Delhi District Court
State vs Gidesh @ Raju @ Dinesh on 22 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-08, WEST
DISTRICT TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Hem Raj, DHJS
CNR No. DLWT01-008649-2019
SC No. 619/2019
State Vs. Gidesh @ Raju @ Dinesh
FIR No. 252/2019
PS: Punjabi Bagh
U/s 302 IPC
In the matter of:-
State
Versus
Gidesh @ Raju @ Dinesh
Sh. Veer Singh @ Veerpal Singh
R/o E-291, Gali No. 74, Mahavir Enclave,
Part - III, Dabri, Delhi .......Accused
Date of Institution of Case : 21-10-2019
Date of reserving Judgment : 09-05-2025
Date of pronouncement : 22-05-2025
Appearance:
For the State : Dr. S.K Bishnoi, Ld. Addl.
Prosecutor for State.
For accused Gidesh @ Raju : Sh. R.R Jha, Ld. LAC.
State Vs Gidesh @ Raju @ Dinesh SC No.619/19 FIR No. 252/19 1/22
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Gidesh @ Raju @ Dinesh faced a trial for the offence U/s 302 IPC. A chargesheet was filed against him by SHO PS Punjabi Bagh for the commission of above-said offence.
The case of the prosecution:
2.1. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that on 01.05.2019, on receipt of a PCR call, SI Deepak alongwith Ct. Sapal reached at Maharaja Agresen Hospital. He found one lady aged about 65 years namely Smt. Saroj Gupta admitted in the hospital with the alleged history of robbery and found unconscious having been tied up with black tape. There was no sign of breathing. She was declared brought dead by the doctor. She was also bleeding from left thumb of her hand. She was brought to the hospital by her son Vikas Gupta. Thereafter, SI Deepak alongwith complainant Vikas Gupta reached at the spot i.e. H. No. WZ-22, Ist Floor. Manohar Park, East Punjabi Bagh. 2.2. The complainant Vikas Gupta gave his statement to SI Deepak to the effect that on the same day at about 6.30 p.m, he received a call from his brother Deepak Gupta that he (Deepak Gupta) received a phone call from the mobile of his mother and the caller had informed him about the kidnapping of her mother and demanded ransom of Rs. 50 lacs. Accordingly, Vikas Gupta reached at the house of his mother where he found his Bhabhi Neeru Gupta and his wife Pooja Gupta. His mother was lying on the floor with all her four limbs tied up with black tape. Except State Vs Gidesh @ Raju @ Dinesh SC No.619/19 FIR No. 252/19 2/22 the main gate, all other gates were found bolted from inside. Thereafter, her mother was taken to Maharaja Agresen Hospital in the car of one neighbour Ganesh Mishra. He further stated that after coming back at his mother's house with the IO he had inspected the house and found that some money and jewellery were missing from the almirah. On his complaint Ex. PW-3/A, IO made his endorsement and got the FIR registered u/s 302/394/397 IPC.
2.3. Further investigation was handed over to IO Inspector Pankaj. He called the crime team and FSL team at the spot. He noted that there were two entrances of the house. However, the back entrance was found locked which had a lot of dust and spider webs and it appeared that nobody had used the back entrance at that time. Crime team had obtained the photographs of the spot. Sh. Santosh Kumar Jatav, SSA (Biology) of the FSL team also carried out the inspection and handed over the exhibits to the IO.
2.4. In the further investigation, the IO searched for the mobile phone of the mother of the complainant and the same was also put on the surveillance, but it was found to be switched off and never recovered. The IO also recorded statement of Ms. Pooja, the daughter in law of deceased who reached at the spot. She stated that she saw one person limping from his left leg having a black colour bag on his shoulder coming out from the house of deceased. IO also recorded statement of one neighbour Ganesh Mishra who stated that he was strolling in the gali and waiting for someone and at about 4.30 p.m, he saw one person limping with his leg going into the house of deceased. He also saw that State Vs Gidesh @ Raju @ Dinesh SC No.619/19 FIR No. 252/19 3/22 person coming out at about 6.40 p.m. He further stated that later on he came to know that Smt. Saroj Gupta had been found in unconscious state and he alongwith her family members took her to Maharaja Agresen hospital.
2.5. On 02.05.2019, IO got conducted the postmortem of the dead body of deceased where the doctor opined the the cause of death as "asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem smothering". After the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the family members of deceased. During investigation, the IO also checked the CCTV cameras installed in the area and at Ashok Park metro station. He obtained the CCTV footage from the DVR of Union Bank of India, Manohar Park. The finger print obtained from the spot could not help in the investigation as they were partially smudged and did not disclose the sufficient number of ridge details for comparison.
2.6. Thereafter, IO received an intimation regarding the arrest of one Gidesh in a murder case of FIR No. 499/19 PS Bindapur. He received the copy of said FIR and also the CCTV footage in the said case and found some resemblance between the person seen in the CCTV footage and the accused. Thereafter, the IO sought the permission from the concerned court and interrogated the accused. On interrogation, accused confessed his involvement in the present offence. He was arrested in the this case. He further stated that he threw the phone of the deceased at some unknown place. The IO also moved an application for judicial TIP of the accused. However, accused refused to participate in the judicial TIP. The IO also obtained three days PC remand of the accused and during the said PC remand, the medical samples State Vs Gidesh @ Raju @ Dinesh SC No.619/19 FIR No. 252/19 4/22 of the accused were obtained at the hospital. He was also taken to FSL, Rohini where his images from all the angles for comparing the same with the CCTV footage were taken. On 11.07.2019, after expiry of the PC remand of accused when he was taken to PS from Tis Hazari Courts, witness Pooja Gupta and Ganesh Mishra alongwith complainant Vikas came at the police station and identified the accused as the same person who was seen by them entering and exiting from the house of the deceased. The samples including the DNA profiling and videography was sent to the FSL.
2.7. After the completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet for the offence u/s 302 IPC was filed against the accused which was committed to the Court of Sessions.
2.8. In the first supplementary charge-sheet, the FSL result dated 10.02.2020 was filed on the record. The said report pertained to the sample from the deceased as well as samples from the accused. Exhibit 'A-11' & 'A-12' were the blood gauze and blood samples of the accused respectively. Though the FSL result shows that male DNA profile were generated from the source of exhibit 'A-11' & 'A-12'. However, the same could not connect the accused with the offence in any manner. 2.9. In the second supplementary charge-sheet, FSL result dated 09.09.2019 and 26.09.2023 were filed. In report dated 09.09.2019, it was stated by the FSL that hard disk drive was not responding with the tools present in the laboratory and as such no data could be retrieved in the report dated 26.09.2023. The request of IO for the facial recognition test also yielded no result as the FSL reported that due to low pixel, the requisite facial State Vs Gidesh @ Raju @ Dinesh SC No.619/19 FIR No. 252/19 5/22 recognition could not be carried out for the images of the person (i.e. the accused).
3. The main charge-sheet and the supplementary charge- sheets were committed to the the Court of Sessions after compliance of the relevant provisions.
The charge against the accused:
4. After hearing the prosecution and the accused and perusal of the chargesheet alongwith the documents filed by the prosecution, the charge against accused Gidesh @ Raju @ Dinesh was framed for the offence u/s 302 IPC. The accused did not plead guilty to the charge framed against him and he claimed trial.
The evidence by the prosecution:
5. To prove the afore-mentioned charges against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined following witnesses:-
i). PW-1 Smt. Neeru Gupta- daughter in law of deceased Smt. Saroj Gupta; ii). PW-2 Ms. Pooja Gupta- another daughter in law of deceased; iii).PW-3 Sh. Vikas Gupta-son of deceased; iv).PW-
4 Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta - husband of deceased; v). PW-5 Sh. Ganesh Mishra- neighbour of deceased; vi). PW-6 Sh. Deepak Gupta- son of deceased; vii). PW-7 Sh.Santosh Kumar Jatav - the then Forensic Chemical Examiner; viii). PW-8 Retired SI Kalyan Singh - the then crime team incharge; ix). PW-9 ASI Sanjeev - the then photographer/ crime team; x). PW-10 ASI Rajesh - the then finger print proficient xi). PW-11 Ct. Parvesh- he joined the investigation of the case; xii). PW-12 HC Satpal -
State Vs Gidesh @ Raju @ Dinesh SC No.619/19 FIR No. 252/19 6/22 he joined the investigation; xiii). PW-13 ASI Umed Singh-he joined the investigation; xiv). PW-14 SI Deepak Sharma-he conducted the investigation; xv). PW-15 Insp. Pankaj Kumar-he conducted the investigation and PW-16 Insp. Manjeet Dabas.
6. The prosecution has also relied upon the following documentary evidence:-
Statement dated 02.05.2019 of PW Ms. Pooja Gupta (Mark Ex.PW-2/A); supplementary statement of PW Ms. Pooja Gupta (Mark Ex.PW-2/B); Statement of PW Sh. Vikas Gupta (Ex.PW-3/A); site plan of the spot (Ex. PW-3/B); seizure memo of blood lifted from the spot (Ex.PW-3/C); seizure memo of burnt piece of bidi and one burnt match stick (Ex.PW-3/D); seizure memo of earth control and blood stained earth (Ex.PW-3/E & Ex.PW-3/F); seizure memo of wearing clothes and nail clipping of deceased (Ex.PW-3/G); seizure memo of grey colour tape having the hairs of deceased (Ex.PW-3/H); dead body identification statement of PW Vikas Gupta (Ex.PW-3/I); dead body handing over receipt (Ex.PW- 3/J); statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C dated 11.07.2019 of PW Vikas Gupta (Ex.PW-3/K), Statement dated 02.05.2019 u/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW Sh. Ganesh Mishra (Ex.PW-5/A); Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW Ganesh Mishra (Ex.PW-5/B); FSL report dated 16.05.2019 (Ex.PW-7/A); dead body identification statement of Deepak Gupta (Ex.PW-6/A); crime scene report (Ex.PW-8/A); report of finger print proficient (Ex.PW-8/B);
Certificate u/s 65 B IEA in support of photographs (Ex. PW- 9/A); thirty seven photographs of scene of crime (Ex.PW-
State Vs Gidesh @ Raju @ Dinesh SC No.619/19 FIR No. 252/19 7/22 9/B); CD of photographs (Ex.PW-9/C); GD No. 67 A dated 01.05.2019 (Ex. PW-14/A); rukka (Ex.PW-14B); death report (Ex.PW-15/A); request for postmortem (Ex.PW-15/B); arrest memo of accused Gidesh @ Raju (Ex.PW-15/C); disclosure statement of accused (Ex.PW-15/D); request to produce accused in muffled face (Ex.PW-15/E); pointing out memo of place of incident (Ex. PW-15/F); seizure memo of blood sample (Ex. PW-15/G); seizure memo of CD containing photographs and sample seal (Ex.PW-15/H); seizure memo of hard disk and CDR ( Ex.PW-15/I); FSL report (Ex.PW-15/J).
7. The statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C of accused was recorded wherein he admitted the contents and genuineness of the following documents:-
i. Scaled site plan prepared by ASI Om Prakash (Ex. AD-1);
ii. FIR No. 252/2019 and Certificate u/s 65 B of IEA (Ex. AD-2);
iii. Statement regarding depositing of exhibits in the FSL (Ex. AD-3);
iv. Statement of HC Hari Kishan (Ex. AD-4);
v. Statement of Ct.Parveen dated 09.07.2019 (Ex.AD-5);
vi. Statement of Ct. Kedar (Ex. AD-6);
vii. Statement of HC Vergese (Ex. AD-7);
viii. FSL report prepared by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Chemi- cal Examiner, Biology, FSL (Ex. AD-8);
State Vs Gidesh @ Raju @ Dinesh SC No.619/19 FIR No. 252/19 8/22 ix. FSL result prepared by Sh. Rohan Sharma, FSL, Rohini (Ex. AD-9);
x. FSL result prepared by Ms. Neha and Ms. Laxmi (Ex. AD-10);
8. In view of the statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C, the witnesses i.e. ASI Om Prakash (sl. no.11), Ct. Sandeep (sl. no.16), HC Hari Kishan (sl.no.17), Ct. Praveen (sl. no. 18), Ct. Kedar (sl.no.19) & HC Vergese (sl. no. 20) as well as Sh. Rohan Sharma, examiner Electronic Evidence (sl. no.1), Sh. V.Lakshmi Narasimhan, Asst. Director FSL (sl. no. 2) and Ms. Neha Sharma, Jr. Forensic Assistant (sl. no.3) from the first supplementary charge-sheet were dropped from the list of witnesses.
The statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C:
9. The statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. The incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against the accused was brought to his notice and his explanation was sought. Accused claimed that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion. Accused did not wish to lead defence evidence.
10. The Ld. Prosecutor and the Ld. LAC for the accused advanced the final arguments.
Submissions of Ld. Prosecutor :
11. Ld. Prosecutor argued that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and thus, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence he has been charged with.
State Vs Gidesh @ Raju @ Dinesh SC No.619/19 FIR No. 252/19 9/22 Submissions by Ld. LAC for accused:
12. On the other, Ld. LAC argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
13. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Prosecutor and perused the record carefully.
Analysis:
14. It is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused has to prove its defence on preponderance of probabilities. What do we mean by the expression 'beyond reasonable doubt'?
15. The expression 'beyond reasonable doubt' has been defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the various judgments. In the judgment of Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma Vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2011CRI.L.J.663, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. B. S. Chauhan, elaborated the concept of Standard of Proof in a criminal trial in the following terms:
"11. A criminal trial is not a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination or fantasy. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of an interplay between different human emotions. In arriving at a conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case, in the final analysis, would have to depend upon its own facts. The court must bear in mind that "human nature is too willing, when faced with brutal crimes, to spin stories out of strong suspicions." Though an offence may be gruesome and revolt the human conscience, an accused can be convicted only on legal evidence and not on State Vs Gidesh @ Raju @ Dinesh SC No.619/19 FIR No. 252/19 10/22 surmises and conjecture. The law does not permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of a moral conviction or suspicion alone. "The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence." In fact, it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. The fact that the offence was committed in a very cruel and revolting manner may in itself be a reason for scrutinizing the evidence more closely, lest the shocking nature of the crime induce an instinctive reaction against dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the facts and law. (Vide: Kashmira Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 159; State of Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh Baljit Singh & Anr. AIR 1973 SC 2407; Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 765; Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. Vs.State of West Bengal, (2003) 12 SCC 377; and Aloke Nath Dutta & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, (2007) 12 SCC
230).
12. In Sarwan Sigh Rattan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637, this court observed (Para12) :
"Considered as a whole the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence (before an accused can be convicted."
16. Furthermore, in the judgment of Sucha Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab, (2003 ) 7 SCC 643, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the term Beyond Reasonable Doubt and observed as under:
21. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice according to law. [See Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh and others, AIR 1990 SC 209 : 1990(1) RCR(Crl.) 297 (SC)]. Prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused. [See State of U.P. v. Ashok State Vs Gidesh @ Raju @ Dinesh SC No.619/19 FIR No. 252/19 11/22 Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840 : 1992(3) RCR(Crl.) 63 (SC)]. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many guilty persons must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish. [See Inder Singh and Anr. v. State of (Delhi Admn.) (AIR 1978 SC 1091)].
Vague hunches cannot take place of judicial evaluation.
"A judge does not preside over a criminal trial, merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties." (Per Viscount Simon in Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution (1944 AC (PC) 315) quoted in State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998). Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth.
17. Accused has been charged for the commission of offence u/s 302 IPC. Section 300 IPC reads as under:-
" 300 Murder Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or--
Secondly.--If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or--
Thirdly.--If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or--
Fourthly.--If the person committing the act knows that it is so im- minently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
State Vs Gidesh @ Raju @ Dinesh SC No.619/19 FIR No. 252/19 12/22
18. Now, let us discuss if the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
19. Admittedly, in this case, there is no eye witness to the incident in question. The case of the prosecution rests upon the circumstantial evidence. The law regarding the circumstantial evidence has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its various judgments. In the judgment of Nazir Khan Vs State of Chhatisgarh reported as MANU/CG/1220/2024, the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh dealt with a case based upon circumstantial evidence and discussed in detail the earlier pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhatisgarh in the aforesaid case. The relevant observations contained in paragraphs 14 to 20 as reported by MANUPATRA, are reproduced hereunder:-
"14. It has been consistently laid down by the Supreme Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, MANU/SC/0094/1977 : AIR 1977 SC 1063; Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad, MANU/SC/0116/1955 : AIR 1956 SC 316; Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, MANU/SC/0530/1983 : 1983:INSC:23 : AIR 1983 SC 446; State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors., MANU/SC/0115/1985 :
AIR 1985 SC 1224; Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, MANU/SC/0160/1986 : AIR 1987 SC 350; Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P., MANU/SC/0035/1989 : AIR 1989 SC 1890. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab, MANU/SC/0158/1954 : AIR 1954 SC 621, it was laid down by the Supreme Court that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.
State Vs Gidesh @ Raju @ Dinesh SC No.619/19 FIR No. 252/19 13/22
15. We may also make a reference to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P., MANU/SC/0928/1996 : 1996:INSC:729 : (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it has been observed thus:
"In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence....".
16. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors., MANU/SC/0018/1990 : AIR 1990 SC 79, it was laid down by the Supreme Court that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
17. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, MANU/SC/0161/1992 : 1992 Crl.LJ 1104, it was pointed out by the Supreme Court 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.
18. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book "Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved State Vs Gidesh @ Raju @ Dinesh SC No.619/19 FIR No. 252/19 14/22 and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted".
19. Five golden principles which constitute Panchseel of proof of case based on circumstantial evidence have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/0111/1984 : 1984:INSC:121 : (1984) 4 SCC 116, which state as under:-
"(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;
(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."
20. In the matter of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/8543/2006 : (2006) 1 SCC 681, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"12. In the case in hand there is no eyewitness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards State Vs Gidesh @ Raju @ Dinesh SC No.619/19 FIR No. 252/19 15/22 the guilt of the accused; that 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 they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence."
21. The principles of circumstantial evidence is reiterated in Nizam and another vs. State of Rajasthan, MANU/SC/0964/2015 :
2015:INSC:640 : (2016) 1 SCC 550, wherein the Supreme Court has held that:-
"8. Case of the prosecution is entirely based on the circumstantial evidence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete, forming a chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused totally inconsistent with his innocence."
20. In the present case, admittedly there is no eye witness to the crime in question and as such, the case is based upon circumstantial evidence. PW-2 Smt. Pooja Gupta, PW-3 Sh.Vikas Kumar Gupta and PW-5 Sh. Ganesh Mishra are the witnesses examined by the prosecution on the identification of the accused. Although PW-3 Sh.Vikas Kumar Gupta did not see the culprit near the spot at the relevant time, but he is the witness of the identification of the accused as the culprit in the police station when PW-2 Pooja Gupta and PW-5 Ganesh Mishra identified accused as the offender.
21. Therefore, it is appropriate to discuss the testimonies of PW-2 Pooja Gupta and PW-5 Ganesh Mishra. PW-2 deposed in consonance with the prosecution case. However, she did not identified the accused. As per the prosecution case, she reached State Vs Gidesh @ Raju @ Dinesh SC No.619/19 FIR No. 252/19 16/22 the house of the deceased when her husband called her and as per the case, she saw the accused coming out in fast speed from the house of her mother-in-law. But, in her deposition she did not prove the same. In her examination-in-chief, she stated that she did not see any person infront of the house of her mother-in-law.
She was cross-examined by the Ld. Prosecutor. In her cross-examination by the Ld. Prosecutor, she denied that on 01.05.2019 at about 6.40 p.m when she reached infront of the house of her mother-in-law, she saw one person with a limp coming out fast from the house of her mother-in-law and went out of the gali. She was confronted with part of the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C where she stated so to the police. She further denied that on 11.07.2019, IO recorded her supplementary statement Mark Ex.PW-2/B. She denied that on 11.07.2019, she identified the accused at Punjabi Bagh Police station infront of her husband and PW-5 Ganesh Mishra. She also denied the suggestion that her neighbour Sh. Ganesh Mishra also identified the accused in her presence at that time. She was confronted with the part of her statement given to the police where she stated so. When Ld. Prosecutor drew her attention to the accused, she failed to identify the accused. Therefore, the testimony of PW-2 shows that she has not identified the accused as the culprit in this case.
22. PW-3 Sh. Vikas Gupta did not see the accused near the spot at or about the time of crime and he is only a witness of the identification of the accused by his wife PW-2 Pooja Gupta and PW-5 Ganesh Mishra.
In the cross-examination by the Ld. Prosecutor, he denied that on 11.07.2019, he alongwith his wife Pooja Gupta and State Vs Gidesh @ Raju @ Dinesh SC No.619/19 FIR No. 252/19 17/22 neighbour Ganesh Mishra visited the police station to inquire about the case and at the gate of the police station, the accused was present with the police officials and his wife Pooja Gupta and neighbour Ganesh Mishra identified him as the person who was seen by them entering or exiting from the house of his mother. When his attention was drawn to the accused, he stated that he never saw him and accused was never pointed out as the offender by his wife and neighbour Ganesh Mishra. Thus, his testimony is also of no use for the prosecution as far as the identification of the accused is concerned.
23. PW-5 Sh. Ganesh Mishra is the neighbour of the deceased. As per the prosecution case, this witness had seen the offender going into or coming out of the house of the deceased and he also took the deceased to the hospital. In his deposition, he deposed about the fact that he took the deceased to the hospital in his car. However, he did not depose anything favorable to the prosecution.
Since he was not supporting the case of the prosecution, the Ld. Prosecutor opted to cross-examine him. In his cross- examination, he denied that on 01.09.2019 in the evening hours, he was roaming in the street and at about 4.30 p.m, he saw one person who was handicap from his let leg and he entered into the house of Vijay Gupta and at about 6.40 p.m, he saw the said person coming out of the house. He further denied that on 11.07.2019 alongwith Pooja and Vikas visited PS Punjabi Bagh where he saw the accused alongwith police officials and he identified him as the person who he saw entering and exiting from the house of Vijay Gupta on 01.05.2019. He was confronted State Vs Gidesh @ Raju @ Dinesh SC No.619/19 FIR No. 252/19 18/22 with the relevant portion of his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. His attention was drawn to the accused and after having seen the accused, he stated that he did not know him and never seen him entering or coming out from the house of Vijay Gupta. Hence, his deposition shows that he has also not supported the case of the prosecution regarding the identification of the accused.
24. Thus, a careful perusal of testimonies of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 show that they have failed to prove the identity of the accused as the person, who was seen near the house or going into or coming out of the house of deceased. Hence, this court has no hesitation in holding that the oral evidence led by the prosecution has failed to prove the identity of the accused as the offender in this case. There is no other witness toward the identification of the accused.
25. During the investigation, the IO collected the CCTV footage from the camera installed outside the Union Bank of India, Manohar Park Branch, Punjabi Bagh. The said CCTV footage alongwith the hard drive were sent to the FSL alongwith the photographs of the case for the facial recognition. In this regard, two reports dated 09.09.2019 and 26.09.2023 Ex.AD-9 and Ex.AD-10 respectively were prepared by the FSL. Vide report Ex.AD-9, the hard disk and the CCTV footage of the relevant time were retrieved, but the hard disk did not respond with the tools present in the FSL and as such no data could be retrieved. Vide report Ex.AD-10, the FSL opinion that due to low pixel resolution of the camera, the requisite facial recognition could not be carried out for the images of the accused. Thus, the FSL also could not be of any help to the prosecution as the facial State Vs Gidesh @ Raju @ Dinesh SC No.619/19 FIR No. 252/19 19/22 recognition test of the photographs of the accused could not be carried out and it could not be opined if the person seen in the CCTV footage was infact the accused. IO PW-15 Inspector Pankaj Kumar also deposed the same.
26. Apart from the FSL report, on the aspect of the CCTV footage, the FSL has also provided its report dated 10.02.2020 Ex.AD-8 on the exhibit collected by the IO from the deceased's body as well as from the spot. The same also included the blood gauze and sample of the accused as Exhibit 'A-11' & 'A-12'. The report Ex.AD-8 although opines that the DNA profile generated from the blood gauze of the deceased was also found matching with the clothes, nail clipping, blood lifted from the scene of crime and from the sofa lying in the room, from bed sheet and cemented material. However, the male DNA profile generated from exhibit 'A-11' & 'A-12' (blood gauze and sample of accused) was not found from any of the samples collected from the spot or from the body of the deceased. Therefore, no biological evidence has been found on record, which could have connected the alleged commission of offence.
27. It is also the case of the prosecution that PW-6 Sh. Deepak Gupta, another son of the deceased received a phone call from the mobile phone of his deceased mother Smt. Saroj Gupta in the evening hours of 01.05.2019 where the caller had informed him that his mother had been kidnapped and murdered. He further deposed that the caller told him that he would tell the name of the offender, if he would Pay Rs. 50 lacs to him. He further deposed that he found the mobile phone of his mother missing once he reached at her house. The said mobile phone has not been State Vs Gidesh @ Raju @ Dinesh SC No.619/19 FIR No. 252/19 20/22 recovered during the course of the investigation. The said phone could have had the call recording which normally the naive persons record in automatic mode. However, since the said phone has not been recovered, therefore, there is no evidence on record if accused actually made a call to PW-6 Deepak Gupta. The IO could not recover the said mobile phone despite he obtaining the accused in PC remand for three days. Hence, it has also not been proved that it was accused who made a telephonic call to Deepak Gupta.
28. Thus, so far one can safely conclude that the oral evidence in the form of deposition of PW-2 Smt. Pooja Gupta, PW-3 Sh.Vikas Kumar Gupta and PW-5 Sh. Ganesh Mishra as well as the FSL reports regarding the CCTV footage and the biological aspect, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the identity of the accused as the person, who was seen either entering or exiting from the house of deceased on 01.05.2019 in the evening hours. There is no other witness or other evidence which could connect the accused with the alleged crime of offence.
29. Though the accused admitted certain documents in his statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C including the FSL. However, those documents themselves do not indicate the involvement of the accused in the crime whatsoever.
Conclusion:
30. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused as the identification of accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. There is no other material State Vs Gidesh @ Raju @ Dinesh SC No.619/19 FIR No. 252/19 21/22 evidence available on the record to connect the accused with the alleged offence. Thus, the prosecution has failed to bring such evidence on the record, which is expected in a case based upon the circumstantial evidence. Hence, accused Gidesh @ Raju @ Dinesh stands acquitted from the offence u/s 302 IPC.
31. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally
signed by
HEM HEM RAJ
Date:
RAJ 2025.05.22
Pronounced in the open 16:31:45
+0530
Court on 22.05.2025 (HEM RAJ)
Addl. Sessions Judge-08 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts Delhi
State Vs Gidesh @ Raju @ Dinesh SC No.619/19 FIR No. 252/19 22/22