Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd. Roshan And Ors on 12 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI JAIN, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-02, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE VS. MOHD. ROSHAN & ORS.
CNR No.DLCT01-008700-2023
Sessions Case No. 367/2023
FIR No. 08/2023
Police Station Subzi Mandi Railway Station
Date of Committal 04.07.2023
Name of the complainant Shri Manoj
Name of the accused, parentage & 1. Mohd. Roshan
address S/o Sh. Mohd. Riyazuddin
R/o Jhuggi No.A-88, Jailor Wala
Bagh, Ashok Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi
2. Mohd. Tareef
S/o Sh. Mohd. Salim,
R/o Jhuggi No.N-22/B-114,
Kaushal Puri, Lal Bagh Azadpur,
Delhi
3. Irfaan
S/o Sh. Ehsaan Ali
R/o Jhuggi No.N-22/B-116,
Kaushal Puri, Lal Bagh Azadpur,
Delhi
Offence Complained of Under Section 302/34 IPC
& 25/27 Arms Act
Plea Of The Accused Persons Pleaded Not Guilty
Judgment delivered on 12.12.2025
Final Order Acquitted Under Section
302/34 IPC
& 25/27 Arms Act
J U D G M E N T:-
1. The FIR has been registered at PS Subzi Mandi Railway Station against the accused persons namely Mohd. Roshan, SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.1 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:16:02 +0530 Mohd. Tareef and Irfaan for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 03.04.2023 at about 9.30 PM at platform No. 1, Azadpur Railway Station, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of Durgesh @ Kalu S/o Late Ganga Prasad by stabbing a knife on the upper side of his left thigh near pelvic region. It is further alleged that on the aforesaid date, time and place accused Irfaan used one button actuated knife in contravention of notification issued under Arms Act. It is further alleged that on 05.04.2023 at time unknown near a pillar bearing No. KM Pole No. 6/30, Railway Tracks, accused Irfan got recovered one button actuated knife which accused was possessing in contravention of notification issued by Delhi Administration.
3. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court.
4. After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was assigned to Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
CHARGE
5. On 26.07.2023, Ld. Predecessor framed charge against the accused persons Mohd. Roshan, Mohd. Tareef and Irfaan for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and separate charge in respect of offence punishable u/s 25/27 Arms Act against the accused SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.2 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2025.12.12
16:16:08
+0530
Irfan. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses in total :-
7. PW-1/Manoj deposed that he had been residing at Jhuggi No.157, Block-C, Kaushal Puri, Lal Bagh, Azadpur, Delhi, along with his family for the last two years, that his brothers Vinod and Durgesh (deceased) were also residing with him. He deposed that he was working as cleaning staff with a private contractor and his brothers Vinod and Durgesh were also working as cleaners, and Durgesh was posted at New Delhi Railway Station, that he studied up to Class. He deposed that on 03.04.2023, he, his brother Vinod and his younger brother Durgesh returned home at about 6:00 PM, that their jhuggi is located near Azadpur Railway Station, with a wall separating the house and Platform No.1, that after reaching home, he saw Durgesh roaming on Platform No.1, that he took dinner at about 8:00 PM, but Durgesh did not eat, that when he called Durgesh for dinner, Durgesh said he would eat later. He deposed that around 9:00-9:10 PM, while he was getting down from the roof of his house, he heard commotion that Durgesh had been stabbed, that it was dark and he could not see anything, that he rushed to Platform No.1 and found Durgesh lying in a pool of blood, and several public persons from the locality were present, that with the help of his nephew Shiva, he took Durgesh to BJRM Hospital in an e-rickshaw, where the doctor declared him brought dead. PCR call was made by his cousin Ankit. Police reached BJRM Hospital, made inquiries, and SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.3 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2025.12.12
16:16:12
+0530
recorded his statement Ex.PW-1/A, bearing his signature at point A. Initially, he deposed that he did not know the accused Irfan, Tarif or Roshan. Upon seeing them in court, he deposed that he knew accused Irfan from his locality as he used to visit the toilet where PW-1 worked, and he also knew accused Roshan who lived 6-7 minutes away from his house, but he did not know accused Tarif as he had not seen him earlier. He deposed that police arrested the accused persons during investigation but not in his presence, that police took his signatures on some documents after reading out the contents but he does not know the contents of the same, that police also visited the spot in his presence, collected blood samples and prepared the site plan Ex.PW-1/B, bearing his signature. He further deposed that he cannot tell whether his brother Vinod was present at the spot when police visited over there. He deposed that he did not see any knife used in the offence. His blood-stained clothes were not seized. He deposed that he knew one Prem Narayan who ran a shop at Platform No.1. When he reached the spot, Durgesh was lying 4-5 feet away from Prem Narayan's shop, that Prem Narayan was not present as he had gone to the toilet, a fact PW-1 claimed to have learned because his brother allegedly told this to police officers. As PW-1 failed to explain how he personally came to know this fact, the Court recorded an observation noting inconsistency. When recalled on 05.04.2024, PW-1 identified the clothes of the deceased i.e. dark blue jeans, navy blue shirt and a maroon-striped T-shirt, produced from parcel no.9. He deposed these were worn by Durgesh at the time of the incident. Parcel no.14 containing a button-dar knife was opened, but PW-1 stated SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.4 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:16:17 +0530 that he could not identify the knife as he had not seen it earlier.
8. On request of Ld. Addl. PP, PW-1 was permitted to be cross-examined as he was resiling from earlier statements. In cross-examination on behalf of State, PW-1 denied having stated in Ex.PW-1/A that while standing on the roof at about 9:30 PM he saw accused Irfan, Roshan and Tarif coming down from the foot-over bridge (confronted with portion A to A1 where it is so recorded). He admitted knowing accused Irfan and Roshan earlier. He denied having stated that Durgesh was standing near the wall near his jhuggi and all three accused went towards him (confronted with portion B to B1). PW-1 denied multiple portions of Ex.PW-1/A, or that accused Irfan alleged Durgesh was a police informer and told co-accused Roshan and Tarif that they must eliminate him (portion C to C1). He also denied that Irfan took out a knife, Roshan and Tarif caught Durgesh, and Irfan stabbed him (portion D to D1), that Irfan again attempted to stab Durgesh but instead the blow landed on Roshan (portion E to E1), that Irfan and Tarif fled while Roshan, being injured, could not flee (portion F to F1), that the accused persons used to commit snatching at the station and Durgesh objected (portion G to G1), that he had warned Durgesh to stay away from the accused (portion H to H1), that all three accused intentionally stabbed Durgesh due to this dispute (portion I to I1). He admitted that he reached the spot around 9:15 PM and took Durgesh to the hospital with his nephew. He deposed that when he reached, public persons were shouting the name "Roshan" as the culprit. Accused Roshan was known to him. He admitted hearing later that Roshan also sustained knife injuries. He denied that he failed SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.5 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2025.12.12
16:16:22
+0530
to identify the knife due to lapse of time or that he was intentionally not identifying the accused. He denied being won over.
9. In cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Tarif, PW-1 deposed that his clothes had blood stains when he took his brother to hospital, but IO never asked for them. He admitted police obtained his signatures on several documents at the police station, without explaining contents to him.
10. Ld. Counsel for accused Irfan adopted the cross- examination done for accused Tarif.
11. Ld. counsel for accused Roshan again adopted the cross- examination for accused Tarif. In the cross-examination, PW-1 deposed that he could not name any public person who was shouting "Roshan-Roshan".
12. PW-2/Prem Narayan deposed that he had been residing in Juggi No. N-22/C-96, Kaushal Puri, Lal Bagh, Delhi for the last 30-35 years. He deposed that he was educated up to 4th-5th class and had been running a pan-bidi-cigarette shop at Platform No. 1 near the foot-over bridge of Azadpur Railway Station. He deposed that he did not know Manoj (PW-1), Vinod or Durgesh (deceased). He deposed that he used to open his shop around 7:00-7:15 AM and close it around 8:00-8:15 PM. He also deposed that he did not know Saroj. He deposed that on 03.04.2023, his shop was open and he was present at the spot, but claimed that by the time the incident occurred, his shop had already been closed. He categorically deposed that he did not SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.6 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2025.12.12
16:16:26
+0530
know what had happened on that day at Platform No. 1 and that accused Irfan, Roshan and Tarif were not residents of his locality. He claimed that he did not know any of the accused persons and that the police only recorded his name, father's name and address. He voluntarily added that he had told the police that he had not seen any incident, and he did not know how Durgesh died. When all three accused persons were shown to him, PW-2 failed to identify any of them, stating that he had not witnessed the incident.
13. Since PW-2 resiled from his previous statement, the Ld. Additional PP sought permission to cross-examine him. In cross- examination by the Ld. Additional PP, PW-2 admitted that his juggi was situated in C-Block, Lal Bagh, and also admitted that the juggi of deceased Durgesh and his brothers Manoj and Vinod was also situated in C-Block. He volunteered that C-Block was a very large area comprising more than 1000 juggis. He claimed ignorance about whether Saroj's juggi was also situated in C- Block. He denied that his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the police. He denied that he closed his shop at about 10:30 PM or that he was present at his shop until 9:30 PM on the date of the incident. He denied the entire prosecution version which was put to him in the form of suggestions including that he knew Manoj, Vinod and Durgesh prior to the incident, that he witnessed the altercation and stabbing, and that the accused persons came from the Azadpur side and attacked Durgesh upon instigation of accused Irfan. He denied witnessing accused Roshan sustaining a knife injury. He also denied being present at the spot, and denied helping Durgesh after the incident.
SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.7 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:16:31 +0530 He further denied that he had seen the public gathering, that Roshan was apprehended at the spot, or that Durgesh made any disclosure in conscious condition. He denied that accused persons were involved in snatching activities at the railway station or that he had seen them earlier. He denied knowing any of the accused persons or the deceased prior to the incident. He further denied that he had been won over and was deliberately not identifying the accused.
14. PW-2 was not cross-examined by ld. respective Counsels for accused Mohd. Roshan (A-1), Mohd. Tareef (A-2) and Mohd. Irfan (A-3) despite opportunity being given for the same.
15. PW-3/Vinod deposed that he had been residing in Delhi for the last 20-25 years along with his wife, child, and elder brother Manoj (PW-1). He deposed that he had three brothers: Raju (eldest), residing in their native village, Manoj and Durgesh (deceased), who used to visit their jhuggi every 2-3 months and give money. PW-3 deposed that he worked as a toilet cleaner in the area of Wazirpur and Manoj also worked as a toilet cleaner in Lal Bagh and Wazirpur, while Durgesh was working as a toilet cleaner at New Delhi Railway Station. He deposed that on 03.04.2023, he returned home around 3-4 PM and Manoj returned around 5 PM, that on that day, Durgesh also came home and handed over "sevai" for cooking, that after some conversation among the brothers, Durgesh went for a walk to Platform No. 1, Azadpur Railway Station at about 8:30-8:45 PM. PW-3 deposed that at about 8:45-9:00 PM, he came out of the jhuggi and saw Durgesh walking on Platform No. 1, that SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.8 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:16:35 +0530 thereafter, he went to a public toilet, that after about 10 minutes, when he came out, one Dilip informed him that his brother had been stabbed. PW-3 rushed to Platform No. 1, where he found bloodstains and saw 4 police officials present. He soon received a call from BJRM Hospital informing him that Durgesh had succumbed to injuries. PW-3 further deposed that he thereafter rushed to BJRM Hospital, where he found his brother dead, that he identified the dead body and received it after post-mortem vide memo Ex.PW3/A, bearing his signature at point A, that he he came to know from public persons that accused Roshan, Irfan and Tarif had killed his brother. When the accused were produced in court, he identified accused Irfan, stating that he had seen him earlier in the locality as Irfan used to come there to use the washroom. He deposed that he had not seen the other two accused, Roshan and Tarif, earlier.
16. PW-3 denied the contents of his statements Mark PW1/X, PW1/X1, PW1/X2, and PW1/X3 when they were read over to him, leading to permission being granted for his cross-
examination by the Ld. Addl. PP. In cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW-3 deposed that he was educated up to 5th class and could read and write Hindi. He further deposed that he was present on the first floor of their jhuggi at the time of the incident. He denied that Manoj had called Durgesh from the roof for dinner or that he saw Manoj alighting from the roof shouting and running towards the platform. He denied having seen Durgesh lying injured near the wall or that he saw accused Roshan, Irfan and Tarif fleeing from the spot. He volunteered that he was not present at the jhuggi at that time. He denied the SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.9 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:16:39 +0530 prosecution suggestions that he saw Durgesh lying injured along with shopkeeper Prem Narayan and Manoj near him. He denied that Manoj informed him that the accused persons had held Durgesh and stabbed him. He denied that accused Roshan was apprehended by the public and beaten. He volunteered that he had only heard this from public persons, as he was not present there. PW-3 admitted that Prem Narayan ran a pan-bidi shop on Platform No. 1 and that the shop used to remain open till 9-10 PM but denied that Prem Narayan had narrated the incident to him. He denied knowing anything about the scuffle, the stab injury received by accused Roshan, or that the accused persons used to commit snatching at the Railway Station. He further deposed that Ankit made the 100 number call. He denied that his brother Durgesh told him that on the asking of accused Irfan, accused Roshan and Tarif caught hold of him and accused stabbed him. He voluntarily deposed that he was in the toilet at the time. He admitted that Roshan was taken to hospital with injuries, and admitted that he saw an injured boy, apprehended by the public, in the hospital, but stated that he could not identify him from among the accused present in court. He denied that deliberately he has not identified accused Roshan. He denied that the police collected bloodstains in his presence. He admitted that Ex.PW1/B bears his signature. He denied that any accused was arrested in his presence or that disclosure statements or recovery memos were prepared in his presence, though he admitted his signatures on documents Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F, Ex.PW1/G, Ex.PW1/H, Ex.PW3/C, Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW3/E, Ex.PW3/F and Ex.PW3/G at points corresponding to SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.10 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:16:43 +0530 his signatures, claiming that he did not witness the events. He deposed that when he reached the spot after the incident, only four police officials were present. He claimed he did not remember whether the shop of Prem Narayan was open. He claimed the toilet was 40-50 steps from the spot. He stated that he could not say whether accused Irfan and Tarif resided in his vicinity, but volunteered that he had seen them coming and going from there. When asked to identify the accused persons again, PW-3 identified only accused Irfan as someone he had seen earlier in his locality. He stated that he did not know accused Roshan or Tarif or their names. He denied being threatened by the accused or deposing falsely out of fear.
17. PW-3 was not cross-examined by ld. respective Counsels for accused Mohd. Roshan (A-1), Mohd. Tareef (A-2) and Mohd.
Irfan (A-3) despite opportunity being given for the same.
18. PW-4/Ankit deposed that deceased Durgesh was his cousin brother and that Manoj (PW-1) and Vinod (PW-3) were also his cousin brothers, that all three brothers i.e. Durgesh, Manoj and Vinod were residing on rent in the same vicinity. PW-4 deposed that he worked at a cosmetic shop in Sadar Bazar and used to leave for work at about 9:00 AM and return around 6:00-6:30 PM. He deposed that on 03.04.2023, he returned home at about 6:30 PM, that while he was at home, he heard people saying that "Durgesh ka murder ho gaya hai Azadpur Railway Station par", that upon hearing this, he went to Azadpur Railway Station, where he found Manoj, Vinod and other family members present, that on their asking, he made a 100-number call to the police and SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.11 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:16:47 +0530 informed them that "meray bhai (Durgesh) ko chaku mar diya hai." He further deposed that he came to know that Durgesh had been stabbed as public persons were whispering the same. He deposed that police made some inquiry from him but did not record his statement. He deposed that he did not know accused Irfan, Roshan, or Tarif. He claimed he knew nothing further about the incident.
19. Since PW-4 resiled from his earlier police statement, permission was sought and granted to the Ld. Addl. PP to cross- examine him. In cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP, PW-4 denied that his statement was recorded by the police. He admitted that there was a pan-bidi-cigarette shop on Platform No. 1 but stated that he only addressed the shopkeeper as "Chacha" and did not know his name. He denied that the shopkeeper's name was Prem Narayan. He deposed that he did not remember whether that shopkeeper was present at Platform No. 1 when he reached there and could not recall the exact time of his arrival at the platform. PW-4 denied that on being prompted by public persons, injured Durgesh had deposed that accused Irfan, Roshan and Tarif had caught hold of him and that accused Irfan had stabbed him. He also denied that shopkeeper Prem Narayan had told him that accused Tarif and Roshan had caught hold of Durgesh at the instance of accused Irfan, who had taken out a knife from his pant pocket and stabbed him. He denied that the accused persons formed a gang and used to commit robbery or snatching at the railway station, or that Durgesh used to oppose their criminal activities. He denied having been won over by the accused or deposing falsely.
SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.12 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2025.12.12 16:16:51 +0530
20. PW-4 was not cross-examined by ld. respective Counsels for accused Mohd. Roshan (A-1), Mohd. Tareef (A-2) and Mohd. Irfan (A-3) despite opportunity being given for the same.
21. PW-5/Shiva deposed that deceased Durgesh was his maternal uncle (mama), and Manoj (PW-1) and Vinod (PW-3) were also his maternal uncles, that all three real brothers i.e. Durgesh, Manoj and Vinod were residing in the same vicinity on rent. PW-5 further deposed that he was employed in a multinational company in Gurugram as a customer executive support. He deposed that on 03.04.2023, his office was closed and he was present at his home, that after taking his meal around 7:00-8:00 PM, he was about to sleep when he heard noise that "Durgesh @ Kallu has been stabbed", that he immediately went to Platform No. 1 of Azadpur Railway Station where he saw Durgesh lying in a pool of blood. He deposed that he did not remember who all were present at the platform at that time. PW-5 deposed that he lifted Durgesh and took him to a hospital in Jahangirpuri in a battery rickshaw, where he admitted him to the emergency ward. He deposed that all family members subsequently reached the hospital and that police officials also came there, that Durgesh was unresponsive, and PW-5 came to know that he had succumbed to his injuries. He deposed that he did not know who had stabbed Durgesh and that he did not know accused Irfan, Roshan or Tarif. He deposed that the police made inquiry from him but he did not know whether his statement was recorded. He further deposed that he does not know anything else.
SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.13 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:16:56 +0530
22. Since PW-5 resiled from his earlier version, the Ld. Addl. PP sought and was granted permission to cross-examine him. In cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP, PW-5 deposed that he was a graduate. He admitted that the police might have recorded his statement, but he did not remember. He did not remember the exact time when he reached Platform No. 1. He denied that landlady Saroj or shopkeeper Prem Narayan were present when he reached there. He denied that Manoj (PW-1) told him that he had seen accused Roshan and Tarif holding Durgesh while accused Irfan stabbed him. He denied that accused Roshan was apprehended by public persons or that he had himself seen Roshan injured at the hospital. He denied that Durgesh was conscious or that he had made any statement implicating the accused persons. PW-5 denied that shopkeeper Prem Narayan told him anything regarding involvement of accused persons. He further denied that Manoj had accompanied him while taking Durgesh to the hospital. He denied that accused Irfan, Tarif and Roshan had intentionally murdered Durgesh and denied having been won over by the accused persons.
23. PW-5 was not cross-examined by ld. respective Counsels for accused Mohd. Roshan (A-1), Mohd. Tareef (A-2) and Mohd. Irfan (A-3) despite opportunity being given for the same.
24. PW-6/Saroj deposed that Manoj (PW-1) and Vinod (PW-3), the brothers of deceased Durgesh, were her tenants. She deposed that Manoj and Vinod were working as cleaning workers. PW-6 deposed that on 03.04.2023, she was present at her house. She claimed that she did not know what had happened SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.14 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2025.12.12
16:17:01
+0530
on that day and did not know where Manoj and Vinod were at that time. She deposed that there was a wall between her house and Azadpur Railway Station. She further deposed that she had neither gone to the railway station on that day nor heard any noise. She expressed ignorance about the incident and deposed that she did not know whether Durgesh had been murdered. She deposed that she had not seen anything on 03.04.2023. According to her, she came to Court to depose only because a police official visited her house the previous day and asked her to appear. She further deposed that the police had never met her earlier nor made any inquiry from her.
25. Since the witness resiled from her earlier statement, permission was sought and granted to the Ld. Addl. PP to cross- examine her. In cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP, PW-6 deposed that she had come to Court on her own. She admitted that on 03.04.2023 at about 9:00 PM she was present at her house. She denied that she went to Platform No. 1 of Azadpur Railway Station upon hearing noise around 9:30 PM. She denied that Durgesh was stabbed at the platform or that she had seen him lying injured near the wall with blood oozing from his body. She denied that Manoj, Vinod or shopkeeper Prem Narayan were present at the platform when she allegedly reached there. She denied that Manoj had informed her that he had seen accused Roshan and Tarif holding Durgesh while accused Irfan stabbed him. She also denied that Manoj told her that Roshan was apprehended by public persons. PW-6 further denied that shopkeeper Prem Narayan told her anything about the accused persons catching hold of Durgesh or that accused Irfan stabbed SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.15 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2025.12.12 16:17:05 +0530 him with a knife. She denied that Durgesh was conscious at the platform or that he had implicated the accused persons. She maintained ignorance regarding whether Durgesh was stabbed at all and denied that the police ever met or examined her. PW-6 categorically deposed that she did not know accused Irfan, Roshan or Tarif and could not identify them in Court as she had never seen them. She denied that all three accused resided in her vicinity or that she was deposing falsely due to fear or due to having been threatened by the accused persons. She deposed that she did not know Shiva (PW-5) or Ankit (PW-4).
26. PW-6 was not cross-examined by ld. respective Counsels for accused Mohd. Roshan (A-1), Mohd. Tareef (A-2) and Mohd. Irfan (A-3) despite opportunity being given for the same.
27. PW-7/Dr. Abhishek Sharma deposed that on 03.04.2023, he was posted at BJRM Hospital as a Junior Resident in the Casualty Department, that on that day, injured Durgesh was brought to the casualty with a stab injury. PW-7 medically examined him and declared him "brought dead". He deposed that upon examination, he observed a stab wound over the left inguinal region measuring approximately 4 x 2 cm. After the medical examination, the body of the deceased was handed over to the Investigating Officer for further forensic examination. PW-7 further deposed that he prepared MLC No. 224921 of deceased Durgesh, which is Ex.PW7/A, bearing his signature at point A.
28. PW-7 was not cross-examined by ld. respective Counsels for accused Mohd. Roshan (A-1), Mohd. Tareef (A-2) and Mohd. SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.16 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:17:10 +0530 Irfan (A-3) despite opportunity being given for the same.
29. PW-8/Dr. Sandeep Kumar Garg deposed that on 03.04.2023, he was posted as Specialist in the Department of Forensic Medicine at BJRM Hospital, that on that day, he conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased Durgesh, that he found a stab wound measuring 4 cm × 1.8 cm × bone deep, obliquely present over the anterior aspect of the left thigh, situated 77 cm above the left heel and 85 cm below the tip of the head, that the wound track entered the muscle, pierced the femoral artery and vein, and further pierced the femur bone before terminating, that the depth of the wound was approximately 8 cm, and its direction was upwards, backwards and medially, that he noticed dried clotted blood along the wound track, that he stated that the medial end of the wound was pointed while the lateral end was blunt. He opined that the cause of death was haemorrhagic shock consequent to the above injury, which was ante-mortem, fresh in duration, and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The injury was caused by a sharp-pointed weapon. PW-8 deposed that he preserved viscera, blood sample, blood-soaked gauze piece, clothes of the deceased, and sample seals after the post-mortem. He prepared the detailed post-mortem report Ex.PW8/A, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that on 16.08.2024, an application was received from Inspector Sharad Kumar Bishnoi, SHO PS Subzi Mandi Railway Station, seeking an opinion on whether (i) the injury described in PM report No. 300/2023 dated 04.04.2023 could have been caused by a knife sent to him, and (ii) the cut marks on the clothes of the deceased could have been caused by SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.17 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:17:45 +0530 the same knife. Along with the application, sealed parcels containing the knife and the blood-stained clothes of the deceased were received. After examining the material, PW-8 opined that the stab injury on the body of the deceased could be caused by the examined knife, and that the cut mark on the underwear was corresponding to the injury described in the post- mortem report. He prepared a subsequent opinion Ex.PW8/B, bearing his signature at point A. After examination, the weapon and clothes were resealed with the seal of "FMT BJRM Hospital Delhi" and handed over to the police.
30. In his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Tarif, PW-8 deposed that he did not observe any cut mark on the jeans of the deceased. He clarified that it is medically possible for a cut to appear on the underwear without piercing the jeans. He also deposed that although the clothes had bloodstains at several places, he did not examine the stains, as such examination is the domain of FSL. He noticed brownish stains on the knife but could not confirm with certainty whether they were bloodstains.
He did not observe any fabric threads on the knife. He further deposed that fingerprint examination was not his responsibility. When shown the sketch of the recovered knife, PW-8 opined that even if the width of the knife blade was 2.9 cm, the weapon could cause a stab wound of width 1.8 cm with a depth of 8 cm. He denied that his opinion was prepared falsely at the instance of the Investigating Officer.
31. Cross-examination of PW-8 on behalf of accused Irfan and accused Roshan was adopted from the cross-examination of SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.18 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2025.12.12
16:17:50
+0530
accused Tarif.
32. PW-9/M.L. Meena deposed that on 14.06.2023, he was working as Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry) at FSL, Rohini, Delhi, that on that day, one sealed wooden box duly sealed with the seal of "FMT BJRM Hospital Delhi" was received in his section for chemical examination, that the seals were found intact and tallied with the specimen seal impression forwarded with the parcel. Upon opening the sealed wooden box, the following exhibits were found: Exhibit 1A - Stomach and pieces of small intestine with contents, kept in a sealed jar, Exhibit 1B - Pieces of liver, spleen and kidney, kept in a sealed jar, Exhibit 1C - Blood sample, kept in a sealed bottle. PW-9 deposed that he conducted chemical, microscopic, TLC and GC-HS examination of the exhibits and prepared his detailed report Ex.PW9/A, bearing his signature at point A. He opined that Exhibits 1A, 1B and 1C were found to contain Ethyl Alcohol, and Blood sample (Exhibit 1C) contained Ethyl Alcohol measuring 291.6 mg/100 ml of blood. After completing the examination, the remnants were resealed with the seal of "MLM FSL DELHI".
33. In cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Tarif, PW-9 deposed that he could not specify the time taken by alcohol to reach the liver, spleen or kidney after consumption. He also deposed that he could not comment on the exact quantity of alcohol consumed by the deceased or whether the process of alcohol absorption continues after death.
34. Cross-examination by Ld. Counsels for accused Roshan and accused Irfan was adopted from the cross-examination SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.19 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:17:54 +0530 conducted on behalf of accused Tarif.
35. PW-10/HC Somlata deposed that on 03.04.2023, she was posted as Head Constable at PS Subzi Mandi Railway Station and was performing duty as Duty Officer from 02:00 PM to 06:00 AM the next day. She deposed that at about 03:15 AM, Ct. Prateek brought before her a rukka prepared and sent by ASI Manoj for registration of the present case, that on the basis of the said rukka, she registered FIR No. 08/2023 on her dictation with the assistance of the CCTNS operator, that after registration of the FIR, she took its printout and handed over the same along with the original rukka to Ct. Prateek for being handed over to the IO. She proved the FIR as Ex.PW10/A (OSR) bearing her signature at point A, that she further proved her endorsement on the rukka from point X to X-1 as Ex.PW10/B, bearing her signature at point A. PW-10 also deposed that she issued a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which is Ex.PW10/C, bearing her signature at point A. She further deposed that on 03.04.2023 at about 10:59 PM, she received information from PCR through wireless regarding a stabbing incident near Lal Bagh Shochalya, Ram Leela Park, Adarsh Nagar Railway Station, and the admission of the injured at BJRM Hospital. She made a DD entry to this effect being GD No. 0033A, which she proved as Ex.PW10/D, bearing her signature at point A, and marked the same to ASI Manoj for further proceedings.
36. In cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Tarif, PW-10 deposed that the CCTNS entries of FIR and GD No. SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.20 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:17:59 +0530 0033A were made by the CCTNS operator on her dictation.
37. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Roshan, PW-10 admitted that Ex.PW10/B does not bear her name and designation. She deposed that she had handed over the Section 65B certificate along with the FIR copy and the rukka after registration of the FIR, though she did not remember the exact time. She denied that the signatures on Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW10/B, and Ex.PW10/D were not hers. She also denied that she had not registered the FIR or that she was deposing falsely.
38. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Irfan, PW-10 denied that the FIR was ante-dated or ante-timed, or that she was deposing falsely.
39. PW-11/ASI Manoj Kumar deposed that on 03.04.2023, he was posted as ASI at PS Subzi Mandi Railway Station and was on night emergency duty along with Ct. Prateek from 08:00 PM to 08:00 AM the next day, that on receipt of DD No. 0033A, he, along with Ct. Prateek and HC Moolchand, reached Platform No. 1, Azadpur Railway Station, where they noticed bloodstains near the wall of Lal Bagh Jhuggi as well as on the platform near the foot-over-bridge, that upon enquiry, they came to know that the injured had been shifted to BJRM Hospital, and further learnt from public persons that the injured was Durgesh. PW-11 deposed that he then proceeded to BJRM Hospital with HC Moolchand, where he collected the MLC of injured Durgesh, who had been declared brought dead by the doctor, that in the hospital, he came to know that accused Roshan, who had also sustained injuries during the incident, had been referred to JPN SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.21 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2025.12.12 16:18:40 +0530 Hospital for further treatment, that at the hospital, he met PW-1 Manoj (brother of the deceased), who introduced himself as an eye-witness and narrated the incident. PW-11 recorded Manoj's statement Ex.PW1/A, bearing his signature at point B. He took the dead body into police possession vide memo Ex.PW11/A, bearing his signature at point A, and got the body preserved in the mortuary. HC Moolchand was deputed to guard the body. PW-11 further deposed that he returned to the spot and summoned the Mobile Crime Team, which inspected the scene and lifted various biological exhibits such as blood-soaked gauze, earth control, etc, that the exhibits were handed over to him, which he kept in separate polythene bags, sealed with his seal MK, and seized vide Ex.PW1/B, bearing his signature at point B. On the basis of PW-1 Manoj's statement and the MLC, he prepared a rukka Ex.PW11/B (signed at point B) and handed it to Ct. Prateek for registration of FIR. Ct. Prateek returned to the spot with a copy of FIR and the original rukka and handed them to Inspector Avinash Tyagi, SHO, who thereafter took over further investigation. PW-11 handed over to the IO all the exhibits seized from the spot and also the pullanda containing the wearing clothes of accused Roshan, which he had received from BJRM Hospital, sealed with the seal of CAUSALITY BJRM HOSPITAL DELHI, along with sample seal. The same was seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW11/C, bearing PW-11's signature at point A. PW-11 further deposed that on 04.04.2023, he again joined the investigation and went to the mortuary with the IO, where postmortem was conducted and sealed exhibits were handed over to the IO, that on the same day, accused SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.22 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2025.12.12 16:18:45 +0530 Roshan was brought to the police station after discharge from the hospital, where PW-1 Manoj and PW-3 Vinod also arrived, that the IO interrogated accused Roshan, who disclosed his involvement along with co-accused Tarif and Irfan. IO arrested Roshan vide Ex.PW1/C, bearing PW-11's signature at point B, conducted his personal search vide Ex.PW11/D, and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW3/C, bearing PW-11's signature at point B, that accused Roshan then led the police to the place of incident, where the IO prepared a pointing-out memo Ex.PW3/D, bearing PW-11's signature at point B. PW-11 further deposed that on the same day, on the basis of secret information, he along with the IO, PW-1 Manoj and PW-3 Vinod reached the railway tracks between Azadpur and Subzi Mandi Railway Stations, where accused Tarif was apprehended at about 07:15 PM, that accused Tarif was interrogated, arrested vide Ex.PW1/D (signed by PW-11 at point C), personally searched vide memo Ex.PW11/E, and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW3/E, bearing PW-11's signature at point B, that accused Tarif also pointed out the place of incident, and the pointing-out memo Ex.PW3/F bears PW-11's signature at point B. PW-11 identified accused Roshan and accused Tarif in Court.
40. In cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Tarif, PW-11 deposed that he came to know about the shifting of the injured to BJRM Hospital only after reaching the spot. He admitted that 10-15 public persons were present at the spot when he reached, but he did not record the details of any of them nor issued any notice to join the investigation. He deposed that he recorded Manoj's statement around 01:00 AM at the hospital. He SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.23 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2025.12.12 16:19:04 +0530 admitted that no departure entry was made when they left to arrest accused Tarif. He denied that signatures of Manoj and Vinod were taken on blank papers or that the accused was not arrested from the railway track.
41. In his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Roshan, PW-11 deposed that he visited the spot twice, first around 11:30 PM and later around 01:30 AM, and stayed till around 05:00 AM. He further deposed that he came on his private motorcycle but did not remember its number, that he did not record statements of any public witness nor give written notices to them. He admitted not remembering who brought accused Roshan from the hospital. He denied that he had not joined the investigation or that the signatures on various documents were forged.
42. In cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Irfan, he denied all suggestions of false deposition.
43. PW-12/Ct. Prateek deposed that on 03.04.2023, he was posted as a Constable at PS Subzi Mandi Railway Station and was on patrolling duty along with HC Mool Chand in his beat area, that at about 11:00 PM, he was informed by ASI Manoj (PW-11) that a call regarding stabbing at Platform No. 1, Azadpur Railway Station had been received. He deposed that thereafter he and HC Mool Chand came back to the police station, and from there, he accompanied the IO/ASI Manoj to the spot on the motorcycle of ASI Manoj, that HC Mool Chand also reached the spot on his own motorcycle, that at the spot, they noticed bloodstains lying near the wall facing Lal Bagh Jhuggi at SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.24 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:19:08 +0530 Platform No. 1, that they also came to know that the injured, Durgesh, had been shifted to BJRM Hospital, and that another injured person, Roshan, who had also sustained injuries, had been shifted to the same hospital. PW-12 deposed that thereafter, the IO along with HC Mool Chand went to BJRM Hospital, leaving him at the spot to guard it, that after some time, ASI Manoj returned to the spot, that the IO called the mobile crime team, which arrived, inspected the scene, took photographs, prepared the SOC report, and lifted exhibits from the spot, handing the same over to the IO. He deposed that the IO thereafter prepared the rukka on the basis of the statement of the brother of the deceased, which had already been recorded at the hospital, that the IO handed over the rukka to him for registration of the FIR. PW-12 took the rukka to the PS, got the present FIR registered, returned to the spot, and handed over the copy of the FIR and the original rukka to the second IO / Inspector Avnish Tyagi.
44. In cross-examination on behalf of accused Irfan, PW-12 deposed that on 03.04.2023, his duty hours were from 08:00 PM to 08:00 AM, that he did not remember the departure entry number for patrolling, nor did he get any danda/weapon issued for patrolling. He deposed that he reached the spot between 10:00-11:00 PM and left around 04:00-05:00 AM, and that he did not join the investigation after 04.04.2023. He deposed that 15-20 public persons were present at the spot, but the IO did not note their names and addresses. He denied that neither he nor the IO were present at the spot at that time. He could not tell the number of crime team members or the number of photographs SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.25 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:19:13 +0530 taken. He admitted that the IO did not record the statement of Manoj in his presence. He deposed that he did not remember when and where the IO recorded his own statement under Section 161 CrPC. He denied that he never took the rukka to the PS or that he did not join the investigation.
45. In cross-examination on behalf of accused Roshan, PW-12 deposed that ASI Manoj had parked his motorcycle 50-60 meters ahead of Platform No. 1 near a park. He did not recall the age composition of the public persons present. He deposed that the IO asked their names but none disclosed their identity, and the IO did not serve any written notice on them. He deposed that no CCTV cameras were found at the spot. He could not recall the exact time when he returned from the hospital to the spot or when the IO started and completed the rukka. He deposed that the IO did not record the statement of 1-2 persons sleeping on the platform, that he left for the PS with the rukka at about 03:15-03:30 AM, that he did not remember the time when the Duty Officer handed over the FIR to him and admitted that he did not check the name/designation of the Duty Officer on the FIR. He denied that he never took the rukka or that he was not part of the investigation.
46. Cross-examination on behalf of accused Tarif was adopted from that of accused Roshan and accused Irfan.
47. PW-13/ASI Ashwani Kumar deposed that on 05.04.2023, he was posted as ASI at PS Subzi Mandi Railway Station, that on that day, he joined investigation of the present case FIR alongwith IO/Inspector Avinesh Tyagi, PW Manoj and PW SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.26 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:19:17 +0530 Vinod, that on that day, they reached near railway fatak, railway track Badli Railway station from where accused Irfan was apprehended, that IO interrogated accused Irfan and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/E, personal search of accused was carried out by the IO, personal search memo Ex.PW13/A bearing his signature at point A. He deposed that IO recorded disclosure statement of Irfan vide memo Ex.PW1/F. He deposed that accused led police party to platform no.1 Aazadpur Railway Station, where IO prepared point out memo of the place of incident which is already Ex.PW3/G bearing his signature at point B, that thereafter accused led us police party to a park situated some distance away from Aazadpur railway station for the recovery of weapon of offence i.e. Knife, that accused entered into said park and he got recovered a knife which he hided into bushes inside the park, that IO prepared sketch memo of recovered knife which is Ex.PW1/H bearing his signature at point C, that IO prepared pullanda of the recovered knife and sealed the same with the seal of AKT and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/G bearing his signature at point B. He identified accused Irfan and case property i.e. Knife. He deposed that knife was recovered at the instance of accused Irfan during course of investigation in the pursuance of his disclosure statement. Knife is Ex.PW13/P1.
48. In cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Mohd. Irfan, PW-13 deposed that he remained present in the investigation of the present case FIR alongwith IO for about 6-7 hours, that on that day, he left the PS alongwith IO at about 02:00/30 PM and returned to PS after investigation at about SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.27 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:19:21 +0530 07/08:00 PM, he cannot tell said DD entry number vide which he alongwith IO left the police station for investigation, that he alongwith IO, left the police station by Government gypsy, that he does not know whether IO made departure entry in his presence. He further deposed that IO prepared arrest memo and other documents while sitting on the earth 10 meters away from railway fatak near the spot, that IO parked Government Gypsy outside of railway station which was approx 400 meters away from the railway station, that he does not remember whether public persons were present at the railway fatak at that time. He denied that neither he visited railway fatak nor any proceedings were conducted there in his presence that is why he does not remember whether the public persons were present there or not. He also deposed that IO prepared all documents in his own hand writing, that the alleged place from where knife was recovered is vacant place but it cannot be termed as properly maintained park, that residential juggies are situated at a distance of 30-40 meters away from said vacant place / park. He admitted that the said vacant place / park is not a restricted area. He deposed that he does not remember whether IO requested any public persons including residents of Jhuggies to join the investigation in his presence. He denied that neither he visited said vacant place / park nor anything was recovered from there that is why he does not remember. He further deposed that so far as he remember IO prepared 4 documents in his presence, that IO prepared documents at the vacant place / park while sitting on earth, that IO was in police uniform during course of investigation. He does not remember as to what type of clothes were worn by PW SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.28 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2025.12.12
16:19:25
+0530
Manoj and PW Vinod on that day. He denied that PW Manoj and PW Vinod have not participated in the investigation on that day and that is why he does not remember about their wearing clothes, he also does not remember the name of driver of said Government Gypsy. He denied that neither he participated in the investigation nor any proceedings conducted in his presence that is why he does not remember the name of Gypsy driver. He further deposed that he saw IO was carrying a file when they left the police station for investigation, that IO might have kept seal of AKT with him along with file, that he do not know to whom IO handed over the seal, after use. He denied that all proceedings were conducted by the IO while sitting in the police station that is why he do not know as to how IO procured the said seal and to whom he handed over the same. He deposed that he saw recovered knife and noticed blood like stains on the same, that the said knife was in dirty condition. He does not know what was written by IO on the said date after alleged recovery of knife. He again said that he do not know exact words written by IO on the said date after alleged recovery of knife. He denied that he put his signature on the documents prepared by IO at his instance in the police station and that is why he is unable to say what was written by the IO on that day. He denied that accused was lifted from the house and falsely implicated in the present case FIR. He denied that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused as well as his instance.
49. PW-13 was not cross-examined by ld. respective Counsels for accused Mohd. Roshan (A-1) and Mohd. Tareef (A-2) despite opportunity being given for the same.
SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.29 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:19:29 +0530
50. PW-14/Insp. Avinish Tyagi deposed that on 04.04.2023, he was posted at Subzi Mandi Railway Station as SHO, that on that day, investigation of the present case was taken up by him, after registration of FIR, that the initial IO of the present case was ASI Manoj, who prepared rukka and got registered the FIR at about 03:30 AM, that he reached at the spot prior to registration of FIR after briefing of the present case from duty officer and at that time ASI Manoj had already prepared the rukka, that after registration of the FIR, Ct. Prateek came from the police station and handed over rukka and FIR to him on the spot, that ASI Manoj was also present at the spot and he already taken up/got collected the earth material and blood sample with help of crime team, that at that time member of crime team had already left the spot, that ASI Manoj put particulars of the FIR on the seizure memo of the seized earth control and blood sample from the spot. He further deposed that he handed over all seized material with its seizure memo to him, he also handed over two MLCs of injured person collected from the hospital to him, that Ct. Prateek was directed to guard the spot, that he alongwith ASI Manoj went to BJRM hospital, Jahangir Puri, where doctor who had treated the injured Roshan, handed over blood stained shirt of injured Roshan in sealed condition, that he took the sealed pullanda from the ASI Manoj, who received the same from doctor and he seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex.PW11/C bearing his signature at point B, that they again returned at the spot from the hospital and at the spot complainant/eye witness namely Manoj was also present and he prepared site plan at his instance already Ex.PW1/B bearing his SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.30 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2025.12.12 16:20:16 +0530 signature. He further deposed that he recorded supplementary statement of witness Manoj, he also recorded statement of Vinod (eye witness), Prem Narayan (eye witness), Shiva, Ankit and Saroj, who were relevant witness of the present case, thereafter, he started search of the accused persons in the local area but no one was traceable, that he returned to police station and deposited the case property in the malkhana, that he also recorded statement of police witnesses namely Ct. Prateek, HC Pravesh and ASI Manoj. He further deposed that he alongwith ASI Manoj went to mortuary BJRM hospital to conduct postmortem of deceased Durgesh, that he prepared inquest paper which is now exhibited as Ex.PW14/A bearing his signature at point A, that he recorded body identification statement of Vinod and Shiva which is now exhibited as Ex.PW14/B & Ex.PW14/C bearing his signature at point A respectively. He further deposed that after postmortem dead body was handed over to Vinod and he prepared handing over memo already Ex.PW3/A bearing his signature at point B, that he collected exhibits in sealed condition from the doctor who conducted postmortem of the deceased and he seized the same vide seizure memo exhibited as Ex.PW14/D bearing his signature at point A, that he recorded statement of HC Moolchand, ASI Manoj, Vinod and Shiva. He further deposed that he alongwith ASI Manoj, reached at JPN hospital, where injured Roshan was under treatment, that at that time he was discharged by the doctor, that after discharge of injured Roshan they brought him to police station to interrogate him, that he interrogated him and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW3/C bearing his signature at point C. He further deposed SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.31 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2025.12.12 16:20:20 +0530 that at that time witnesses Manoj and Vinod also joined his investigation and they also put their signature on disclosure statement of accused, that they identify injured as one of the accused of the present case, that he arrested accused Roshan vide memo already exhibited as Ex.PW1/C bearing his signature at point D. Witnesses Manoj and Vinod also put their signature on arrest memo, that personal search of accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW11/D bearing his signature at point B, that acused Roshan took him alongwith ASI Manoj at the place of incident where, he prepared pointing out memo at the instance of accused which is already Ex.PW3/D bearing his signature at point C. He further deposed that he recorded statement of Manoj, Vinod and ASI Manoj in this respect. Witness correctly identified the accused Mohd. Roshan.
51. He further deposed that he brought back the accused Roshan in the police station alongwith ASI Manoj, Vinod and Manoj, that he kept accused in lockup of the police station, that thereafter, he started search of other accused persons namely Tarif and Irfan, that during search, he met with one secret informer, who informed him that accused Tarif would be found on the track between Jugghis Lal Bagh Aazadpur and Shakti Nagar, that on the basis of said secret information, he alongwith ASI Manoj and public witness Manoj and Vinod, went to Railway track near Shakti Nagar, where accused Mohd. Tarif was apprehended at the instance of eye witnesses Manoj and Vinod, that he arrested accused Mohd. Tarif vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/D bearings his signature at point D, that personal search of accused was conducted vide personal search memo already SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.32 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2025.12.12
16:20:25
+0530
Ex.PW11/E bearing his signature at point B, that he recorded disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW3/E bearing his signature at point C, that accused took him alongwith ASI Manoj, public witnesses Manoj and Vinod at place of occurrence where he prepared pointing out memo at the instance of accused Ex.PW3/F bearing his signature at point C, that he again recorded statement of ASI Manoj, Vinod and Manoj, that property recovered in the personal search of accused Mohd. Tarif was deposited in the malkhana and accused was kept in the lockup. Accused Modh. Tarif is correctly identified by the witness.
52. He further deposed that on next day i.e. 05.04.2023, both accused namely Roshan and Modh. Tarif were produced in the court and sent to Judicial custody, that thereafter, he alongwith ASI Ashwani started search of other co-accused Irfan and during the search he reached at the jhuggies situated at Lal Bagh, Aazadpur, that during the search, eye witnesses Vinod and Manoj also joined investigation, that in the process of search of accused Irfan, secret informer met him and informed him about the presence of accused Irfan in area of village Siraspur, Delhi, that on the basis of said information, he alongwith ASI Ashwani, Vinod and Manoj went near railway fatak in area of village Siraspur, where accused Irfan met them and he was identified by the eye witnesses Vinod and Manoj, he arrested accused Irfan vide arrest memo already Ex.PW1/E bearing his signature at point D, that personal search of accused was conducted vide personal search memo already Ex.PW13/A bearing his signature at point B, that he recorded disclosure statement of accused Irfan which is already Ex.PW1/F bearing his signature at point D, that SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.33 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:20:29 +0530 in the search of accused Irfan two mobile phones were recovered and they were relevant material of the present case, therefore, he kept both mobile phone in pullanda and pullanda was sealed with seal of AKT, that he seized pullanda vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/E bearing his signature at point A, accused Irfan took him alongwith ASI Ashwani, public witnesses Manoj and Vinod at place of occurrence where, he prepared pointing out memo at the instance of accused which is Ex.PW3/G bearing his signature, that accused took him to the vacant ground situated behind Shivam apartment Ashok Vihar, Phase-II, where he got recovered one knife from the bushes of said vacant ground, that he measured the knife and found its total length was 24.4 Cms in which the length of blade was 10.6 Cms and length of handle was 13.8 Cms, that he prepared sketch memo of the said knife which is Ex.PW1/H bearing his signature at point D, that he kept said knife into white color pullanda and put seal of AKT, that he seized said pullanda vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/G bearing his signature at point D, that he handedover the used seal to witness Manoj vide handing over memo already Ex.PW1/I bearing his signature at point A, that he also prepared site plan of place of recovery of knife which is Ex.PW14/F bearing his signature at point A, that he recorded statement of ASI Ashwani, Vinod and Manoj, that seized case property were deposited in the malkhana and accused was kept in the lockup. Accused Irfan is correctly identified by the witness.
53. He further deposed that on next day, accused Irfan was produced in the court from where he was sent to Judicial Custody, that on the same day, he recorded statement of ASI SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.34 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2025.12.12 16:20:34 +0530 Karan, photographer Ct. Shyamveer of the crime team, who had inspected the spot at the instruction of ASI Manoj, that he obtain scene of crime report from ASI Karan which is Ex.A-4, that photographs of scene of crime was also collected from the crime team as Ex.A-3.
54. He deposed that on 07.04.2023, he went at the house of Manoj and received back his seal from him and prepared receiving memo which is Ex.PW14/G bearing his signature. He also recorded statement of Manoj in this respect.
55. He deposed that on 08.04.2024, he collected PCR form from the Ct. Neha and recorded her statement, that PCR form is already Ex.A-2, that thereafter, he got prepared scaled site plan through draftsman ACP Mahesh Kumar, that scaled site plan is already Ex.A-4, that he also mentioned his corresponding marking on it which is from point X to X1 and bearing his signature at point B, that he collected Postmortem report of the deceased from BJRM hospital which is already Ex.PW8/A, that he sent the seized exhibits of deceased to FSL through MHC(M) Pravesh, that he prepared charge-sheet in the present case. Case property i.e. Knife is correctly identified by the witness which is Ex.PW13/P1. He further deposed that during the course of investigation, he recorded statement of PW-Vinod under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW14/H bearing his signature at Point- A, earlier marked as Mark-PW1/X1, that he also recorded statement of Mr. Prem Narain which is Ex.PW14/I bearing his signature, that he also recorded statement of PW-Shiva Ex.PW14/J bearing his signatures, that he also recorded SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.35 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2025.12.12
16:20:39
+0530
statement of PW-Ankit which is Ex.PW14/K bearing his signature, that he also recorded supplementary statement of PW- Vinod under section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW14/L bearing his signature at Point A earlier marked as Mark-PW1/X1, X2 and X3 respectively, that he also recorded supplementary statement of PW-Manoj under Section 161 Cr.P.C which is Ex.PW14/M bearing his signature at Point-A, that he also recorded statement of PW-Saroj under section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW14/N bearing his signatures at Point-A, that he recorded true statements of aforesaid witnesses and read over to them after recording the same. He tendered MLC of accused Roshan prepared at BJRM hospital is Mark-PW14/X1 and MLC prepared at Lok Nayak Hospital is Mark-PW14/X2 (running into six pages).
56. He further deposed that during course of the investigation, he recorded statement of witnesses, placed relevant documents with charge sheet and on the completion of investigation, he prepared charge sheet and filed the same. He identified accused Roshan, Tareef and Irfan.
57. In cross-examination by Ld. Respective Counsel for accused accused Mohd. Roshan (A-1), Mohd. Tareef (A-2) and Mohd. Irfan (A-3), PW-14 denied that Manoj had not made any such statement to him or that public witnesses Vinod, Prem Narayan, Shiva, Ankit and Saroj had also not made any such statement to him. He further denied that accused Roshan had not made any such disclosure statement or have been falsely arrested or that he obtained the signatures of Manoj and Vinod on the SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.36 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:20:43 +0530 disclosure statement of accused Roshan later on or that accused Roshan was not arrested in the presence of public witnesses Manoj and Vinod. He further denied that accused Tareef was not apprehended on the identification of witnesses Manoj and Vinod or that he obtained their signatures later on the memos and that accused Tareef had been falsely arrested or had not made any disclosure statement. He further denied that accused Irfan was not apprehended on the identification of witnesses Manoj and Vinod or that he obtained their signatures later on on the memos and he further denied that accused Irfan had been falsely arrested or had not made any disclosure statement.
58. He also denied that no such knife was recovered at the instance of accused Irfan. He admitted that the said place of recovery was an open place accessible to all. He deposed that the said recovery proceedings were neither videographed nor photographed, that no crime team was called at the said place of recovery. He denied that he obtained the signatures of Manoj and Vinod later on the said seizure memos and denied that he had not carried out fair investigation or that accused persons have been falsely implicated and charge-sheeted.
59. PW-15/Dr. Indresh Kumar Mishra deposed that he was posted in FSL Rohini as Assistant Director (Biology), that on 14.06.2023, 12 sealed parcels were received at the counter of FSL Rohini in respect of FIR No. 8/2023 dated 04.04.2023 under Section 302/34 IPC and under Section 25 Arms Act, PS Subzi Mandi Railway Station along with the forwarding letter. He further deposed that aforesaid parcels were marked to him for SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.37 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2025.12.12
16:20:47
+0530
analysis and examination, that he tallied seals of parcels with specimen seals and found the same intact, that he opened the parcels and examined the same as per SOP of FSL Rohini and opined that DNA profile generated from source of Ex.3(gauze cloth piece lifted from the spot), Ex.4 (cemented material lifted from the spot), Ex.9a (shirt of deceased Durgesh) and Ex.9c (jeans pants of deceased Durgesh) were found to be similar with the DNA profile generated from the source of Ex.10 (blood stained gauze cloth piece of deceased Durgesh), that DNA profile generated from the source of Ex.7 (cemented material lifted from the spot) was found to be not similar with DNA profile generated from the source of Ex.10 (blood stained gauze cloth piece of deceased Durgesh), that DNA profile could not be generated from the source of exhibits i.e. Ex.1, Ex.2, Ex.6, Ex.9b, Ex.9d, Ex.12 and Ex.14 which may be due to degradation/inhibition, that remnants of exhibits were sealed with seal of 'IKM FSL DELHI'. His detailed report is Ex. PW15/A along with allelic data bearing his signature at Point A.
60. PW-15 was not cross-examined by ld. Counsel for accused Mohd. Roshan (A-1) and by accused Mohd. Tareef (A-2) and Mohd. Irfan (A-3) despite opportunity being given for the same.
61. PW ASI Karan Singh, PW Constable Shayamveer, PW ACP Mahesh Kumar and PW/WCt. Neha were dropped from the list of witnesses as accused persons admitted scene of Crime Report Ex.A-1, PCR Call form (running into 06 pages) as Ex.A-2, 20 photographs of the spot as Ex.A-3 and scaled site plan as Ex.A-4. Further, PW HC Mool Chand was also dropped SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.38 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2025.12.12 16:20:51 +0530 from the list of witnesses vide order dated 05.10.2024 as PW-11/ASI Manoj has already deposed on the same lines.
62. Vide separate statement dated 30.08.2025, PE was closed and the matter was fixed for recording of Statement of the accused.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.
63. Statement of all the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 12.09.2025 wherein all the accused persons denied all the allegations against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. All accused stated that they would not lead evidence in their defence and therefore matter was fixed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF BOTH THE PARTIES
64. Final arguments were addressed by Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Additional PP for the State and Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused persons. This court has duly considered the rival contentions and has also perused the record carefully.
APPRECIATION AND EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE, ANALYSIS OF CONTENTIONS AND FINDINGS
65. It is a settled principle of criminal law that in a criminal trial, the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. Further, prosecution has to stand on its own legs and it has to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt by leading cogent and SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.39 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2025.12.12 16:20:55 +0530 conclusive evidence. Burden of proving its case exclusively lies upon the prosecution and in order to succeed, it has to discharge the said burden.
66. In Section 300 IPC, the definition of culpable homicide appears in an expanded form. Each of the four clauses requires that the act which causes death should be done intentionally, or with the knowledge or means of knowing that death is a natural consequence of the act. An offence cannot amount to murder unless it falls within the definition of culpable homicide; for this section merely points out the cases in which culpable homicide is murder. Putting it shortly, all acts of killing done:
i) with the intention to kill, or
ii) to inflict bodily injury likely to cause death, or
iii) with the knowledge that death must be the most probable result, are prima facie murder, while those committed with the knowledge that death will be a likely result, are culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
67. In the landmark judgment of Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (1958) 1 SCR 1495, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the following are the four steps of inquiry involved in the offence of Murder under section 300 IPC, clause thirdly:
"i. first, whether bodily injury is present; ii. second,what is the nature of the injury; iii. third, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular injury, that is to say, that it was SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.40 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:21:00 +0530 not accidental or unintentional or that some other kind of injury was intended; and iv. fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature."
68. In order to bring home the guilt of accused persons in respect of offence of murder of deceased Durgesh @ Kalu, S/o Late Ganga Prasad, the prosecution was required to prove as under:
i. That the death of Durgesh @ Kalu was homicidal in nature;
ii. That it was the accused persons who had caused bodily injury to the deceased Durgesh @ Kalu; iii. That the accused persons had intention to cause the death of deceased Durgesh @ Kalu or that the accused persons knew it to be likely to cause death or that the accused persons were well aware that the injury caused to deceased, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
69. Section 34 IPC stipulates as under
"Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention--When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
70. The case of prosecution for the offence under Section 302 IPC and under Section 25/27 Arms Act, 1959 is squarely dependent upon the testimony of eye/public witnesses i.e. PW-1/ Sh. Manoj, PW-2.Sh. Prem Narayan, PW-3/Sh.Vinod, PW-4/Sh. Ankit, PW-5/Sh. Shiva, PW-6/Smt. Saroj being the material public witnesses.
71. The testimony of PW-1 Sh. Manoj who is also the SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.41 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:21:04 +0530 complainant in the present case reveals that he has not supported the case of the prosecution. This witness has infact deposed that he heard the noise that Durgesh has been stabbed and at that time he was alighting from the roof of his house. He voluntarily deposed that he could not see anything as there was darkness, thereby, giving an inference that he has not seen the incident at all and accordingly, nothing incriminating came on record qua accused persons in his examination-in-chief so as to connect them with the incident in question. He also deposed that he immediately rushed to platform no. 1 of Azadpur Railway Station and saw his brother lying on platform no. 1 in the pool of blood. Though PW-1 identified accused Irfan and Roshan but he has deposed that he knew Irfan as he was residing in the locality and he knew Roshan who was residing near his house. He failed to identify the accused Tarif despite his attention specifically being drawn towards him and specifically deposed that he does not know accused Tarif as he has not seen him earlier. By way of aforesaid testimony, PW-1 miserably failed to identify all the accused persons as culprit. PW-1 has also deposed that though during investigation, police arrested three accused persons but during investigation, he did not see accused persons and police did not arrest accused persons in his presence, thereby, making the arrest of the accused persons doubtful. He further deposed that police obtained his signatures on some blank paper and he is not aware about the contents of those documents. He also deposed that police did not seized his blood stained clothes and he did not see the knife by which his brother was stabbed, thereby, reflecting bad investigation and possibility of knife SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.42 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2025.12.12 16:21:09 +0530 being planted cannot be ruled out. He further failed to identify the knife (weapon of offence) during his testimony/examination in chief dated 08.05.2024 by deposing that he cannot identify the said knife as he has not seen it earlier. By way of aforesaid testimony during his examination-in-chief, PW-1 miserably failed to identify the accused persons as culprit and also failed to depose anything incriminating against accused persons in order to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
72. In cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW-1 has not supported the contents of his complaint Ex.PW1/A. Rather he deposed that he did not state in his complaint Ex.PW1/A that when he was standing on the roof of his house, at about 09.30 pm after 2-3 minutes he saw accused Irfan along with accused Roshan and Tarif to whom he knew already being resident of his locality coming down from footover bridge of platform no. 1 Azadpur Railway Station. He also denied that he saw his brother Durgesh standing with the wall constructed near jhuggi and all the 3 accused persons came near to him. He also denied that in his presence, accused Irfan asked co-accused persons Roshan and Tarrif that Durgesh was against them and he was secret informer of police officials against them. He also denied that in his presence accused Irfan took out a knife while asking co-accused persons and accused Roshan and Tarrif caught hold of Durgesh and accused Irfan stabbed Durgesh. He also denied that in his presence that accused Irfan again tried to stab Durgesh but Durgesh scuffled with the accused persons due to which the blow of knife landed upon accused Roshan. He also denied that in his presence accused persons managed to run SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.43 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:21:14 +0530 away. He also denied that accused persons used to commit offence of snatching. He also denied that he want his brother to keep distance from accused persons or that due to said reason accused persons intentionally stabbed his brother Durgesh and committed his murder. He also denied that police official lifted blood stain and other exhibits from the spot in his presence. He also denied that accused persons were arrested in his presence. He also denied that in his presence accused Irfan got recovered weapon of offence i.e. knife or that the said knife was sealed and seized in his presence.
73. In cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW-1 categorically admitted that police officials obtained his signature on several documents and he is not aware about the contents of those documents and those documents were not read over to him, thereby, raising doubt about the genuinity of all the memos which are allegedly signed by him and also raising doubt about the investigation which was allegedly conducted in his presence.
74. The over all impact of the testimony of PW-1 Manoj is that he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner and categorically denied all the allegations against the accused persons despite detailed cross-examination on behalf of State. He failed to support the contents of his statement Ex.PW1/A which he allegedly made before the police and thus the testimony of PW-1 is of no consequence to prove the allegations in question and establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
75. The next material witness examined by the prosecution is SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.44 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2025.12.12 16:21:18 +0530 PW-2/Prem Narayan. But his testimony reveals that PW-2 has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner and during examination in chief he has not deposed anything incriminating against the accused persons, rather he deposed that he do not know accused Irfan, Roshan and Tariff and even deceased Durgesh, thereby, giving an inference that he miserably failed to support the allegations in question as well as failed to identify the accused persons as guilty of alleged offence during his examination-in-chief.
76. In cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW-2 has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-2 denied that his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the police. He denied that on the day of incident i.e. on 03.04.2023 at about 09.30 pm, when Durgesh was roaming on platform no. 1 accused Irfan, Roshan and Tarrif came from Azadpur side and after seeing Durgesh in front of his shop, accused Irfan asked his associates Roshan and Tarif that he was passing information to police against them and they will eliminate him. He also denied that in his presence accused Irfan, Roshan and Tarrif caught hold of Durgesh and accused Irfan took out a knife from the right side pocket of his wearing pants and stabbed Durgesh. He also denied that in his presence Durgesh tried to save himself and scuffled due to which the knife blow made by accused hit accused Roshan and he sustained injuries. He also denied that in his presence accused Roshan was apprehended at the spot as he could not escape due to injury. He also denied that deceased Durgesh was conscious just after the incident and told them that on asking of accused Irfan, accused Roshan and Tarif caught hold of Durgesh SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.45 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:21:23 +0530 and Irfan stabbed him. He also denied all the suggestions put to him by Ld. Addl PP during cross-examination and thereby failed to support the case of prosecution and allegations in question qua accused persons in toto.
77. The overall impact of the testimony of PW-2 Prem Narayan is that he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner and despite detailed cross-examination on behalf of State, he failed to support the case of the prosecution in toto and denied to have witnessed the occurrence and also denied that Durgesh has disclosed anything to him and thus the testimony of PW-2 is also of no consequence to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt as nothing incriminating came on record qua accused persons in his entire testimony.
78. The next public witness examined by the prosecution is PW-3/Sh. Vinod but this witness has only deposed that on 03.04.2023 at about 08.45-09.00 pm he came out from jhuggi and saw that his brother Durgesh was walking at platform no. 1 Azadpur Railway Station, thereafter, he went to attend call of nature at public toilet. After 10 minutes he came out from the public toilet where one uncle namely Daleep met him and told him that "tere bhai ko line par chaku marr diya", thereafter, he rushed to platform no. 1 where he saw blood stains on the platform and police officials met him there, thereby giving an inference that he has not witnesses the happening of incident in question.
79. In cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW-3 has not supported the case of the prosecution and even denied to SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.46 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:21:27 +0530 have made statements under section 161 CrPC dated 04.04.2023 Mark PW1/X, PW1/X1, PW1/X2 and PW1/X3. During cross- examination on behalf of State he denied that on the day of incident he saw his brother Manoj alighting from the roof while shouting and running towards platform. He denied the case of prosecution in toto and failed to depose anything incriminating against accused persons during his cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State also. He also failed to identify the accused persons being the assailants.
80. The overall impact of the testimony of PW-3 Sh. Vinod is that he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner and despite detailed cross-examination on behalf of State, he failed to support the case of the prosecution in toto and thus, the testimony of PW-3 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution in any manner so as to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
81. The next public witness examined by the prosecution is PW-4/Sh. Ankit but this witness has only deposed that on 03.04.2023 when he was present at his home he heard noise "Durgesh ka murder ho gya hai azadpur railway station par", and he went to the said station where brother and other family members of Durgesh met him and he made call at no.100, thereby, giving an inference that he has not witnessed the incident in question. He also deposed that police did not record his statement and he does not know the accused persons, thereby, he also failed to depose anything incriminating against the accused persons in his examination-in-chief.
SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.47 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2025.12.12
16:21:32
+0530
82. In cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW-4 has not supported the case of the prosecution and denied that on the asking of public persons injured Durgesh told them that accused Irfan, Roshan and Tarif caught hold of him or that accused Irfan stabbed him. He also denied that Prem Narayan told anything to him pertaining to incident in question. By way of aforesaid deposition, PW-4 miserably failed to support the case of prosecution during cross-examination also and stood firm in support of his contentions/stand taken in examination-in-chief and accordingly, nothing incriminating came on record in his entire testimony so as to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
83. The next public witness examined by the prosecution is PW-5/Sh. Shiva but this witness has only deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 03.04.2023, he was present at his home and at about 07:00-08:00 pm while he was going to sleep he heard noise that Durgesh @ Kallu has been stabbed and thereafter, he reached at platform of azadpur railway station where he saw Durgesh was lying in the pool of blood. Further, he also deposed that he does not remember as to who all were present at the said platform at that time. He further deposed that he lifted Durgesh and took him to hospital at Jahangir Puri by a battery rickshaw and got him admitted in emergency ward. He also deposed that he does not know who stabbed Durgesh and he also does not know accused persons, thereby, giving an inference that he has not witnesses the incident in question and he is not aware about the culprits.
SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.48 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2025.12.12
16:21:36
+0530
84. Since this witness has not supported the case of prosecution, he was cross examined on behalf of State but during cross-examination also, he has not supported the case of the prosecution and denied that when he reached at said platform, Saroj and Prem Naryan were present there or that Manoj and Prem Narayan told him that he had seen Roshan and Tarif caught hold of deceased Durgesh and accused Irfan stabbed him. He also denied that injured Durgesh told them that accused Irfan, Roshan and Tarif caught hold of him or that accused Irfan stabbed him. He also denied that Prem Narayan told anything to him about the incident in question. He also denied that accused Roshan was apprehended by public persons or that accused Roshan also sustained injuries in the said incident and was admitted in the hospital for treatment. By way of aforesaid deposition, PW-5 has also denied the case of prosecution in toto and failed to depose anything incriminating against accused persons.
85. The next public witness examined by the prosecution is PW-6/Smt. Saroj but this witness has only deposed that on 03.04.2023, she was present at her house and she does not know what happened on 03.04.2023 and she even does not know whether Durgesh was murdered by someone and she has not seen anything on 03.04.2023. She also deposed that police never met her and not made inquiries from her. Accordingly, she failed to depose anything incriminating against the accused persons during her examination-in-chief.
86. Since this witness has also not supported the case of prosecution, she was cross examined on behalf of State but SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.49 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:21:40 +0530 during cross-examination also, she has not supported the case of the prosecution and denied that on 03.04.2023 at about 09:30 pm, she came to know that Durgesh was stabbed at the platform of Azadpur Railway Station or that she also visited the said platform or that she saw Manoj, Vinod and Prem Narayan present at the said platform or that Manoj and Prem Narayan told her that they had seen Roshan and Tarif caught hold of deceased Durgesh and accused Irfan stabbed him. She also denied that injured Durgesh told them that accused Irfan, Roshan and Tarif caught hold of him or that accused Irfan stabbed him. She also failed to identify the accused persons being the assailants. Accordingly, nothing incriminating came on record in her entire testimony so as to establish the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt as she miserably failed to identify the accused persons as culprit and also failed to support the case of prosecution in toto.
87. Now let us see if the remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution, connects the accused persons with the commission of offence. The prosecution has examined PW-7 Dr. Abhishesk Sharma and PW-8 Dr. Sandeep Kumar who are formal witnesses who prepared MLC of Durgesh Ex.PW7/A, PM Report as Ex.PW8/A and Opinion as Ex.PW8/B. Thus, the testimony of PW-7 and PW-8 does not connect any of the accused persons with the alleged offence.
88. The next witness examined by the prosecution is PW-9 Sh. M.N Veena, Senior Scientific Officer, FSL Rohini, Delhi who deposed to have chemically examined the exhibits and prepared report Ex.PW9/A and nothing incriminating came on record in SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.50 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:21:45 +0530 his testimony also qua accused persons.
89. PW-10/HC Somlata is also a formal witness who only recorded FIR exhibited PW10/A and made endorsement on rukka and also recorded GD No. 33A Ex.PW10/D.
90. The prosecution has also examined PW-11/ASI Manoj Kumar, who joined investigation and deposed that in his presence IO arrested accused Roshan vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/C, accused Tarif vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/D and certain exhibits were lifted in his presence from the spot. Admittedly PW-11 is not a witness of occurrence and no recovery of any incriminating article was effected in his presence from the possession or at the instance of accused Roshan and Tarif and thus his testimony does not connect any of the accused persons with the commission of offence in question.
91. The next witness examined by the prosecution is PW-12/Ct. Prateek who deposed to have reach at the spot and saw blood stains lying at the spot and in his presence mobile crime team inspected the spot and lifted certain exhibits and thus his testimony does not connect any of the accused persons with the commission of offence in question.
92. During the course of trial the prosecution has also examined PW-13 ASI Ashwani Kumar and PW-14 IO Inspector Avinish Tyagi. PW-13 and PW-14 deposed that at the instance of accused Irfan, the weapon of offence i.e. knife was recovered from a park situated some distance away from Azadpur Railway station which accused Irfan hided into the bushes inside the park SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.51 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:21:51 +0530 and the knife Ex.PW13/P1 was seized after sealing the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/G. However, during cross-examination they have admitted that the said place of recovery was an open place accessible to all and the said recovery proceedings were neither video graphed nor photographed. PW-14 also admitted that no crime team was called at the said place. Their testimony further reveals that no sincere efforts were made by PW-14 to join any independent public witnesses at the time of said recovery despite the fact that recovery was effected from the park which is a public place where admittedly the public persons were present. In these circumstances, the prosecution has not been able to establish that the said knife was recovered at the instance of accused Irfan.
93. The next witness examined by prosecution is PW-15/Dr. Indresh Kumar Mishra who has exhibited the FSL report as Ex.PW15/A. However, perusal of the FSL report nowhere discloses that any DNA profile could be generated from the knife allegedly recovered at the instance of accused Irfan. PW-15 has deposed that DNA profile could not be generated from the source of Ex-1,Ex-2, Ex-6, Ex,-9/b, Ex-9/d, Ex-12 and Ex.14 which may be due to degradation and thus the FSL report also does not connect any of the accused persons with the commission of offence.
94. Accordingly, nothing incriminating came on record against accused persons in the testimony of key/public/eye witnesses i.e. PW-1 to PW-6 as discussed above as all of them miserably failed to identify the accused persons as culprit and also failed to SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.52 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2025.12.12 16:21:55 +0530 identify the weapon of offence. Other witnesses are formal in nature, who have not witnessed the incident in question and therefore, cannot prove the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
95. In a criminal trial, the identity of the accused is one of the most crucial aspect. Therefore, even if it is established that the incident took place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution and on the alleged date, time & place, the accused cannot be indicted for the said offence unless his identity is conclusively established. The prosecution has examined eye witnesses of the incident including the complainant/PW1/Manoj. However, he has not identified accused persons to be the perpetrator of the alleged offence of murder.
96. Thus, identity of the accused person to connect them with the alleged offences has remained unsubstantiated. Thus, there is not even an iota of evidence to establish that the accused persons has committed the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.
97. So far as offence under Section 25/27 Arms Act is concerned, prosecution has relied upon recovery of knife at the instance of accused Irfan. It is pertinent to note that, the eye witnesses have not deposed and proved on record in their testimony as discussed above that accused Irfan has committed the alleged offence with the alleged recovered weapon of offence with deceased at any point of time.
98. It is alleged that one buttondar knife was recovered from the park and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/G. SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.53 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:21:59 +0530
99. Furthermore, handing over of seal of AKT of IO to any independent witness is also doubtful as independent witness i.e. PW-1 categorically denied that seal was handed over to him after use in his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, thereby, raising doubt about the genuineness of recovery proceedings. It appears that the seal used by the IO was not handed over to any independent witness and seal was with IO and same was under his control. Accordingly, possibility of tampering to create false evidence against the accused in order to work out a case cannot be ruled out.
100. Even otherwise, admittedly, recovery of exhibit/alleged weapon of offence have not been witnessed by any independent witness and IO has not made any efforts to join independent witnesses qua the investigation pertaining to alleged recovery of weapon of offence. PW13/ASI Ashwini Kumar categorically deposed in his cross examination that residential jhuggis are situated near the park and said part is not a restricted area. He further deposed that he does not remember whether IO requested any public person including residents of jhuggis to join the investigation. PW14/Inspector Avnish Tyagi/IO categorically admitted that place of recovery was an open place. Perusal of the record reveals that two public witnesses namely PW-1 Manoj and PW-3 Vinod are signatory to the seizure memo of knife. However, both of them failed to identify the said knife during their testimony before the Court and PW-1 Manoj categorically deposed in his cross-examination dated 03.06.2024 that his signatures were obtained on several documents at the police station and he does not know the contents of the said documents SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.54 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:22:05 +0530 and the same were not read over to him. He further categorically deposed during his examination in chief only that he has not seen any knife by which his brother was stabbed and he failed to identify the said knife by deposing that he cannot identify the same as he has not seen it earlier. He categorically denied in his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that accused Irfan got recovered weapon of offence i.e. knife in his presence and that is why he has appended his signature at Point A on Ex.PW1/G. He further denied that sketch of recovered weapon of offence was prepared in his presence and that is why he appended his signature on Ex.PW1/H. He also denied that after preparing pullanda of recovered knife, police handed over the seal after use and he returned the same to police on 05.04.2023 vide handing over seal memo Ex.PW1/I. By way of aforesaid categorical denial, PW-1/public witness miserably failed to support the case of prosecution regarding alleged recovery of weapon of offence and proceedings pertaining to that effect, thereby, raising doubt about the alleged recovery. PW-3/Vinod also denied in his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that police seized the recovered knife at the instance of accused Irfan in his presence and that is why he has appended his signature on seizure memo Ex.PW1/G and sketch memo Ex.PW1/H. Accordingly, by way of aforesaid categorical denial, PW-3/public witness/Vinod also miserably failed to support the case of prosecution regarding alleged recovery of weapon of offence and proceedings pertaining to that effect, thereby, raising doubt about the alleged recovery. Therefore, both the public witnesses of alleged recovery of weapon of offence have not SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.55 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:22:10 +0530 supported the case of prosecution regarding the proceedings of recovery of weapon of offence in their presence, thereby, giving an inference that possibility of it being a planted recovery cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, the proceedings were admittedly neither videographed nor photographed. Furthermore, no plausible reason has come forward from the investigating agency for not joining other independent public witnesses to the recovery proceedings despite the fact that recovery has been effected from an open place i.e. park surrounded by residential jhuggis. The aforesaid appreciation of evidence reflects bad and tainted investigation by police officials.
101. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Subramanya v. State of Karnataka in Crl Appeal. No. 242/2022 has held that:
"If, it is say of the investigating officer that the accused appellant while in custody on his own free will and volition made a statement that he would lead to the place where he had hidden the weapon of offence, the site of burial of the dead body, clothes etc., then the first thing that the investigating officer should have done was to call for two independent witnesses at the police station itself. Once the two independent witnesses would arrive at the police station thereafter in their presence the accused should be asked to make an appropriate statement as he may desire in regard to pointing out the place where he is said to have hidden the weapon of offence etc. When the accused while in custody makes such statement before the two independent witnesses (panch-witnesses) the exact statement of rather the exact words uttered by the accused should be incorporated in the first part of the panchnama that the investigating officer may draw in accordance with law. This first part of the panchnama for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is always drawn at the police station in the presence of the independent witnesses so as to lend credence that particular statement was made by the accused expressing his willingness on his own free will and volition to point out the place where the weapon of offence or any other article used in the commission of the offence had been hidden. Once the first part of the panchnama is completed thereafter the police SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.56 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:22:15 +0530 party along with the accused and the two independent witnesses(panch-witnesses) would proceed to the particular place as may be led by the accused. If from that particular place anything like the weapon of offence or blood stained clothes or any other article is discovered then that part of the entire process would form the second part of the panchnama. This is how the law expects the investigating officer to draw the discovery panchnama as contemplated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. If we read the entire oral evidence of the investigating officer then it is clear that the same is deficient in all the aforesaid relevant aspects of the matter."
102. Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments have elaborately considered as to how the law expects the investigating officer to draw the discovery panchnama as contemplated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
103. Admittedly, no other public witness except those who have not supported the case of prosecution and recovery proceedings, is a signatory to the arrest, personal search memos, disclosure statement of accused and seizure memo of the aforesaid knife. Further, the source of recovered knife is also unknown. Furthermore, said recovery proceeding was, admittedly, neither videographed nor photographed. Accordingly, recovery of weapon of offence is not done in accordance with the settled law laid down by statute and discussed and elaborated time and again by Apex Court of law.
104. Perusal of the testimony of police witnesses shows that IO neither called any other public person nor he made any other public person (except those who have not supported the case of prosecution) as Panch-witness as prescribed under settled law and discussed above. In the present case allegedly weapon of offence was recovered from the park, however, Ld. Defence SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.57 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2025.12.12
16:22:19
+0530
Counsel has argued that the same was planted one, therefore, extra caution is expected from investigating agency in following the appropriate procedure as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Subramanya v. State of Karnataka (supra). In such kind of recoveries, independent witnesses are required and in absence of independent public witnesses supporting the investigation qua recovery proceedings, recovery of a weapon of offence cannot be relied upon and become doubtful.
105. Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C lays down that "Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.' The provision under Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C is not complied with in this case by the recovery officer. Conviction on the basis of statements of two police officials alone is not sustainable, as held in Sans Pal Singh v. State of Delhi reported in 1998 SCC Criminal 641.
106. Perusal of the record shows that the manner in which the inquiry, seizure and search etc. was stated to be conducted on the spot at the time of arrest of accused and alleged recovery of one buttondar knife makes the prosecution version highly doubtful. It is evident from the testimony of police witnesses that alleged buttondar knife was recovered from a park which was surrounded by residential jhuggis and despite that other independent public persons were not joined in the investigation to show that the police officials made bonafide efforts to do fair investigation as SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.58 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:22:24 +0530 per mandate of law and persuade the public persons to join the investigation. It is apparent from the record that handing over of the seal by the IO after use was also denied by the public/key witness i.e. PW-1/Manoj which makes it highly probable that the case property may be tampered and entire proceedings were conducted at the police station, that the case property was planted one and that nothing was recovered at the instance of the accused Irfan. It is also pertinent to mention that prosecution has failed to produce any documentary evidence or the DD entries made by PW-13 and PW-14 to show their movement from the police station. The prosecution witnesses have not even given the DD numbers vide which he/they left the police station for investigating the present case. These omissions on the part of the prosecution create doubt on the version that the alleged knife was recovered at the instance of the accused Irfan.
107. The non-joining of other independent public witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case, particularly when no reasonable explanation has been given by prosecution for non joining of other public witnesses and no efforts seem to have been made for joining of other independent witnesses.
108. Regarding the non-joining of independent witnesses during investigation in a case like the present one, reliance may be placed on following case laws:-
In a case law reported as Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1999(2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.59 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:22:29 +0530 "18. It is repeatedly laid down by this court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC".
109. It is well settled principle of the law that the investigating agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also, admittedly, the place of recovery was a park but no efforts were made by police officials to join other independent public witnesses from the nearby area at the time of recovery. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the investigating officer can take action against such a person under the law. The failure to do so by the police officer is fatal to the case of prosecution. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful.
110. In case law reported as Sadhu Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997 (3) Crimes 55, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court observed as under:
"5. In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.60 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2025.12.12 16:22:33 +0530 entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbably or lacks credibility, the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
6. In the present case, the State examined two witnesses namely, Harbans Singh ASI who appeared as PW1 and Kartar Singh PW2.
Both the witnesses supported the prosecution version in terms of the recovery of opium from the person of the petitioner, but there was no public witness who had joined. It is not necessary in such recoveries that public witnesses must be joined, but attempt must be made to join the public witnesses. There can be cases when public witnesses are reluctant to join or are not available. All the same, the prosecution must show a genuine attempt having been made to join a public witness or that they were not available. A stereo-type statement of non availability will not be sufficient particularly when at the relevant time, it was not difficult to procure the service of public witness. This reflects adversely on the prosecution version."
111. In case law Nanak Chand v. State of Delhi reported as DHC 1992 CRI LJ 55 it is observed as under:-
"that the recovery is proved by three police officials who have differed on who snatched the Kirpan from the petitioner and at what time. The recovery was from a street with houses on both sides and shops nearby. And, yet no witness from the public has been produced. Not that in every case the police officials are to be treated as unworthy of reliance but their failure to join witnesses from the public especially when they are available at their elbow, may, as in the present case, cast doubt. They have again churned out a stereotyped version. Its rejection needs no Napoleon on the Bridge at Arcola".
112. In the judgment titled as "S.L.Goswami v. State of M.P"
reported as 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
"...... In our view, the onus to proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.61 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2025.12.12
16:22:38
+0530
has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution..........................."
113. The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused persons is upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Reference may also be made to the judgment titled as Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur reported as VIII (2007) SLT454(SC).
114. In view of aforesaid discussion, prosecution has not been able to prove its case against accused Irfan beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 25/27 Arms Act also.
115. The prosecution has failed to prove its case to conclude the guilt of the accused persons and the fact established are not consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused persons. It cannot be said that there is no explanation or any other hypothesis except that the accused persons are guilty and this leaves reasonable ground for the innocence of the accused persons and it does not show that in all human probability the act was done by the accused persons. Merely on the basis of suspicion, conviction would not be tenable. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it is only the accused persons who have committed the crime. The present court finds that the prosecution has utterly failed to do so.
SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.62 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2025.12.12
16:22:49
+0530
CONCLUSION:
116. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, appreciation of evidence, failure of key/material/sole witness to support the case of prosecution and identify the accused persons as culprit of committing alleged offence of murder, non-joining of other independent/public witnesses in the investigation of the case, doubt over alleged recovery of weapon of offence, it is held that prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt goes to the credit of accused persons and accordingly, accused persons namely Mohd. Roshan, Mohd. Tareef are hereby acquitted of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and accused Irfaan is hereby acquitted of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act.
117. Necessary BB with surety along with latest passport size photograph and residence proof furnished in compliance of Section 437A CrPC. Same is Accepted for a period of six months from today.
118. Issue notice to LRs of deceased to appear before DLSA, Central on 17.12.2025 for the purpose of compensation as per mandate of judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court in Karan v. State NCT of Delhi 277 (2021) DLT 195.
119. Ahlmad is directed to send the ordersheet/proceedings to DLSA (Central) complete in all respect for necessary compliance for 17.12.2025.
120. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.63 of 64 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2025.12.12
16:22:53
+0530
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI JAIN
SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2025.12.12
16:23:07
+0530
Pronounced and Signed in the Open Court (Shilpi Jain) on 12th day of December, 2025 Additional Sessions Judge-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CERTIFICATE:
The judgment contains 64 pages and each page has Digitally signed by been signed by me. SHILPI SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2025.12.12 16:22:58 +0530 (Shilpi Jain) Additional Sessions Judge-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 12.12.2025 SC No.367/2023 FIR No.08/2023 State Vs. Mohd. Roshan & Ors. Page No.64 of 64