Delhi District Court
State vs Ramu @ Raman on 7 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. POOJA TALWAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)WEST
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
In the matter of:
STATE
Vs.
Ramu @ Raman & Ors.
FIR No.53/17
Police Station: Kirti Nagar
JUDGMENT
1. Sl. no. of case Sessions Case No.331/17
2. CNR no. DLWT010050502017
3. Date of Institution 07.05.2017
4. Date of Commission of 05.02.2017
offence
5. Name of the accused 1. Ramu @ Raman
S/o Video Shah
R/o B-302, Jhuggi, Chuna Bhatti,
Kirti Nagar, Delhi
2. Sonu
S/o Video Shah
R/o B-302, Jhuggi, Chuna Bhatti,
Kirti Nagar, Delhi
3. Munna Paswan
S/o Sh. Chhuttan Paswan POOJA
R/o B-110, Lakkad Mandi, Kirti TALWAR
Nagar, Delhi
Digitally signed
by POOJA
TALWAR
SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 1 of 50 Date: 2026.03.07
FIR no.53/17 11:19:16 +0530
4. Rahul
S/o Late Sh. Ramesh Mehto
R/o H-62, Fire Station Jhuggi,
Chunna Bhatti,
Kirti Nagar, Delhi
6. Offence Complained of Section 302/34 IPC 7. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty 8. Date of reserving the 19.02.2026 judgment 9. Final order Convicted 10. Date of such judgment 07.03.2026 Case of the prosecution
1. Story of the prosecution is that on 05.02.2017 at about 10.20 pm vide DD no.36A an information was received that at B-107, Lakkad Mandi Kirti Nagar Chowk that a man was stabbed with knife. Pursuant to which SI Puran Mal alongwith Ct. Manoj went to the spot and found that the injured was taken to hospital by his brother. Blood was found on the spot. They then received an information from the duty officer that the Injured Majoj has been declared brought dead in Acharya Bhikshu hospital. SI Puran Mal went to Acharya Bhikshu hospital where younger brother of deceased met him and he stated that his brother was working in a show room as a helper. Last week Sonu misbehaved with one girl who was residing in their neighbourhood. His brother warned him for the same due to which Sonu got furious and wanted to take revenge. On 05.02.2017 at about 7:00 am brother of Sonu, Raman @ Ramu POOJA came to their jhuggi and slapped Manoj. At about 10 pm Manoj TALWAR went out to buy vegetables. After some time mother of Ravi Digitally signed by POOJA SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 2 of 50 TALWAR FIR no.53/17 Date:
2026.03.07 11:19:24 +0530 came and told him that 3-4 boys were assaulting Manoj. When he went to rescue his brother he saw Sonu, his brother Raman @ Ramu and his friends Rahul and Munna giving beatings to his brother. Sonu and Ramu had knife in their hand and Munna had plastic pipe. Rahul held his brother by his neck. Munna beat him with plastic pipe and Sonu and Ramu stabbed him. When he raised an alarm all the accused persons fled. One Vikas from their neighbourhood tried to rescue him and his brother. He also sustained injuries. Thereafter one Quadir also came at the spot. He alongwith Quadir took his brother to Acharya Bhikshu Hospital, where doctor declared him brought dead. Police came to the hospital. As per the statement and MLC FIR under Section 302/34 IPC was registered against the accused persons.
2. During investigation spot was inspected by the crime team and at the instance of eye witnesses i.e. Vikas Kumar, Sonu and Rabi site plan was prepared.
3. Accused persons were arrested and blood stained clothes of accused persons, weapon of offence i.e. knife was recovered at the instance of accused Raman and plastic pipe was recovered at the instance of accused Munna.
Charge
4. Charge was framed against the accused Ramu @ Raman, Sonu, Munna Paswan and Rahul under Section 302/34 POOJA IPC vide order dated 28.08.2017. TALWAR Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.07 SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 3 of 50 11:19:30 +0530 FIR no.53/17 Prosecution evidence
5. In order to prove its case prosecution examined thirty one witnesses as under :-
Material Witnesses:
(i) PW2: Sonu deposed that:
" I am native of Village Karhi, District Chhapra, Bihar. I worked as a helper in Lakkadmandi. Prior to the incident, I used to reside at Chuna Bhatti with my brother Manoj. Manoj was working as a helper in a showroom at Furniture Block, Kirti Nagar, Delhi.
One week prior to the incident, Sonu, s/o Video had molested sister of our neighbor Ravi, to which my brother had raised objection and said that "Yeh Harkat Theek Nahi Hai". Due to which, Sonu had felt insulted and he was seeking opportunity to take revenge. In the morning of 05/02/2017 at about 7 am Sonu and his brother Ramu, present in court today (correctly identified) came outside our jhuggi and kicked on the door of our jhuggi from outside. Manoj went out our jhuggi and Ramu slapped him but Manoj did not say anything and went to his job. In the evening at about 8.30 pm Manoj returned to our jhuggi. At about 10 pm, he went to the roadside for bringing vegetables. After sometime, mother of Ravi came running and informed me that 3- 4 boys were beating my brother Manoj. I immediately rushed to the spot to rescue my brother and saw that in front of Shop no. B- 107, Şonu, his brother Ramu and his friends Munna POOJA and Rahul were beating my brother. Sonu and Ramu were having TALWAR knives in their hands and Munna was having plastic pipe in his Digitally signed by POOJA SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 4 of 50 TALWAR FIR no.53/17 Date: 2026.03.07 11:19:36 +0530 hand and Rahul was holding my brother by his neck. Munna was beating my brother with plastic pipe. Sonu and Ramu had stabbed my brother, I raised alarm. In the meantime, Vicky @ Vikas had also tried to rescue my brother and he had also sustained injuries. When I raised alarm, accused persons fled from the spot. Accused Rahul, Munna are also present in court today (correctly identified).
Aforesaid accused persons well known to me, Manna was resident of Basaidara Pur. Accused Sonu and Ramu were resident of Chuna Bhatti. In the meantime, Qadir also reached at the spot. Blood of my brother was scattered at the spot. I alongwith Qadir took my brother in an injured condition to Shree Acharya Bhikshu Hospital, Moti Nagar in a TSR, where doctor declared him brought dead. IO recorded my statement in the hospital. The same is Ex PW2/A, bearing my signatures at point A. Thereafter, I alongwith police went to PS. On 06/02/2017, I had shown the place of incident to the IO. I had identified the sleepers of my brother, which were Iving at the spot. IO had recorded my statement. I had also identified dead body of my brother in DDU Mortuary and my statement was recorded in this regard. After postmortem, the dead body of my brother was handed over to us for his last rites.
On 08/02/2017, I had gone to police station for knowing about the status of my case. There I saw accused persons namely Sonu, Ramu and Munna and I identified them. On the same day IO recorded my statement. POOJA On 10/02/2017 I went to the PS. There I saw accused TALWAR Rahul and 1 identified him. IO recorded my statement in this Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 5 of 50 Date: 2026.03.07 FIR no.53/17 11:19:43 +0530 regard. I can identify the case property if shown to me.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced one sealed pullanda duly sealed with the seal of BMB. The same is opened with the permission of the court. Out of it, one pair of slipper (chappal) are taken out. Same is shown to the witness, who correctly identify the same to be the slippers of his deceased brother. Same are now collectively Ex P-1."
(ii) PW3: Sh. Vikas deposed that:
"I am running a pan shop at my aforesaid address. Ravi and Manoj (since deceased) were my friends. On 05/02/2017, at about 10 pm I alongwith my aforesaid friends were going towards subji mandi from Chunna Mandi on foot, on the way near shop no. B-107, Lakkar Mandi, all of sudden Sonu, his brother Raman @ Ramu, Rahul and Munna, who are present in court today (correctly identified) surrounded us. Accused Raman was having the plastic pipe in his hand and he started beating me. I sustained injury on the wrist of my right hand and I ran backwards. Ravi ran away in other direction. Manoj remained over there. All the accused persons caught hold of Manoj and started beating him. Sonu and Raman stabbed him with knife. Manoj fell upon the ground. Sonu, who is brother of Manoj and Qadir took Manoj to Acharya Bhikhu Hospital in a TSR, where doctor declared him brought dead. I also went to the aforesaid hospital and my medical examination was done there. I told to the IO that aforesaid accused persons had killed Manoj. IO POOJA recorded my statement."
TALWAR Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.07 SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 6 of 50 11:19:50 +0530 FIR no.53/17
(iii) PW4: Sh. Rabi deposed that:
"I am residing at my aforesaid address alongwith my parents and three younger sisters. Now a days I am plying battery rickshaw, earlier I was working as a helper in the showroom at Furniture Block, Kirti Nagar, Delhi.
Manoj was my neighborer. My relatives (mami) reside at the ground and we are residing at the first floor of the same jhuggi. Accused Sonu who was my neighborer was habitual drinker. He used to abuse filthy language. One day I tried to make him understand for not to abuse but he started abusing my sister namely Sonia, Manoj tried to make him understand for not to abuse my sister. On that, accused Sonu caught hold of Manoj. The aforesaid instances took place 8-10 days prior to the incident.
On 05/02/2017, it was Sunday, in the night time at about 10 pm I alongwith Manoj and Vikas were going to subji mandi for purchasing vegetables. When we reached near shop no. B-107, Chuna Bhatti, accused Rahul, Munna, Ramu and Sonu surrounded us and started beating us. Ramu was having the plastic pipe and hit me with the same and then I ran away from there. Vikas also ran away from there. Manoj was left all alone. All the aforesaid accused persons, who are present in court today (correctly identified) gave beatings to Manoj. After sometime I returned back, I saw that Manoj was lying on the road. Manoj was taken to Acharya Bhikhu Hospital by his brother Sonu and POOJA Qadir. In the hospital doctor declared him brought dead. Manoj TALWAR died due to stab injuries caused by Ramu from knife. One day Digitally signed by POOJA prior to the incident, on Saturday in the night time accused Ramu TALWAR Date: 2026.03.07 11:19:56 +0530 SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 7 of 50 FIR no.53/17 had kicked the door of Manoj and he ran away. Next day in the morning Manoj went to him for asking about his action, accused Ramu slapped him. At the time of incident on that night accused Sonu and Ramu had stabbed Manoj, due to which he died.
Formal Witnesses:
(i) PW1: Ramesh identified the dead body of his younger brother Manoj vide identification memo Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at point A. After postmortem the dead body was handed over to them for final rites.
(ii) PW6: Suman stated that she did not know anything about the present incident. She denied all the suggestion given by Ld. Addl. PP.
(iii) PW7: Sudhir deposed that on 05.02.2017 around 10-10.30 PM, when he reached near shop no.B-107 he saw one young boy lying in injured condition and blood was oozing from his body.
He immediately called ambulance and thereafter made call at 100 number to inform police. Despite his phone call, neither the ambulance came nor the police. Meanwhile, 3-4 boys who were known to the injured came there and took injured to Archarya Bhikshu Hospital by an auto rickshaw. He also went to the said hospital, where he came to know that said boy declared brought dead.
POOJA
(iv) PW8: Ms. Sonia deposed that she knew Manoj bhaiya who TALWAR was residing in her locality at a distance of after 2-3 galis from Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 8 of 50 Date:
FIR no.53/17 2026.03.07
11:20:02 +0530
her house. Manoj (deceased) was friend of her brother Ravi. Her brother Ravi is a carpenter and Manoj was also carpenter. She did know any Sonu. She did not know as to how Manoj died. She did not know anything else about the incident of murder of Manoj. She pointed out towards accused Sonu and correctly identified him. She had seen Sonu while going to school. She denied all the suggestion given by Ld. Addl. PP.
(v) PW10: Quadir Hussain deposed that on 05.02.2017 at about 10 pm, his neighbor Ravi met him near Naresh Barber shop at Chunabhati and told him that some persons were beating Manoj S/o Vimal Ram. He along with Ravi reached at road no.B107, lakkad mandi where he saw that Manoj was lying on the road in unconscious and injured condition and blood was oozing from his body. His brother Sonu was also present there. He with the help of Sonu took Manoj in my TSR to Acharya Bhikshu hospital where Dr. declared Manoj brought dead. Manoj was resident of his village.
(vi) PW14: Sh. Saurabh Pathak, Junior Forensic/Chemical Examiner (Biology), RFSL Chanakyapuri, New Delhi deposed that on 27.04.2017 Eleven sealed parcels duly sealed were received in FSL with regard to FIR no.53/17 PS Kirti Nagar and the same were marked to him for examination. He examined the said parcels and prepared his detailed report which is exhibited Ex.PW14/A Bearing his signature at point A. After examining POOJA the said parcels, he re-sealed the same with the seal of SPFSL TALWAR DELHI and sent the said parcels alongwith his report to PS Kirti Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 9 of 50 Date: 2026.03.07 FIR no.53/17 11:20:08 +0530 Nagar.
Witnesses of investigation:
(i) PW5: ASI Inderpal deposed that on 06.02.2017 Inspector B. M. Bahuguna deposited 10 sealed pullandas in the malkhana vide entry at Sl.No.2264 of malkhana register. On 07.02.2017, Inspector B. M. Bahuguna deposited three sealed pullandas vide entry at Sl.no.2266 of malkhana register. On 08.02.20217 Inspector B. M. Bahuguna deposited four sealed pullandas vide entry at Sl.no.2267 of malkhana register. On 10.02.2017, Inspector B. M. Bahuguna deposited three sealed pullandas vide entry at Sl.no.2270 of malkhana register.
On 27.04.2017, under directions of IO, he handed over 11 sealed pullandas to HC Sunil for depositing the same in FSL, Rohini vide RC No.87/21/17 and after depositing the same in FSL, Rohini, HC Sunil handed over the receipt of pullandas by FSL.
(ii) PW9: ASI Sanjeev Kumar deposed that on 06.02.2017 he along with crime team reached at place of incident and on the direction of IO, took the photographs of the place from different angles. He handed over 13 photographs to the IO and submitted the negatives of the said photographs. The said photographs are Ex.PW9/A (colly) and negatives are Ex.PW9/A1(colly). The said photographs were taken by him from his official camera which was under his control. POOJA TALWAR Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.07 SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 10 of 50 11:20:15 +0530 FIR no.53/17
(iii) PW11: HC Manoj Kumar deposed that on 05.02.2017 at about 10.20 pm, he alongwith SI Pooran Mal reached at B107 i.e. the place of incident.
(iv) PW12 ASI Sunil Singh deposed that on 27.04.2017 he received the exhibits from ASI Inder Pal MHC(M) to deposit the same in Rohini FSL. The road certificate placed on record regarding the same is Ex.PW12/A bearing his signatures at point A. After submitting the same in FSL Rohini, He took the acknowledgment of case acceptance which is placed on record vide Ex.PW12/B. So long as parcels remained in his custody they were not tempered with any manner and remain intact.
(v) PW15: SI Ummed Singh deposed that on 05.02.2017 a PCR call was received in CPCR PHQ ITO and on the basis of the said PCR call, PCR form no.1 was prepared vide CPCR DD no.05FEB171430518. Police official of PS Kirti Nagar requested to provide the said PCR Form and on their request, he provided them the PCR Form and certificate u/s 65 B IEA of genuiness of PCR Form. The said PCR Form is Ex.PW15/A and certificate u/s 65 B IEA is Ex.PW15/B bearing his signature at point A.
(vi) PW16: SI Pooran Mal deposed that on 05.02.2017 he was on night emergency duty from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am. After receiving the DD no.36A, he alongwith Ct. Manoj went to the spot i.e. B-107 near Chuna Bhatti, Lakkar Mandi, Kirti Nagar. At the POOJA spot, no eye witness of the incident was found there. One pair of TALWAR slippers (chappal) and blood stains were found on the road. He Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 11 of 50 Date:
FIR no.53/17 2026.03.07
11:20:27 +0530
came to know that the injured was taken to the hospital. Thereafter, he received DD no.39A regarding death of injured Manoj which was received from Acharya Bikshuk Hospital. Thereafter, he left Ct. Manoj at the spot and he went to Acharya Bikshuk Hospital. At the hospital, he received the MLC of deceased. Ct. Naresh came to the hospital alongwith the DD no.39A and handed over to him. He inspected the dead body of the deceased lying in the hospital but did not prepare any document. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of brother of the deceased namely Sonu who was present at the hospital. He prepared a tehrir upon the statement Ex.PW2/A (from point X to X1) bearing his signatures at point B. He handed over the tehrir to Ct. Naresh for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, further investigation was handed over to Insp. B. M. Bahuguna.
During the investigation, second IO arrested the accused Ramu @ Raman and accused Sonu from Raghuvir Nagar area vide memo Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13D both bearing his signatures at point B. Their personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW13/B and Ex.PW13/E both bearing his signatures at point B. Disclosure statement of both the accused persons were also recorded vide memo Ex.PW13/C and Ex.PW13/F both bearing his signatures at point B. His statement was recorded by the second IO and he was discharged.
(vii) PW17: Insp. Ashok Kumar deposed that on 07.02.2017 POOJA upon instruction of IO Insp. Brijmohan he went to DDU hospital TALWAR Mortuary and collected the clothes and blood gauze of deceased alongwith sample seal of DDU hospital in a sealed pullanda. He Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date:
SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 12 of 50 2026.03.07 FIR no.53/17 11:20:33 +0530 returned to the PS and handed over the abovesaid pullanda with the sample seal to the IO. IO seized the same vide memo Ex.PW17/A bearing his signature at point A.
(viii) PW18: HC Naresh deposed that on 05.02.2017 Duty Officer PS Kirti Nagar handed over to him DD no.39A dated 05.02.2017, copy of which is Ex.AD6. He went to Aacharya Bikshu Hospital and handed over the copy of said DD to SI Puran Mal. SI Puran Mal prepared a tehrir and handed over the same to him to get the FIR registered. He got the FIR registered and took the copy of FIR and original tehrir to Aacharya Bikshu Hospital and handed over the same to SI Puran Mal.
(ix) PW19: Insp. Brijmohan Bahuguna deposed that:
"On 05.02.2017 I was posted at PS Kirti Nagar as Insp. ATO. On that day at about 10.20 PM one DD no.36A was received in the PS which was regarding stabbing of one person with knife at Chunna Bhatti Chowk, Kirti Nagar. The attested of DD no.36A is already Ex.ADX5. The said call was marked to SI Puran Mal for further necessary action. I was in patrolling duty within the area of PS. I was also given the information about the said call. SI Puran Mal reached at the spot alongwith Ct. Manoj. After sometime I also reached at the spot ie. Chunna Bhatti near B-107. When I reached at the spot I found SI Puran Mal alongwith Ct. Manoj. Upon local enquiry we came to know that the injured was taken to hospital by his brother. Thereafter we POOJA received the information from Acharya Bikshu Hospital TALWAR regarding MLC of injured Manoj. The said Manoj had expired Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 13 of 50 Date: FIR no.53/17 2026.03.07 11:20:40 +0530 because of his injuries. The said DD was DD no.39A. The copy of same is already Ex.ADX6. There was blood stains and blood stained slipper on the spot. We left Ct. Manoj at the spot. I alongwith SI Puran Mal went to Acharya Bikshu Hospital. MLC of deceased was collected from the hospital. Complainant Sonu was found at the hospital. The statement of complainant was recorded by SI Puran Mal. The statement is already Ex.PW2/A. SI Puran Mal prepared the tehrir and sent the same for registration of FIR through Ct. Naresh. Ct. Naresh went to the PS and got the FIR registered and returned back to Acharya Bikshu Hospital and handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir to me. The further investigation of the case was marked to me. I collected the documents and case file from SI Puran Mal.
The dead body was examined by the doctors and after examination I got sent the dead body to DDU mortuary for post mortem. The dead body was asked to be preserved at the mortuary as the relatives of the deceased had not arrived. Thereafter, I alongwith SI Puran Mal and complainant Sonu went to the spot. At the spot, I met the crime team and the photographer of the crime team. The crime team inspected the spot and the photographer took the photographs of the spot from all angles. The In-charge crime team handed over the report of crime team to me. The crime team report is already Ex.ADX2. I conducted the site inspection at the instance of the complainant. I prepared the site plan without scale. The site plan is Ex.PW19/A bearing my signature at point A. The exhibits i.e. blood samples, POOJA earth control and the blood stained earth control were picked. TALWAR The same were seized by preparing seizure memo and the Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 14 of 50 Date:
FIR no.53/17 2026.03.07
11:20:46 +0530
pullinda were sealed with the seal of BMB. The seizure memo is already Ex.PW16/B bearing my signature at point B. Thereafter we went in search of accused persons namely Ramu and Sonu alongwith complainant. The said accused persons were not found at the address.
We conducted the search of other accused person namely Rahul and Munna Paswan, however, they were not found present at the residence. Statement of complainant Sonu was recorded. After that I recorded the statement of other witnesses namely Vikas Kumar and Ravi as stated by them to me. I called the PCR caller Sudhir Kumar, I spoke to him and recorded his statement as stated by him to me. I also recorded statement of Ms. Suman and Sonia as stated by them to me.
A secret information wa Suman s received that accused Ramu and Sonu were present in Raghuvir Nagar. A raiding party was constituted consisting of myself, SI Puran Mal and HC Anil. At about 9.30 pm two boys were found present near D Block Park, Raghuvir Nagar. The said two boys were identified by beat officer HC Anil that the said two boys were Ramu and Sonu. They were apprehended at the identification of HC Anil. Both the accused persons were arrested. Arrest memo of accused Ramu is already Ex.PW13/A bearing my signature at point C. The arrest memo of accused Sonu is already Ex.PW13/D bearing my signature at point C. Personal search of both accused Ramu and Sonu were conducted vide memo already Ex.PW13/B and Ex.PW13/E both bearing my signature at point C. The disclosure POOJA TALWAR statement of both accused Ramu and Sonu was recorded. Disclosure statement of accused Ramu is already Ex.PW13/C Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.07 SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 15 of 50 11:20:53 +0530 FIR no.53/17 and disclosure statement of accused Sonu is already Ex.PW13/R both bearing my signature at point C. Thereafter, we returned back to the PS. The accused persons were sent for medical examination and thereafter locked up in the lockup.
On the next day the post mortem was conducted on dead body of deceased Manoj. I deputed SI Ashok for further necessary action after post mortem. I got produced the accused persons before the concerned court. Both the accused persons were remaned to one day PC remand. Thereafter, we returned back to the PS and the accused persons were got sent for medical examination. Accused persons were interrogated. Accused Ramu disclosed that he had hidden the weapon of offence i.e. Knife in a Nali under a cemented stone. At the instance of accused Ramu we went to Chunna Bhatti Subji Mandi Gali from where at the instance of accused Ramu, we reached to the Nali and at his instance the cemented stone was lifted and the knife was got recovered. The knife was kept on a plane paper and the sketch of the knife was prepared, same is already Ex.PW13/I bearing my signature at point B. The length of knife was 32.5 cm, the width of the blade of the knife was 4 cm, the length of the blade was 20 cm and the length of the handle was 12.5 cm. I prepared the pullinda of the said knife and the same was sealed with the seal of BMB. The seizure memo was prepared. The same is already Ex.PW13/J bearing my signature at point B. The site plan of the POOJA TALWAR place of recovery of the knife was prepared. The site plan is already EX.PW13/S bearing my signature at point B. Thereafter, Digitally signed by POOJA we returned back to the PS. The case property was deposited in TALWAR Date:
2026.03.07 11:21:00 +0530 SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 16 of 50 FIR no.53/17 the malkhana. The accused was sent for medical examination.
I recorded the statement of police witnesses u/s 161 CrP.C. The accused persons after medical examination were locked up in the lockup.
On the next day i.e. 08.02.2017 one secret information was received regarding presence of accused Munna Paswan at Chunna Bhatti. Thereafter, I alongwith HC Anil went to Chunna Bhatti and from there accused Munna Paswan was apprehended from Chunna Bhatti near B Block. Accused Munna Paswan was arrested vide arrest memo already Ex.PW13/K bearing my signature at point B. Personal search of accused Munna Paswas was conducted vide memo already Ex.PW13/L bearing my signature at point B. The disclosure statement of accused Munna Paswan was recorded vide memo Ex.PW13/M bearing my signature at point B. Accused Munna Paswan disclosed that he had hidden the plastic pipe yellow colour used in the commission of offence at Railway Line near Jawahar Camp. Thereafter, at the instance of accused Munna Paswan, we went the said place from where at the instance of accused Munna Paswan from Railway Line Jawalar Camp we recovered plastic pipe yellow colour. The said plastic pipe measured about 2 feet 3 inches. The pullinda of the same was prepared and was sealed with the seal of BMB. Seizure memo was prepared and the same is already Ex.PW13/O bearing my signature at point B. Thereafter, we returned back to the PS. Case property was deposited in malkhana. The accused was sent for medical examination. The wearing clothes of the POOJA accused were taken into police possession. TALWAR The clothes of other two accused persons namely Ramu Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 17 of 50 Date:
2026.03.07
FIR no.53/17 11:21:07 +0530
and Sonu were also taken into police possession. The seizure memo of clothes of the accused Munna Paswan is already Ex.PW13/N bearing my signature at point B. The seizure memo of clothes of the accused Ramu is already Ex.PW13/G bearing my signature at point B. The seizure memo of clothes of the accused Sonu is already Ex.PW13/H bearing my signature at point B. Meanwhile complainant Sonu came to PS and he identified accused Sonu, Ramu and Munna Paswan at the PS. Supplementary statement of complainant Sonu was also recorded in this regard. The accused persons were produced before the concerned court after medical examination. The accused persons were remanded to JC.
On 10.02.2017 a secret information was received regarding presence of accused Rahul near his Jhuggie at Fire Station Kirti Nagar. Upon the said information I alongwith HC Anil went to the said place. We apprehended accused Rahul from near his Jhuggi. Accused Rahul was arrested vide arrest memo already Ex.PW13/P bearing my signature at point B. Personal search of accused Rahul was conducted vide memo already Ex.PW13/I bearing my signature at point B. Thereafter, we returned back to the PS. The accused was sent for medical examination. We also seized the wearing clothes of accused Rahul. The seizure memo of clothes of accused Rahul is already Ex.PW13/R bearing my signature at point B. The pullinda of the clothes was sealed with the seal of BMB.
Complainant Sonu also visited the PS on the next day and POOJA TALWAR he identified accused Rahul at the PS. Supplementary statement of complainant Sonu was also recorded at the PS. Accused Rahul Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date:
SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 18 of 50 2026.03.07 11:21:14 +0530 FIR no.53/17 was produced before the court from there he was sent to JC.
Thereafter, I collected the postmortem report. I also collected the subsequent opinion about the weapon of offence used. The PM report is already Ex.AD1. The subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence is already Ex.AD2. Rough sketch of the knife prepared by the doctor is also part of the judicial record and is Ex.PW19/B. The exhibits were got sent to FSL for examination. The scaled site plan was also prepared through the drafts man. The scaled site plan is already Ex.AD3. I got collected the photographs from the crime team photographer. Thereafter, I prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the court. All the accused persons are present in the court today and correctly identified by the witness.
I can identify the case property if shown to me. At this stage, perusal of judicial record reflects that the case property slipper is already Ex.P1. Case property metal knife is already Ex.P2. Case property plastic pipe is already Ex.P3. Case property ie. clothes one pant and one jacket of accused Ramu @ Raman is already ExP4 (colly). The photographs of the crime team are already Ex.P9/A(colly).
At this stage, MHCM has produced one sealed pullinda bearing no. S1 and particulars of present case and sealed with the seal of FSL. Upon opening the same, one sealed pullinda with seal of BMB is taken out and upon the same with the permission of the court one gauge cloth piece is taken out. Same is shown to the witness and the same correctly identified the witness as gauge POOJA TALWAR cloth piece seized by him and the same is Ex.P5. At this stage, MHCM has produced another sealed pullinda sealed with the seal Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date:
SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 19 of 50 2026.03.07 FIR no.53/17 11:21:19 +0530
of FSL. The same is opened with the permission of the court. Upon opening the same, another sealed pullinda is taken out same is sealed with the seal of BMB. Upon opening the same, one damp paper earth control is taken out. Same is shown to the witness and the same is correctly identified by the witness as the blood stained earth control as seized by him and the same is Ex.P6.
At this stage, MHCM has produced another sealed pullinda sealed with the seal of FSL. The same is opened with the permission of the court. Upon opening the same, another sealed pullinda is taken out same is sealed with the seal of BMB. Upon opening the same, stone earth control sample is taken out. Same is shown to the witness and the same is correctly identified by the witness as the stone earth control as seized by him and the same is Ex.P7.
At this stage, MHCM has produced another sealed pullinda sealed with the seal of FSL. The same is opened with the permission of the court. Upon opening the same, another sealed pullinda is taken out same is sealed with the seal of PMDDUH. Upon opening the same, one greenish gauge cloth piece described as blood sample of deceased is taken out. Same is shown to the witness and the same is correctly identified by the witness as the blood sample seized by him of the deceased as given by the doctor and the same is Ex.P8.
At this stage, MHCM has produced another sealed pullinda bearing serial no.S5, however, the seal of the same is not visible. POOJA TALWAR The same is opened with the permission of the court. Upon opening the same, one pant with belt, jacket, shirt, baniyan and Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date:
SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 20 of 50 2026.03.07 FIR no.53/17 11:21:26 +0530
underwear are taken out. Same are shown to the witness and witness correctly identified the clothes as seized by him upon being handed over by the doctor after post mortem of deceased. The said clothes belonged to deceased. Same are Ex.P9(colly).
At this stage, MHCM has produced another sealed pullinda bearing serial no.S7 sealed with the seal of FSL. The same is opened with the permission of the court. Upon opening the same, one pant and one inner warmer are taken out. Same are shown to the witness and witness correctly identified as the clothes seized from accused Sonu and the same were worn by him. The same is Ex.P10 (colly).
At this stage, MHCM has produced another sealed pullinda bearing serial no.S8 sealed with the seal of FSL. The pullinda is torn from different places. The same is opened with the permission of the court. Upon opening the same, one pant, one jacket and one sweater are taken out. Same are shown to the witness and witness correctly identified as the clothes seized from accused Munna and the same were worn by him. The same is Ex.P11 (colly).
At this stage, MHCM has produced another sealed pullinda bearing serial no.S9 sealed with the seal of FSL. The pullinda is torn from different places. The same is opened with the permission of the court. Upon opening the same, one jeans pant, one red and black colour t-shirt (full sleaves) and one sweater/jersey of red white colour are taken out. Same are shown to the witness and witness correctly identified as the clothes POOJA seized from accused Rahul and the same were worn by him. The TALWAR same is Ex.P12 (colly). All the pullindas are sealed back with the Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 21 of 50 Date: 2026.03.07 FIR no.53/17 11:21:34 +0530 seal of court.
At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP seek permission to put two leading questions from the witness regarding two documents. Heard. Allowed.
It is correct that I had seized a havai chappal from the spot on 06.02.2017. The seizure memo is already Ex.PW16/A and the same bears my signature at point B. It is correct that I had deputed SI Ashok at the hospital for post mortem. It is correct that doctor had handed over clothes of deceased to SI Ashok which were seized by me by preparing seizure memo already ExPW17/A bearing my signature at point B."
6. In statement under Section 294 Cr.PC. accused persons admitted the following documents hence presence of those and witness thereof was dispensed with:
(i) Post-mortem report prepared by Dr. Komal Singh.
(ii) Subsequent opinion regarding consistency of weapon of offence with injuries sustained on the body of deceased Manoj given by Dr. Komal Singh.
(iii) MLC no.16985 of Manoj and MLC no.16986 of Vikas Kumar of Acharya Bhikshu Hospital prepared by Dr. Sahil.
(iv) Scene of Crime Team report prepared by ASI Lalit.
(v) FIR and certificate issued u/s 65 B Evidence Act by Duty Officer HC Rakesh.
(vi) DD no.36A and 39A prepared by DO Kishan Lal. POOJA
(vii) Statement dated 06.02.2017 of HC Narender who took the TALWAR copy of FIR as special messenger to Ld. MM and senior police Digitally signed officials. by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.07 11:21:39 +0530 SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 22 of 50 FIR no.53/17
7. Statement of accused persons under Section 313 CrPC. Accused Ramu @ Raman, Sonu, Munna Paswan and Rahul stated that they have been falsely implicated by the police officials. They are innocent.
8. Defence Evidence:
(i) In defence evidence Sh. Rahul Solanki deposed as DW1 and stated that:
"I am 12th pass. I was born in Delhi and have been residing at the aforesaid address since year 1993. Accused Munna of the present case has been working with me for last about 22 years. The said accused Munna also worked with me as driver and he also does some house hold chores of my house. The family of accused Munna also resides at the terrace of my aforesaid house. He gets a salary of Rs.15,000/-. Munna is a person of good character and he is not involved in illegal activity. Even on the day of incident in question ie. 05.02.2017 we came back from office at about 7.30 pm. On that day accused Munna was also present at the house. On 07.02.2017 I got a call to produce accused Munna before PS. On 08.02.2017 I myself produce accused Munna before the PS at about 10.00 am. The police official stated that Munna was required for questioning and I was present in the PS for the whole day and in the evening I came to know that accused Munna has been arrested in the present case. Accused Munna is innocent and he does not have anything to do with the present case. Police officials have falsely implicated POOJA accused Munna in the present case. TALWAR Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 23 of 50 Date:
FIR no.53/17 2026.03.07
11:21:45 +0530
Accused Ramu @ Raman has his mobile shop in front of my shop. I know accused Ramu @ Raman and Rahul and they are also persons of good characters. I see them often across my shop. I got to know on 06.02.2017 that accused Ramu and Sonu were called to PS by police for enquiry in the present case. I also got to know that on 10.02.2017 accused Rahul was also arrested in the present case. The said persons namely Ramu, Sonu, Munna and Rahul are persons of good character."
(ii) DW2: Sh. Parmeshwar stated that:
"Presently I am doing work of construction. I have studied till class 10th. I have been staying in Delhi since childhood. I am staying in Delhi alongwith my family. On 06 th of February 2017, Video Shah father of Ramu @ Raman and Sonu came to me and stated that police officials were calling him for questiong in present case. I alongwith Video Shah, Ramu @ Raman and Sonu went to PS Kirti Nagar and over there we met HC Anil Pandey. HC Anil Pandey stated that accused Ramu @ Raman and Sonu were required for some questioning. We waited at PS for some time, after sometime I alongwith Video Shah left the PS. Accused Ramu @ Raman and Sonu remained at the PS. After sometime I got to know that Ramu @ Raman and Sonu have been arrested in the present case and they were sent to Jail in the present case. Thereafter I got to know that on 08.02.2017 accused Munna Paswan had also been arrested by the police officials in the present case. After some days, accused Rahul has also been POOJA arrested in the present case. I have seen the accused persons in TALWAR their childhood days. The police officials have falsely implicated Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 24 of 50 Date: FIR no.53/17 2026.03.07 11:21:52 +0530 the accused persons in the present case. The accused persons have nothing to do with the present case. The accused persons are people of good character and they live in Delhi alongwith their families."
Arguments on behalf of the State
9. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that brother of deceased who is eye witness completely supported the story of the prosecution and identified the accused persons. Presence of the accused persons at the place of incident is also proved through the testimony of PW3 Vikas and PW4 Rabi. Though few witnesses turned hostile, but there is ample evidence on record to connect the accused persons with the offence. Prosecution succeeded in proving the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. They deserve to be convicted.
Arguments on behalf of counsel for accused
10. Ld. defence counsel, per contra argued that material prosecution witnesses turned hostile and did not support the story of the prosecution. Knife and plastic pipe have been planted on the accused persons as their recoveries has been shown from open places therefore the same is doubtful. Defence witnesses have deposed in favour of the accused. The accused persons were not present at the place of incident and were later called to the police station and falsely implicated. FSL report is negative. The POOJA only witness who supported the case of prosecution is PW2 TALWAR Sonu, brother of deceased who is an interested witness. The alleged place of incident is a market area still no CCTV footage Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date:
SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 25 of 50 2026.03.07 11:21:58 +0530 FIR no.53/17 has been collected. There is no incriminating evidence against the accused persons. They deserve to be acquitted.
Analysis of Law:
11. Murder is defined under Section 300 IPC and punishment for murder is provided under Section 302 IPC.
(a) Section 302 of the IPC provides punishment for the grave crime of murder. Murder is an act done to cause death or dangerous injury to some person, and body harm which it is known ought in all probability to cause death, or which by reckless disregard of human life would in all probability cause death. The keyword in this section is "intent" to cause death, direct or indirect.
i) Intention to Cause Death: The pre- requisite for a criminal offense to be classified under Section 302 IPC is that the perpetrator should have an intention to kill the victim.
ii) Knowledge regarding the Possibility of Death: Although death was not intended to happen, if on the part of the perpetrator knowledge of the possibility that his act might lead to death could be proved, then the offense would come within the scope of murder.
iii) Extreme Rashness: When the act has been done with such rashness that it would cause death almost certainly, then it would be murder as per Section 302.
(iv) Sentence: The law under Section 302 provides for capital POOJA punishment or life imprisonment in cases of murder. In addition TALWAR to the sentence, the fine may also be imposed based on the case at hand. Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.07 SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 26 of 50 11:22:06 +0530 FIR no.53/17
12. Section 34 IPC provides exception to the general rule that no man can be held responsible for an independent act and wrong committed by another. It lays down the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The essence of that liability is to be found in the existence of common intention, emanating from the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. It deals with doing of separate acts, similar or adverse by several persons, if all are done in furtherance of common intention, each person is liable for the result thereof as if he had done the act himself. The soul of Section 34 IPC is the joint liability of doing a criminal act. This section only provides a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. Two elements are necessary to fulfill the requirement of Section 34 IPC. One is that the person must be present on the scene of occurrence and the second is that there must be a prior concert or a pre- arranged plan. Unless these two conditions are fulfilled, a person cannot be held guilty of an offence by operation of Section 34 IPC.
Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuance to that plan. Common intention comes into being prior to the commission of act in point of time which need not be a long gap.
13. I have heard the arguments advanced by all POOJA concerned and have perused the records including documents TALWAR relied upon by the prosecution carefully.
Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.07 11:22:12 +0530SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 27 of 50 FIR no.53/17 Observation of the Court:
14. The story of the prosecution commenced upon receipt of DD no.36A. The injured was taken to the hospital where he was declared 'brought dead'. Statement of Sonu, brother of deceased was recorded vide Ex.PW2/A. This witness stepped into the witness box and reiterated the contents of his complaint Ex.PW2/A. He correctly identified all the accused persons in court who were named by him as the assailants in his complaint Ex.PW2/A.
15. In order to prove the offence committed by the accused persons prosecution is required to bring on record the chain of circumstances which are complete in all respects and should conclusively establish the guilt of accused. No room for suspicion or doubt should be left which point towards the innocence of the accused.
16. The case of prosecution is based on ocular testimony. Prosecution has cited PW2, PW3 and PW4 as eye witnesses to the incident. Before proceeding further it would be pertinent to understand the law relating to ocular testimony as discussed in Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs. The State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 739 of 2017 decided on 14.07.2022 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
27. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is POOJA no fixed or straight-jacket formula for appreciation of the ocular TALWAR evidence. The judicially evolved principles for appreciation of Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 28 of 50 Date: FIR no.53/17 2026.03.07 11:22:18 +0530 ocular evidence in a criminal case can be enumerated as under:
I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out POOJA of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance TALWAR to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 29 of 50 Date: 2026.03.07 FIR no.53/17 11:22:25 +0530 going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny. VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable POOJA estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of TALWAR individuals which varies from person to person.Digitally signed
XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately by POOJA TALWAR Date: SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 30 of 50 2026.03.07 11:22:32 +0530 FIR no.53/17 the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub- conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him. XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness."
17. In view of the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case testimony of eye witnesses will be scrutinized herein after.
18. PW2 Sonu is the complainant whose statement was recorded on the date of incident which culminated into an FIR under Section 302/34 IPC. PW2 Sonu is the brother of deceased POOJA Manoj therefore as per the defence counsel his testimony falls TALWAR within the purview of testimony of an interested witness.
Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.07 11:22:38 +0530SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 31 of 50 FIR no.53/17
19. The law relating to testimony of interested witness has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court through various pronouncements. The Apex court in Masalti Vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1965 SC 202) observed as under:
"14. But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. ... The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct."
20. Testimony of PW2 Sonu is required to be assessed keeping in mind the abovesaid legal principles qua testimony of an interested witness. PW2 Sonu when stepped into the witness box reiterated the contents of his statement Ex.PW2/A and deposed that on 05.02.2017 at around 10 pm his brother Manoj went out to bring vegetables. After some time he was informed by mother of Ravi that his brother was being beaten by 3-4 boys. When he reached the spot he saw that Sonu, his brother Ramu and friends Munna and Rahul were beating his brother. Sonu and Ramu had knife in their hands and Munna had plastic pipe. Rahul held his brother by his neck. Munna assaulted his brother with POOJA TALWAR plastic pipe and Sonu and Ramu stabbed him.
Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date:SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 32 of 50 2026.03.07 11:22:44 +0530 FIR no.53/17
21. Testimony of PW2 Sonu could not be impeached despite extensive cross-examination. There is no discrepancy, improvement or embellishment in his deposition before court. He narrated the incident as stated by him in his statement Ex.PW2/A. His statement was recorded in hospital on the day of incident itself. No suggestion was given to him that the accused persons were not present at the spot.
22. It would be pertinent to mention here that at the stage of DE a plea of alibi was set up for accused Munna. DW1 Rahul Solanki deposed that " Even on the day of incident i.e. 05.02.2016 we came back from office at 7.30 pm. On that day accused Munna was also present at the house." This defence was never taken at the time of cross-examination of PW2 Sonu. Testimony of PW2 qua accused Munna in respect of hitting with the plastic pipe could not be discredited during his cross- examination.
23. Against accused Sonu and Ramu it is alleged that they stabbed deceased Manoj with knives. No suggestion has been given to PW2 Sonu that accused Sonu and Ramu were neither present at the place of incident nor stabbed deceased Manoj with the knives. His testimony qua them on the point of stabbing his brother with knives stand unrebutted and uncontroverted.
POOJA
24. In so far as testimony of PW2 qua accused Rahul of TALWAR holding deceased Manoj from his neck is concerned, no Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 33 of 50 Date: 2026.03.07 FIR no.53/17 11:22:50 +0530 suggestion has been given to the aforesaid witness denying the fact either of presence of Rahul at the place of incident or about his holding deceased from his neck. Hence testimony of PW2 about presence and involvement of Rahul in the incident stands unrebutted and uncontroverted.
25. General suggestion about false implication of all the accused persons is given to PW2.
26. An attempt to bring on record character of accused Sonu, Ramu and Rahul was made through the testimony of DW1 Rahul Solanki who stated that all the three aforesaid persons were of good character. This witness did not state that on the day of incident these three persons were not present there or that they were else where. Deposing only about their character without any verification or concrete information would not come to their rescue.
27. Similarly DW2 was examined on behalf of the accused persons who too deposed that the accused persons are of good character and had nothing to do with the present case. This witness in his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP admitted that he did not have any knowledge about the incident of murder that took place on 05.02.2017. Once this witness did not have any knowledge about the incident then deposing about the character of accused persons in general would be of no resort to them. POOJA TALWAR Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 34 of 50 Date: 2026.03.07 FIR no.53/17 11:22:57 +0530
28. The second eye witness examined by the prosecution is PW3 Vikas. He deposed that on 05.02.2017 he alongwith Ravi and deceased were going to Sabji Mandi suddenly they were surrounded by accused Sonu, Raman, Rahul and Munna. He was hit with the plastic pipe by accused Raman and sustained injury on his right hand. Ravi ran away in the other direction. Manoj remained there and was assaulted by all the accused persons. Sonu and Raman stabbed him with knife. PW2 Sonu and Quadir took deceased Manoj to hospital in TSR.
29. In his cross-examination he conceded to the suggestion given by the defence counsel that he was hit by Raman with the plastic pipe and he ran away from the spot. He further admitted the suggestion of the counsel for accused persons that "It is correct that the incident in question did not take place in my presence or that I had not seen the same. I reached the hospital alone subsequently on my own."
30. In his cross-examination by counsel for accused Munna he stated "It is correct that accused Munna did not have any plastic pipe in his hand at the time of incident (Vol. When I was hit by plastic pipe, accused Munna rescued me and helped me flee from there.)" He however denied the suggestion given by the counsel that accused Munna was not present at the spot.
31. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP POOJA and was asked to clarify the two different statements with respect TALWAR to his presence at the time of incident. In response to the said Digitally signed by POOJA SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 35 of 50 TALWAR FIR no.53/17 Date: 2026.03.07 11:23:03 +0530 question he stated "Ans. After receiving injury on my hand I rush to my house. I went to the hospital. Therefore the entire incident did not take place in my presence."
32. Before evaluating the testimony of PW3 it would be appropriate to discuss the testimony of third eye witness PW4 Rabi. He deposed that on 05.02.2017 about 10 pm he alongwith PW3 Vikas and deceased Manoj was going to Sabji Mandi. They were surrounded by accused Rahul, Munna, Ramu and Sonu who started beating them. Ramu had a plastic pipe who hit him, thereafter both Vikas and himself ran away. All the accused persons gave beatings to deceased Manoj. Manoj died due to stab injuries caused by Sonu and Ramu with knife.
33. This witness when cross-examined stated that while he alongwith PW3 Vikas and deceased Manoj were going to Sabji Mandi he noticed that Vikas was abusing someone and deceased Manoj was standing with him. Upon seeing the verbal altercation he left for his house.
34. Upon being cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP he stated that his version given in the court during cross- examination is correct and that the previous statement given by him in court was under fear.
35. At this stage, testimonies of these three eye POOJA witnesses need to be scrutinized as some part of their testimony TALWAR is found to be reliable and the other cannot be relied upon. This Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.07 SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 36 of 50 11:23:12 +0530 FIR no.53/17 position is no more res-integra. The testimony of witnesses has been broadly put under three categories by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Lallu Manjhi & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand" Appeal (Crl.) No. 15 of 2022 wherein it was held that :
"The Law of Evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the Court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon testimony of a single witness."
36. Applying the aforesaid legal principles, testimony of PW2 when discerned individually it is found that the same falls under first category i.e. wholly reliable. It has already been discussed in the preceding paragraphs that his testimony with respect to presence of accused persons at the place of incident and their individual involvements in the incident stands unrebutted and uncontroverted.
POOJA
TALWAR
Digitally signed
by POOJA
TALWAR
Date:
SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 37 of 50 2026.03.07
FIR no.53/17 11:23:19 +0530
37. Proceeding further to the testimony of PW3 Vikas and PW4 Rabi fall under the third category i.e. neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
38. It is also settled that testimony of hostile witness cannot be discarded altogether. Reliance is being placed on Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731, it was held that "Even if a witness is treated as 'hostile' and is cross- examined, his evidence cannot be written off altogether but must be considered with due care and circumspection and that part of the testimony which is creditworthy must be considered and acted upon. The Hon'ble Court further laid down that as a matter of prudence to consider the extent of evidence which is creditworthy for the purpose of proof of the case. In other words, the fact that a witness has been declared "hostile" does not result in an automatic rejection of his evidence. Even, the evidence of a "hostile witness" if it finds corroboration from the facts of the case may be taken into account while judging the guilt of the accused. Thus, there is no legal bar to raise a. conviction upon a "hostile witness" testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence."
39. When the testimony of aforesaid three eye witnesses is scrutinized minutely, all the three witnesses have been consistent in their statement with regard to presence of all the accused persons and also the presence of PW3 Vikas and PW4 POOJA Rabi. TALWAR Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 38 of 50 Date:
2026.03.07FIR no.53/17 11:23:25 +0530
40. Further MLC of PW3 Vikas placed on record would prove that he sustained injury in the incident. His MLC is of same date and time and the same hospital where deceased Manoj was taken.
41. The discrepancy arises when both PW3 and PW4 stepped into the witness box after two years apparently being won over by the accused persons.
42. PW3 and PW4 supported the case of prosecution and corroborated the testimony of PW2 Sonu in all material particulars. However once PW4 Rabi came into the witness box after two years he stated that he did not witness the incident and had deposed under fear on the previous date.
43. It is not explained by him as to under whose fear he testified earlier. Rather his cross-examination apparently proves that he was won over or put under fear by the accused persons to depose in their favour.
44. In so far as testimony of PW3 Vikas is concerned, he testified with respect to the presence of all the accused persons with weapons and stated that he did not witness the incident after he was assaulted with a plastic pipe. He categorically denied the suggestion of counsel for accused Munna that he was not present at the place of incident. POOJA TALWAR Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 39 of 50 Date:
FIR no.53/17 2026.03.07
11:23:32 +0530
45. Prosecution tried to prove the motive behind commission of offence by the accused persons as previous quarrel between deceased Manoj and accused Sonu. It is alleged by PW2 Sonu, brother of deceased that a week prior to the incident accused Sonu molested sister of their neighbour Rabi PW4 to which his deceased brother Manoj had objected. Accused Sonu felt insulted and wanted to take revenge.
46. There is no cross-examination on the said aspect by the defence counsels but the said fact is corroborated in the testimony of PW4 Rabi who in his examination in chief dated 18.10.2019 categorically stated that accused Sonu abused his sister Sonia and that deceased Manoj tried to make him understand that he should not do so.
47. As has been discussed above, PW4 Rabi later turned hostile and resiled from his previous statement on the aforesaid fact. Even his mother PW6 Suman and his sister PW8 Sonia denied the aforesaid fact, probably due to fear, threat or being won over by the accused persons.
48. As has already been discussed above testimony of PW2 Sonu is found to be wholly reliable and does not need any corroboration. It is a settled proposition of law that it is the quality of the testimony and not the quantity which decides the fate of the case. In case the testimony of single witness is of such POOJA sterling nature which points towards the guilt of the accused, then TALWAR the same is sufficient to convict the accused.
Digitally signed by POOJA SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 40 of 50 TALWAR FIR no.53/17 Date: 2026.03.07 11:23:39 +0530
49. SECTION 134- Number of witnesses. No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.
50. In Bhimappa Chandappa v. State of Karnataka (2006) 11 SCC 323, Court held that "Testimony of a solitary witness can be made the basis of conviction. The credibility of the witness requires to be tested with reference to the quality of his evidence which must be free from blemish or suspicion and must impress the Court as natural, wholly truthful and so convincing that the court has no hesitation in recording a conviction solely on his uncorroborated testimony. Indian legal system does not insist on plurality of witnesses Undoubtedly.
51. In Mahesh vs State Of (G.N.C.T.) Of Delhi on 25 April, 2007 witness was a neighbour of the Appellants as well as the deceased. It is a well settled principle of law that it is quality of the evidence which is material for deciding the criminal trial. Emphasis has always been put on the quality of evidence under Section 134 of the Evidence Act, which makes it clear that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact."
52. Presence of PW2 Sonu at the place of incident is proved through the testimony of PW3 Vikas who deposed that "Sonu brother of Manoj and Quadir took Manoj to Acharya POOJA Bhikshu Hospital in a TSR". There is no cross-examination on TALWAR this point that PW2 Sonu was not present either at the place of Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.07 SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 41 of 50 11:23:46 +0530 FIR no.53/17 incident or did not take the deceased to hospital.
53. PW4 Rabi too deposed on same lines and his testimony too is unrebutted. Besides these two witnesses PW10 Quadir Hussain deposed that he alongwith PW2 Sonu took deceased Manoj to hospital.
54. PW19 Inspector Brij Mohan also deposed "Upon local inquiry we came to know that the injured was taken to hospital by his brother." The MLC Ex.ADX of deceased Manoj finds mention of name of PW10 Quadir as friend and PW2 Sonu as brother of deceased.
55. From the aforesaid it is proved that PW2 Sonu, PW3 Vikas and PW4 Rabi were the eye witnesses to the incident.
56. Individual role of each accused is proved through the testimony of PW2 Sonu who categorically deposed that he witnessed accused Ramu and Sonu stabbing his brother with knife, accused Munna hitting him with plastic pipe and accused Rahul holding the neck of his brother. His testimony on this aspect is unrebutted and uncontroverted. No suggestion is given to him during cross-examination on this aspect.
57. Having discerned the testimony of prosecution witnesses, it would be relevant to assess whether the defence POOJA TALWAR evidence led by the accused persons is able to leave a dent in the prosecution case. DW1 Rahul Solanki who deposed that on the Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date:
SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 42 of 50 2026.03.07 FIR no.53/17 11:23:52 +0530 date of incident accused Munna came back from with from him and was present at his house. On 07.02.2017 he was called upon to produce accused Munna in the PS. This plea of alibi was not taken during the cross-examination of the eye witnesses. Even otherwise in his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP he stated " On 05.02.2017 accused Munna Paswan was present in the house at about 10 pm, however, I cannot surely say if he was sent for some work or not." Hence his testimony is not sufficient to sustain the plea of alibi taken by accused Munna during defence evidence. His deposition with respect to character of all the four accused persons will leave the case of the prosecution unaffected.
58. DW2 Parmeshwar deposed that on 06.02.2017 he went to the police station alongwith father of accused Ramu and Sonu. He knew the accused persons since childhood and that they were falsely implicated. In his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP he admitted that he does not have any personal knowledge about the incident in question. His testimony too would not be of any relevance to the accused persons.
59. Further it is argued on behalf of the accused persons that no CCTV footage is seized by the IO. On this aspect the IO in his cross-examination clarified "CCTV cameras were not found to be installed around the spot of incident in question. I had checked the nearby houses for CCTV footage, however the POOJA same was not found to be the spot of incident in question." TALWAR Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.07 SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 43 of 50 11:23:58 +0530 FIR no.53/17
60. Once the IO categorically deposed that he did not find any CCTV footage around the spot and the defence counsel was not satisfied with his version, the onus of proving the contrary lied on the accused persons. Even if the lapses on the part of IO during investigation are taken into account even then the ocular testimony of witnesses coupled with medical evidence clearly establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
61. In these circumstances, any such lapses do not grant any benefit to the accused persons. Reliance is placed on " C. Muniappan Vs. State of T.N. (2010) 9 SCC 567" wherein it was held as under:
"55. There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the POOJA said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable TALWAR and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 44 of 50 Date: 2026.03.07 FIR no.53/17 11:24:04 +0530 the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation."
62. Medical evidence qua deceased Manoj- The accused persons admitted the MLC Ex.ADX where the name of the relative was mentioned as Sonu Kumar PW2 and that the patient was declared brought dead. Further the accused persons also admitted postmortem report Ex.AD1 in which it is opined that the cause of death is due to hemorrhagic shock to multiple vital part of the body. Injury no.1 to 5 i.e. incised wounds were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature individually as well as in combination sufficient to cause death. The manner of death is homicidal.
63. An opinion Ex.PW/AD2 given by Dr. Komal Singh that upon perusal of PM report and examination of knife it is concluded that all the injuries (external) mentioned in the PM report could be possible with the knife.
64. Since the postmortem report is admitted by the accused persons hence it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that deceased Manoj died due to injuries suffered by him on his body caused by stabbing on his person with the knife by the accused persons.
POOJA TALWAR Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date: 2026.03.07 SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 45 of 50 11:24:10 +0530 FIR no.53/17
65. Recovery of weapon- As per PW19 Inspector Brij Mohan Bahuguna weapon of offence i.e. knife was recovered at the instance of accused Ramu from a naali under cemented stones and accused Munna got a plastic pipe recovered from Railway Line, Jawahar Camp. Both the weapons were seized vide memo Ex.PW13/J and Ex.PW13/O respectively.
66. It is settled law that only the portion of disclosure statement which leads to discovery of a fact is admissible under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. This position of law in relation to Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act was elaborately made clear by Sir John Beaumont in Pulukuri Kottaya and Others Vs. Emperor (AIR 1947 PC 67) wherein it was held:
"Section-27, which is not artistically worded, provides an exception to the prohibition imposed by the preceding section, and enables certain statements made by a person in police custody to be proved. The condition necessary to bring the section into operation is that the discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of a Police officer must be deposed to, and thereupon so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved."
67. The alleged recovery of knife is shown to be from a naali and that of the plastic pipe from the Railway Line. Both POOJA these places are open lands accessible to public. In order to use TALWAR the alleged recovery to bring it under the ambit of Section 27 Digitally signed by POOJA TALWAR Date:
SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 46 of 50 2026.03.07 FIR no.53/17 11:24:17 +0530 Indian Evidence Act, the recovery should have been shown from a place which was exclusively within the knowledge of the accused.
68. In this case recovery is from open place, accessible to people. Accordingly the alleged recovery cannot be said to be within the exclusive knowledge of the accused persons. Moreover, no independent witness has been joined at the time of recovery nor any photography or videography has been done to prove the same. Hence the recovery becomes doubtful being not admissible under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.
69. Having said so it would now be imperative to see whether the doubtful recovery of weapon of offence adversely affects prosecution case or not. In "Rakesh and Another Vs. State of UP and Another" (2021) 7 Supreme Court Cases 188 , deceased had died due to a gunshot injury. The gun was recovered, however, the ballistic report opined that the bullet recovered did not match with the gun recovered making the recovery of gun (weapon of offence) doubtful. In these facts, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in Rakesh & Anr. (Supra) that :
"12. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The injury by the gun has been established and proved from the medical evidence and the deposition of Dr. Santosh Kumar, PW-5. Injury 1 is by gunshot. Therefore, it is not possible to reject the credible ocular evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 - eyewitnesses who witnessed the shooting. It has no bearing on credibility of deposition of PW-1 and PW-2 POOJA TALWAR that A-1 shot deceased with a gun, particularly as it corroborated Digitally signed by POOJA SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 47 of 50 TALWAR FIR no.53/17 Date:
2026.03.07 11:24:24 +0530 by bullet in the body and also stands corroborated by the testimony of PW-2 and PW-5. Therefore, merely because the ballistic report shows that the bullet recovered does not match with the gun recovered, it is not possible to reject the credible and reliable deposition of PW-1 and PW-2."
70. The facts of the case in hand are identical to Rakesh & Anr. (Supra) case. The recovery of knife and plastic pipe at the instance of accused Ramu and Munna are found to be doubtful, however, the reliable and coherent ocular testimony of the eye witnesses PW2 Sonu and PW3 Vikas coupled with medical evidence (injury sustained by deceased Manoj on his body as mentioned in PM report Ex.AD1), proves the case of prosecution against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
71. It has also been held in Goverdhan & Anr. Vs. State of Chattisgarh Crl. Appeal no.116/2011 2025 INSC 47 by Honble Apex court that :
"70. It is now well settled that non recovery of the weapon of crime is not fatal to the prosecution case and is not sine qua non for conviction, if there are direct reliable witnesses as held in Rakesh v. State of U.P., (2021) 7 SCC 188.
72. Hence the doubtful recovery of weapon of offence is not fatal to the case of prosecution.
73. POOJA From the aforesaid discussion, it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that all the accused persons in TALWAR Digitally signed SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 48 of 50 by POOJA FIR no.53/17 TALWAR Date: 2026.03.07 11:24:30 +0530 furtherance of their common intention inflicted stab injuries on the person of deceased Manoj which is proved through unrebutted and uncontroverted testimony of PW2 Sonu. The said ocular testimony is further corroborated by the medial evidence wherein the cause of death of deceased Manoj has been proved to be caused due to incised wounds inflicted with the knife.
74. It stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that death of Manoj was homicidal consequent upon injuries inflicted on his body by the accused persons.
75. The accused persons have been charged under Section 302/34 IPC. It has already been discussed above that all the accused persons in pursuance of their common intention played active role in causing the death of deceased Manoj. Even otherwise Section 34 IPC is an exception to general rule. Regardless of individual role of each accused being defined, only if their presence and common intention is proved, they can be held liable alongwith co-accused for the offence.
76. Death of Manoj was caused intentionally which is evident from the injuries sustained by him as mentioned in the postmortem report. Intention to cause death is writ large as a dangerous weapon was used in causing injury which in ordinary course was sufficient to cause death of Manoj.
POOJA
77. All the ingredients essential to prove offence under TALWAR Section 302/34 IPC are made out. Prosecution succeeded in Digitally signed by POOJA SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 49 of 50 TALWAR FIR no.53/17 Date: 2026.03.07 11:24:37 +0530 proving the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence so produced on record point towards the guilt of the accused persons. Accordingly All the accused persons are convicted for commission of offence under Section 302/34 IPC.
Conclusion:
78. In view of aforesaid findings, prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Accused Ramu @ Raman, Sonu, Munna Paswan and Rahul are convicted for commission of offence under Section 302/34 IPC.
POOJA
Announced in the open court (POOJA TALWAR) TALWAR
on 07.03.2026 ASJ-01(FTC) West District,
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi Digitally signed
by POOJA
TALWAR
Date: 2026.03.07
11:24:56 +0530
SC No.331/17 State. Vs. Ramu @ Raman & Ors. Page : 50 of 50
FIR no.53/17