Prem Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2023 SC 193, it was held that motive, when proved, supplies additional link in the chain of SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 33 of 42 FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.18 15:58:41 +0530 circumstantial evidence but, absence thereof cannot, by itself, be a ground to reject the prosecution case. However, absence of motive, in a case based upon circumstantial evidence, is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramanand @ Nand Lal Bharti Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2022 SC 5273 to the effect that failure to prove motive in case of circumstantial evidence is not fatal to the prosecution but it could be a missing link in the chain of incriminating circumstances. Once the prosecution has established the other incriminating circumstances to its entirety, absence of motive will not give any benefit to the accused.
43.5 Hence, applying the ratio of above mentioned judgments (supra) to the present set of facts, the prosecution had to prove motive for which the alleged crime was committed by the accused. Prosecution has examined PW6 Seema and PW9 Preetam Rana as material witnesses and only these witnesses could have proved the motive against the accused. PW6 is absolutely silent in her examination in chief about the motive available with the accused to murder Santosh. During her cross examination conducted on 15.11.2016, she deposed as under:
"I do not know about the whereabouts of the accused. There was no quarrel between Munna and my husband. There is no enmity between my brother Santosh and Munna. It is also correct that neither my husband nor my brother Santosh told me about any enmity or rivalry with Munna".
43.6 She was recalled for further cross examination which was conducted on 01.12.2025 wherein she deposed as under:
"I had never seen Munna earlier and I saw him for the first time when he had taken my brother Santosh. I came to know about the name of Munna from the police station. ..... I do not know whether my brother Santosh was acquainted with accused Munna".
SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 34 of 42 FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.18 15:58:46 +0530 43.7 Bare perusal of the testimony of PW6 reveals that she has failed to disclose any fact of enmity or rivalry or dispute between Munna and deceased.
So much so, she was not even aware about name of accused Munna till it was disclosed to her by the police. Not only against Santosh, accused had no grudge or enmity against her husband. Therefore, PW6 Seema has failed to serve the purpose of the prosecution as far as proving motive against the accused is concerned.
43.8 The next important witness is PW9 Preetam Rana. Likewise PW6, he remained mum in his examination in chief qua motive involved in this case. He has been cross examined twice. Firstly on 21.03.2017 and secondly on 26.12.2025 when he was recalled under section 311 CrPC. The entire testimony of PW9 is inconsequential for proving motive on the part of the accused. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that an important link in the chain of circumstantial evidence in the form of motive is missing as PW6 and PW9 could not utter even a single word to the effect that accused had the motive to eliminate the deceased.
LAST SEEN EVIDENCE THEORY
44. Another important aspect to be considered in a case based upon circumstantial evidence is last seen alive theory projected by the prosecution against the accused. The issue of last seen alive has been deliberated over in Nizam Vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 04.09.2015 Hon'ble Supreme Court relying on State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashiram (2006) 12 SCC 254 held as under:
"Elaborating the principle of "last seen alive" in State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254, this Court held as under:- "23. It is not necessary to multiply with authorities. The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 35 of 42 FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.18 15:58:55 +0530 unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain. The principle has been succinctly stated in Naina Mohd., Re. (AIR 1960 Mad 218)" The above judgment was relied upon and reiterated in Kiriti Pal vs. State of West Bengal, (2015) 5 Scale 319."
44.1 In Dinesh Kumar's case (discussed supra), it was held the last seen theory requires corroboration from other circumstances and evidences. It is an important piece of evidence particularly when there is close proximity of time between when the accused was last seen with the deceased and the discovery of the body of the deceased or in case the time of death of the deceased. It does not mean that in cases where there is a long gap between the time of last seen and the death of the deceased, the last seen evidence loses its value. In that case, a heavy burden is placed upon the prosecution to prove that no other person but the accused could have had an access to the deceased. The circumstance of the last seen together by itself cannot form the basis of guilt.
44.2 In Jabir Vs. State of Uttrakhand AIR 2023 SC 488, it was held that last seen doctrine has limited application, where the time gap between the time the deceased was last seen with the accused and the time of murder is narrow.
SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 36 of 42
FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.03.18
15:59:00 +0530
It was again reiterated that the court should not convict an accused only on the basis of last seen circumstance.
44.3 Prosecution has tried to prove the theory of last seen on the basis of testimonies of PW6 and PW9. I am in agreement with Ld. LAC Mr. S. A. Khan that their testimonies have to be read comparatively and with a caution as they are relatives of the deceased. Prosecution has tried to prove that both these witnesses were present when accused Munna came to their house around 07:00-07:30 PM and took away deceased with him. There are certain abrasions in the testimony of PW6 and PW9. PW6 stated in her examination in chief as under:
"On that day at about 06:30 PM accused Munna present in the Court today came to the place where we were residing and he took my brother Santosh with him. While going with Munna Santosh told me not to wait for him for dinner."
44.4 This is the portion of her testimony where she claimed that accused Munna took away the deceased. On the other hand, PW9 deposed about the arrival of Munna as under:
"Santosh was my wife's muh bola brother, on the date of incident Santosh had brought one quarter bottle of liquor and we both consumed about a peg from it. In the meantime at about 07:00-07:15 PM, Munna @ Arjun had come there and asked Santosh to accompany him for consuming liquor as he had liquor with him. After that Santosh and Munna went from there. We remained there".
44.5 On a comparative study of above mentioned portions of testimonies of PW6 and PW9, PW6 is silent whether PW9 was present or not when accused Munna arrived over there. PW9 has claimed that he was having liquor with deceased Santosh but PW6 is silent on this issue. During cross examination of PW9 conducted on 26.12.2025, PW9 stated that he never SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 37 of 42 FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.18 15:59:06 +0530 consumed liquor but deceased used to consume liquor occasionally. The version of PW9 stands controverted by PW6 as she stated that deceased never used to consume liquor. Therefore, both these witnesses are not corroborating each other qua the facts whether PW9 was present there or that he was drinking liquor with Santosh at that time.
44.6 Accused came to the house of PW6 and PW9 around 01:30 AM and informed them that deceased Santosh had been abducted by unknown persons in an auto rickshaw. PW6 and PW9 suspected his version which resulted into an altercation and resultantly, police was called. Meaning thereby, when accused Munna came to their house at 01:30 AM, the murder of the deceased had already taken place as he was not accompanied by Santosh.
44.7 It is not the case of PW6 and PW9 that they had not tried to search the deceased with the police official SI Dharmender. PW6 has deposed that they had searched Santosh at Teen Haddi Chowk in the night but he was not found and in the morning she was informed that his dead body was lying at Teen Haddi Chowk. Meaning thereby, PW6 and SI Dharmender had inspected/searched Teen Haddi Chowk around 02:00 AM and at that time there was no dead body lying over there. As stated above, when accused came to their house at 01:30 AM, the murder of the deceased must have been committed by him. I have seen the photographs of the crime scene as well as exhibits collected from the spot. The blood stained stones were lying at the spot. There were plastic glasses and empty liquor bottle present over there.
Meaning thereby, prior to being murdered, deceased was having liquor at Teen Haddi Chowk and thereafter, he was murdered.
SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 38 of 42
FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.03.18
15:59:11 +0530
44.8 It is not the case that his murder was committed somewhere else
and thereafter, his dead body was disposed off at Teen Haddi Chowk. When all these facts are considered jointly then they are not corroborating each other. If murder had already taken place prior to 01:30 AM then the dead body should have been lying at Teen Haddi Chowk around 02:00 AM when PW6 and SI Dharmender had gone there in search of the deceased. There is possibility that PW6 had never gone to Teen Haddi Chowk with SI Dharmender around 02:00 AM in search of deceased as claimed by her.
44.9 At this juncture, the contents of DD No. 67B registered by SI Dharmender are relevant. He has recorded that when he reached at the house of PW6 after receiving DD No. 3A, PW6 Seema, PW9 Preetam and accused Munna were present there. He mentioned about the information given by the accused that deceased was abducted by some unknown persons. Accused as well as PW6 and PW9 refused to give their statements as they were under an impression that deceased might have gone somewhere. It is worth mentioning that PW6 and PW9 never casted any allegation upon accused Munna before SI Dharmender. When no allegation was levelled by PW6 and PW9 against accused Munna in presence of SI Dharmender then subsequent allegation after the recovery of dead body that deceased was last seen alive in the company of accused, is on very weak foundation. It remained unexplained as to why they did not disclose the fact to police at the first available opportunity that deceased was last seen alive in the company of accused.
44.10 If accused had fled away after arrival of SI Dharmender at the house of PW6 around 01:30-01:45 AM then there is possibility that deceased might be alive at that time and if that was the case, he was not in the company SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 39 of 42 FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.18 15:59:16 +0530 of accused because accused was present at the house of PW6. In that case, involvement of some other unknown person in the murder cannot be ruled out. The discussion can be culled out as under:
a) if accused had come to the house of PW6 at 01:30 AM after committing the murder then his dead body should have been lying at spot (Teen Haddi Chowk) at that time also.
b) if PW6 had searched the deceased at Teen Haddi Chowk with SI Dharmender and his dead body was not there then deceased might be in company of unknown person because accused had fled away after arrival of police.
44.11 Therefore, the theory of last seen alive projected by the prosecution is having serious deformities in it when it is considered in the light of testimony of PW6, PW9, photographs of the crime scene and evidence collected from the spot. Even if it is believed that deceased had left the house around 07:00 PM alongwith the accused there is possibility that some other persons are involved in the crime.
BLOOD STAINED SLIPPERS OF THE ACCUSED
45. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has tried to convey the point that involvement of the accused is crystal clear as his slippers were blood stained at the time of his arrest and it has to be believed that he was involved in the murder.
45.1 It is correct that as per FSL report the blood of the deceased was detected on the slippers of the accused but whether accused can be convicted merely on the basis of FSL report, the answer is 'No'. The FSL report could SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 40 of 42 FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.18 15:59:21 +0530 have been helpful to the prosecution if other links in the chain of events were duly proved by the prosecution. As stated above, prosecution has failed to prove the motive against the accused and the last seen theory is also not appearing to be a concrete one, the presence of blood of deceased on the slipper of the accused is a significant fact but accused cannot be convicted merely on the basis of this fact alone.
ABSENCE OF PUBLIC WITNESSES NAMELY ASHOK AND RAMESH
46. IO has examined Ashok Sharma and Ramesh Kumar @ Chacha during investigation and these witnesses have deposed that around 11:30 PM-12:00 midnight, accused Munna was fighting with Ashok at Teen Haddi round about. Deceased Santosh was also present there. Ramesh tried to make the accused understand but accused started arguing with him. Accused asked Ashok and Ramesh to leave the park. When they were leaving, accused Munna and Santosh started fighting. During that altercation, Ramesh and Ashok left the scene. These two witnesses were the most important witnesses to prove the fact that accused Munna and Santosh were fighting with each other and deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused. Prosecution has failed to examine these witnesses during evidence as they could not be traced being vegabonds.
CONCLUSION
47. Thus, in view of the aforesaid findings, prosecution is unsuccessful in proving the motive against the accused. The testimonies of PW6 and PW9 to prove the theory of last seen against the accused do not inspire confidence of the Court when they were read in the light of photographs of the crime scene, contents of DD No. 67B and other exhibits SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 41 of 42 FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.03.18 15:59:28 +0530 collected from the spot. The only fact proved against the accused is that blood of the deceased was detected on his slippers but he cannot be convicted merely on the basis of this fact. Prosecution has failed to prove the chain of circumstances in such a manner that there is no other conclusion except the fact that deceased was murdered by the accused only and none else. This Court is of the considered view that accused is entitled to be given benefit of doubt in this case owing to the lacunas in the case of the prosecution and accordingly, accused Mohd. Munna @ Arjun stands acquitted from committing an offence punishable under section 302 IPC. It is ordered accordingly.Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2026.03.18
15:59:34 +0530
Dictated and announced in the open (Dhirendra Rana)
Court on 18.03.2026 ASJ-07, Patiala House Courts,
(running in 42 pages) New Delhi.
SC No. 9267/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Munna @ Arjun Page No. 42 of 42
FIR No. 200/2015 PS Parliament Street