Delhi District Court
State vs Sunil Arora on 19 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE:
SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI.
State Vs. Sunil Arora
CNR No. DLSW01-009023-2019
SC No. 570/2019
FIR No. 335/2019
U/s. 302 IPC
Police Station: Binda Pur
State
Vs.
Sunil Arora
S/o Late Satpal Arora
R/o Flat No. A-1/102A, Upper Ground Floor,
Gali No. 5, Raja Puri, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
Date of FIR : 24.04.2019
Date of filing of charge-sheet : 16.07.2019
Date of Committal of case to : 23.07.2019
Sessions Court
Charge framed on : 16.01.2020
Date of Arguments : 10.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 19.12.2025
APPEARANCES : Mr. V. K. Swami, Ld.
Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State.
Signature Not Verified
SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.1 PAWAN
of 44 KUMAR JAIN
19.12.2025 11:07
Mr. Bhawan Singh, Ld.
CLADC for accused.
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated relevant facts as unfolded from the chargesheet are that: -
1.1. On 23.04.2019, between 08:30 PM to 08:45 PM, ASI Suresh and Delhi Home Guard Ct. Charan Singh were passing through Gali No. 5, Raja Puri and when reached near H. No. A-1/102-A, some public persons including Mr. Naresh Singh (PW-1), Mr. Gaurav (PW-2) and Mr. Ravi Kumar (PW-4) met them and informed that one person had assaulted and caused injuries to his mother and brother and their neighbour Amit Kumar Mourya (PW-3) had already made a call to police. Consequently, both the above police officials reached at Flat No. A-1/102-A, Gali No. 5, Raja Puri, Uttam Nagar and found that one person named Rajender Arora @ Raju was lying in semi unconsciousness condition in the chair whereas one lady Lata @ Latha Arora was lying on floor in a pool of blood. ASI Suresh informed Inspector Anil Kumar Barwal (PW-22) on phone who alongwith other police officials reached the place of incident. Other staff members also reached there. Crime Team was also called at the spot. Police Control Room was also informed.Signature Not Verified
SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.2 PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07 1.2. Both the injured were got sent to DDU Hospital. Crime Team inspected the place of occurrence. One knife having blood stains was found near parking gate of the premises at the ground floor, blade of which was bended at 90o angle whereas another knife was found lying in kitchen. One "kenchi" i.e. Scissor having blood stains, blades of which were bended, was also found lying near kitchen. One Thapi (which is used to wash cloths) having blood stains marks was also found lying there. All the exhibits including the above were lifted from the spot with the assistance of Crime Team and seized during investigation.
1.3. SI Jagdish recorded the statement of public persons named Mr. Naresh Singh, who in his statement disclosed to the police that he alongwith Gaurav and Ravi Kumar was present in gali between 08:30 PM to 08:45 PM. At that time, one person named Rajender Arora @ Raju resident of A-1/102-A, Gali No. 5, Raja Puri, Uttam Nagar, came towards them running from his flat. Blood was oozing out from injuries caused on his body and told them that his elder brother Sunil Arora assaulted and caused injuries to him and his mother and requested to save them from Sunil Arora, consequently they alongwith him reached at the parking gate of his premises where accused Sunil Arora was standing having a knife in his hand and threatened them not to intervene as it is a matter of their house, consequently, they scared. They further Signature Not Verified SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.3 PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07 disclosed that accused Sunil Arora had given a blow of knife to Rajender Arora @ Raju in their presence and thereafter, he (Sunil Arora) took the injured Rajender Arora at up stairs in the flat. Another neighbour named Amit Kumar Mourya (PW-3) made a call to police. He further disclosed that they informed the incident to ASI Suresh (PW-
19) and Ct. Charan Singh (PW-10) who met them in the gali and when they reached in the flat alongwith ASI Suresh and Delhi Home Guard Ct. Charan Singh, they found that Rajender Arora @ Raju was lying in semi unconscious condition in a chair whereas his mother was lying in injured condition on floor and nearby accused Sunil Arora was also sitting. Entire flat was in the pool of blood.
1.4. In the meantime, an intimation was received from the hospital that Rajender Arora @ Raju was brought dead in the hospital.
1.5. On the basis of his statement, an FIR for the offence punishable under section 302/307 IPC was got registered and further investigation was assigned to Inspector Anil Kumar.
1.6. During investigation, statement of other public witnesses named Gaurav, Ravi Kumar and Amit Kumar Mourya was also recorded. Thereafter, another intimation was received from the hospital that injured Lata @ Latha Arora also succumbed to her injuries during Signature Not Verified SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.4 PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07 treatment.
1.7. After doing necessary paper work, both the dead bodies were got sent for postmortem.
1.8. As per postmortem report of deceased Rajender Arora @ Raju, "the cause of death was haemorrhagic shock via injury no. 15", which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Injury no. 15 is caused by pointed stabbing weapon. Injury no. 1 to 7 are caused by blunt force trauma. Injury no. 8 to 14 are caused by sharp edged weapon. All injuries are ante-mortem in nature and fresh in duration.
1.9. As per postmortem report of deceased Lata @ Latha Arora, cause of her death was "the death is head injury via injury no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 8", which are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature individually and collectively. Injury no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 are caused by blunt force trauma. Injury no. 6 and 7 are caused by sharp edged weapon. All injuries were ante-mortem and fresh in duration.
2. After completing investigation, a chargesheet for the offence punishable under section 302/307 IPC was filed.
Signature Not VerifiedSC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.5 PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07
3. Vide order dated 16.01.2020, a charge for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC was framed against the accused Sunil Arora to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, following 22 witnesses are examined by the prosecution:-
(i) PW-1 Naresh : Material witness;
(ii) PW-2 Gaurv : Material witness;
(iii) PW-3 Amit Kumar : Material witness;
Mourya
(iv) PW-4 Ravi Kumar : Material witness;
(v) PW-5 ASI Hardeep : Proved the scaled site
Singh, Assistant Draftsman. plan as Ex.PW-5/A;
(vi) PW-6 ASI Satpal, : Proved the Crime
In-charge Mobile Crime Team report as
Team Ex.PW-6/A;
(vii) PW-7 Dr. Jatin Bodwal : Proved the
Specialist, Department of postmortem report
Forensic Medicine, DDU as Ex.PW-7/A and
Hospital Ex.PW-7/B;
(viii) PW-8 HC Vikas, : Proved the
Photographer, member Photographs as
of Crime Team. Ex.PW-8/A (colly);
Signature Not Verified
SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.6 PAWAN
of 44 KUMAR JAIN
19.12.2025 11:07
(ix) PW-9 Dr. Rajesh Kohli, : Proved the MLC of
DDU Hospital. deceased Lata @
Latha Arora and
Rajender Arora as
Ex.PW-9/A and
Ex.PW-9/B
(x) PW-10 Ct. Charan Singh, : Material witness
Delhi Home Guard.
(xi) PW-11 SI Ram Karan : Proved the FIR as
Duty Officer. Ex.PW-11/B;
(xii) PW-12 HC Ajay Rana : Connecting witness;
MHC(M).
(xiii) PW-13 HC Virender Kumar : Proved the PCR Call
as Ex.PW-13/A;
(xiv) PW-14 HC Jagdish Prasad : Member of
investigating team;
(xv) PW-15 ASI Rajender Prasad : Member of
investigating team;
(xvi) PW-16 ASI Suresh Kumar : Member of
investigating team;
(xvii) PW-17 HC Dinesh Kumar : Connecting witness;
(xviii) PW-18 SI Arvind Kumar, : Connecting witness;
MHC(M).
Signature Not Verified
SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.7 PAWAN
of 44 KUMAR JAIN
19.12.2025 11:07
(xix) PW-19 SI Suresh Kumar : Material witness;
(xx) PW-20 Ms. Imrana : Proved the FSL
Ex. Senior Officer (Biology), report as Ex.PW-
FSL, Rohini. 20/A;
(xxi) PW-21 SI Jagdish (Retd.) : Member of
investigating team;
(xxii) PW-22 Inspector Anil Kumar : Investigating Officer.
5. Accused was examined under section 313 Cr.PC in which he admitted that he was residing alongwith both the deceased in the same premises at the relevant time and further admitted that PW-1 to PW-4 alongwith PW-10 and PW-19 came to the flat and found that both the deceased were in the pool of blood but denied that he was apprehended by PW-10 and PW-19; rather stated that he was sitting there. He also admitted that police officials took photographs of the spot. He further admitted that he handed over the blood stain cloths to PW-10 and PW- 19 and his mother Lata @ Latha Arora was taken to hospital in official Gypsy and Rajender Arora was also taken to the hospital in PCR Van. He admitted that Crime Team took the photographs at the spot. He further admitted that he was also taken to the hospital for medical examination and he was put up behind lock up after arrest. However, he denied that he used to quarrel with his mother and brother. He further stated that in fact his deceased brother Rajender Arora used to quarrel Signature Not Verified SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.8 PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07 with his mother Latha Arora and Rajender Arora used to harass her. Due to that reason, his mother had made several complaints against Rajender Arora and also disowned Rajender Arora from her property. He further took the plea that on that day Rajender Arora picked up a quarrel with his mother and assaulted her with a knife and Rajender Arora dragged his mother down stairs. After seeing such condition of his mother, he (accused) became angry and intervened in order to save his mother but deceased Rajender Arora also assaulted him with a knife. During scuffle, he tried to snatch knife from Rajender Arora and in that scuffle accused Rajender Arora also sustained some injuries. He further stated that Rajender Arora himself banged his head against the wall. However, he admitted that he also assaulted Rajender Arora by giving a blow of Thapi on his head and face but in order to save his mother. He further took the plea that he did not cause any injury to his mother and whatever injuries he had caused to Rajender Arora, the same were caused to him in order to save his mother and himself. He further stated that Rajender Arora was shouting that he would kill both of them and thereafter he would also kill himself. He further stated that since public witnesses are friends of deceased Rajender Arora, they have falsely deposed against him.
6. In order to prove his innocence, accused has examined DW-1 HC Ramesh to prove the DD No. 51-B. Signature Not Verified SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.9 PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07
7. Ld. Defence Counsel vigorously argued that no reliance can be placed on the deposition of PW-1 to PW-4 as they were close friends of the deceased Rajender Arora, accordingly, when they saw deceased Rajender Arora in a pool of blood, they presumed that accused had caused injuries to him. It was urged that since the incident had not taken place in their presence, they are unable to testify how the quarrel had started and who had caused injuries.
7.1. Ld. Defence Counsel further contended that since there is discrepancy among the testimony of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-16 regarding the place from where the weapons of offence were allegedly recovered, no reliance can be placed on their deposition.
7.2. Ld. Defence Counsel further vehementally contended that both the injured persons succumbed to their injuries as there was inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of police officials in providing medical aid to them. It was urged that as per prosecution version, PW-10 and PW-19 alongwith the public witnesses reached the spot between 08:45 PM to 09:00 PM but PW-22 testified that when he reached the spot at 10:50 PM, he found both the injured in critical condition and thereafter he got sent them to the hospital. Even, PW-15 testified that when he reached the spot after midnight at 01:30 AM, he found both the injured at the place of occurrence. He argued that this Signature Not Verified SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.10PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07 shows that till 01:30 AM, no medical aid was provided to both the injured, thus the police officials who failed to provide medical aid to the injured persons are liable for the cause of their death.
7.3. Ld. Defence Counsel further vehemently contended that deceased Rajender Arora used to harass his mother i.e. deceased Lata @ Latha Arora and on that day also, deceased Rajender Arora picked up a quarrel with his mother Latha Arora and started assaulting her by knife, scissor and thapi and when, in order to save her, accused intervened, deceased Rajender Arora also assaulted him. In order to save his mother, accused also assaulted deceased Rajender Arora but whatever injury was caused by accused Sunil Arora to the deceased Rajender Arora, the same were caused either in his private defence or to save his mother Latha Arora.
7.4. Ld. Defence Counsel further contended that since deceased Rajender Arora used to harass his mother Latha Arora, she made a complaint before the Police vide DD No. 51-B and also disowned the deceased Rajender Arora from her property and that was the reason of harassment caused by deceased Rajender Arora to Latha Sharma.
8. It was further argued that deceased Rajender Arora gave multiple blows to Lata @ Latha Arora and shouted that he would kill Signature Not Verified SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.11PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07 her and Sunil Arora and thereafter he would kill himself and he also bang his head against the wall in order to cause injury himself.
9. Per contra, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor refuted the said contentions by sagaciously arguing that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 were present in the gali when deceased Rajender Arora approached them and asked for help and when they accompanied him upto his premises, they found that accused Sunil Arora was standing there having a knife in his hand and threatened the witnesses not to interfere in their family matter, consequently they did not intervene and they categorically testified that in their presence also accused Sunil Arora gave blow of knife to deceased Rajender Arora and thereafter dragged him to upstairs to his flat. It was further urged that PW-3 Amit Kumar Maurya who was residing in the same premises informed the police about the incident.
10. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor sagaciously refuted the contention raised by Ld. Defence Counsel regarding the discrepancy qua the place of recovery of weapons by arguing that from the photographs it is clearly established from where the weapons of offence were recovered.
10.1. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor further vehementally refuted the contentions raised by Ld. Defence Counsel by arguing that though Signature Not Verified SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.12PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07 there is some discrepancy among the police official witnesses to the effect that when the injured persons were taken to hospital but that is not fatal to the prosecution case in any manner as there is cogent evidence on record to establish that injured Lata @ Latha Arora was got admitted in the hospital at 10:25 PM vide MLC Ex.PW-9/A whereas deceased Rajender Arora was brought to the hospital at 11:08 PM vide Ex.PW-9/B.
11. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that when accused Sunil Arora dragged the deceased to his flat, above witnesses saw two police officials i.e. PW-10 and PW-19, who were passing through the said gali, narrated the entire incident to them, accordingly, both the police officials alongwith PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 reached inside the flat of deceased and they found the deceased Rajender Arora was in semi unconscious condition in the chair while Latha Arora was lying in a pool of blood on the floor and accused Sunil Arora was sitting nearby. It was argued that from the testimony of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, PW-10 and PW-19 and other scientific evidences, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who caused fatal injuries to them.
12. I have heard Ld. Counsels for both the parties, perused the record carefully and gave my thoughtful consideration to their Signature Not Verified SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.13PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07 contentions.
13. First, question arises whether there is any cogent evidence on record to establish even prime facie that PW-1 to PW-4 were the close friends of deceased Rajender Arora and due to that reason they have falsely implicated the accused and secondly whether they had witnessed the alleged incident.
14. In his statement under section 313 Cr.PC, accused took the plea that since the public witnesses are the friends of his deceased brother i.e. Rajender Arora, they have falsely deposed against him, when they came to know that Rajender Arora succumbed to his injuries. To substantiate the said plea, Ld. Defence Counsel urged that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW-1 to PW-4 as they were close friends of deceased and when they saw the deceased in the pool of blood, they presumed that injuries were caused by the accused.
15. PW-1 to PW-4 were cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel, however, during their cross examination no question was put to them to establish the fact that deceased Rajender Arora was their friend. There is no material on record which may even suggest that PW-1 to PW-4 were the close friends of the deceased Rajender Arora. In the absence of any material on record, this court does not find any substance in the plea of Signature Not Verified SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.14PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07 the defence that since PW-1to PW-4 were the close friends of deceased Rajender Arora, they have falsely implicated him in this case.
16. Now, coming to the next limb of arguments whether the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 is based on the presumption or they had actually witnessed the alleged incident.
17. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 testified that on 23.04.2019, at about between 08:30 PM to 08:45 PM, they were present in gali no. 5, Rajapuri Uttam Nagar and all testified that deceased Rajender Arora, resident of Flat No. A-1/102A, Gali No. 5, Raja Puri, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, came to them running from his flat and at that time blood was oozing out from his injuries and Rajender Arora informed them that his elder brother Sunil Arora i.e. accused caused multiple injuries to him and his mother and also requested to save them from the accused. It is also clear from their testimony that when they went to the parking gate of his above premise, they found that accused Sunil Arora was standing there holding a knife in his hand. They further testified that since accused Sunil Arora threatened them by saying "Ye Unke Ghar Ka Mamla Hai, Tum Log Beech Mein Mat Aao", they became scared and did not intervene and further testified that accused Sunil Arora caused multiple injuries on the body of Rajender Arora by the means of knife and had taken him to his flat. PW-1 in his cross examination testified Signature Not Verified SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.15PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07 that at the gate of parking number of public persons gathered there and he admitted that he did not raise any alarm when accused was assaulting his brother Rajender Arora by giving blows of knife. He further admitted that he did not make any call to the police nor made any effort to save the injured by explaining that since accused was having weapon in his hand, out of fear, he did not intervene and he already testified that an another neighbour made a call to the police. Further, it is also emerged from the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 that they explained the incident to two police officials i.e. PW-10 and PW-19 who were passing through the gali.
17.1. Similarly, PW-2 in his cross examination, explained his conduct by testifying that he did not deem it appropriate to intervene in the matter as accused may cause injury to him also and further testified that they informed the incident to the two police officials who were passing through from their gali.
17.2. Similarly, PW-4 in his cross examination explained that he did not deem it appropriate to intervene between two brothers as accused may cause injuries to him.
17.3. Mere fact that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 did not intervene, in the absence of any other cogent material on record, is not sufficient to Signature Not Verified SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.16PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07 discard their testimony particularly when they furnished a reasonable explanation about their conduct why they had not intervened and why they did not make any call to the police.
18. It is established from their testimony that they had seen accused Sunil Arora at the gate of parking of his premises and at that time, he was holding a knife in his hand. It is also established from their testimony that accused Sunil Arora not only threatened them by saying don't intervene as it is their family matter but also assaulted Rajender Arora in their presence by giving the blow of knife. In the absence of any contrary cogent evidence on record, this court has no reason to disbelieve their deposition to that extent. This establishes that prosecution succeeds to establish that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 had seen injured Rajender Arora first time in gali when he approached them running from his flat and informed them that accused had caused multiple injuries to him and his mother Latha Arora and sought their help and further succeeds to establish that the said witnesses saw the accused Sunil Arora standing at the gate of the parking of his premises while holding a knife in his hand and further succeeds to establish that accused Sunil Arora assaulted Rajender Arora by giving blows of knife to him and took the injured to his flat.
Signature Not VerifiedSC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.17PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07
19. Further, even accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.PC did not take the plea that he did not cause injuries to the deceased Rajender Arora but took the plea that whatever injuries he had caused to the deceased Rajender Arora, he had caused the same either in his right of private defence or to save his mother from the hands of deceased Rajender Arora. The question, arises whether there is any material on record to prove the plea of right of private defence or not, will be considered later on.
19.1. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 in their examination in chief testified that when they entered in the house alongwith the police officials i.e. PW-10 and PW-19, accused in their presence disclosed to the police officials (PW-10 and PW-19) that he had caused injuries to both the injured by using knife, scissor and thapi. Similarly, PW-2 testified in his examination in chief that accused told that he had killed his mother and brother. Similarly, PW-4 in his examination in chief testified that accused admitted in front of everyone that he murdered his mother and brother by means of knife, scissor and thapi. Though, all the three witnesses were cross examined but no question was put to them in this regard. In the absence of any contrary evidence on record, this court has no reason to disbelieve their deposition to the extent that when they entered in the house alongwith PW-10 and PW-19, accused disclosed to them that he had caused injuries to both the persons namely his brother Signature Not Verified SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.18PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07 and mother by the means of knife, scissor and thapi.
20. Moreover, as already stated, accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.PC did not deny the fact that he did not cause any injury to the deceased Rajender Arora but he took the plea that whatever injuries he had caused to him was caused in order to save himself or to save his mother from the hands of his deceased brother Rajender Arora.
21. Now, coming to the next question whether there is any discrepancy in the statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-16 regarding the place from where the weapons of offence were recovered. If yes, its effect.
21.1. PW-1 testified that one knife was recovered from the main gate of the flat whereas another knife was also lying there, however, PW-2 testified that one knife was lying near the stairs, he is silent qua second knife. PW-4 testified that one knife was lying in the kitchen whereas another knife was lying at the spot in the parking area. PW-16 testified that one knife was recovered from the parking gate while another from the kitchen. This shows that there is inconsistency in the statement of the said witnesses regarding the place from where the knives were recovered.
Signature Not VerifiedSC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.19PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07 21.2. Similarly, PW-1 testified that scissor was lying at the spot whereas PW-2 testified that it was recovered from the flat while PW-4 testified that it was lying near the dead body whereas PW-16 testified that it was lying near the gate of the kitchen. This also indicates that there is some inconsistency between their testimony regarding the place from where the scissor was recovered.
21.3. PW-1 testified that the wooden thapi was lying near the spot while PW-2 testified that it was lying near the mother of the accused and PW-4 testified that it was lying near the dead body whereas PW-16 testified that it was lying in the kitchen.
21.4. PW-8 is Photographer and he took 59 photographs of the spot. Four photographs are of thapi and chaku (knife), besides that two exclusive photographs of the knife were taken. From these photographs, it is established that thapi and knife were recovered from the slab of kitchen, which shows that the same were lying at the slab in the kitchen near sink. This establishes that the same were recovered from the kitchen as testified by PW-16.
21.5. Three photographs are of scissor which shows that the same was recovered from the spot located in the flat which corroborates the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-16.
Signature Not VerifiedSC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.20PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07 21.6. Three photographs are of one knife. In one of the photographs, the gate is also visible which establishes that the same was recovered at the main gate of the premises as testified by PW-1 and PW-
16. 21.7. In view of the above, it becomes clear that the inconsistency between the testimony of above witnesses qua the place of recovery of weapon of offence is insignificant as from the photograph, it is established from where the said weapons of offence were recovered. Thus, I am of the view that the inconsistency, if any, does not affect the prosecution case in any manner.
22. Now, coming to the next moot question at what time, both the injured were taken to the hospital and whether there is any discrepancy among the testimony of witnesses, examined by the prosecution. If yes, whether it has any impact on the prosecution case.
23. As per MLC Ex.PW-9/A, injured Lata Arora was got admitted in the hospital on 23.04.2019 at about 10:25 PM and she was brought to the hospital by Head Constable Jagdish Prasad whereas another injured named Rajender Arora was got admitted in the hospital vide MLC Ex.PW-9/B, perusal of which reveals that injured was brought to the hospital on 23.04.2019 at about 11:08 PM by PCR Signature Not Verified SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.21PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07 official.
23.1. As per Google Map, the distance between Police Station Bindapur and DDU Hospital is approximately 4.8 km. As the place of incident is located within the jurisdiction of Police Station Bindapur, it means that the distance between the place of incident and hospital must be between 4 to 5 km, which means that police official must have taken at least 15 to 30 minutes to reach the hospital from the place of incident.
24. PW-1 in his testimony deposed that police came at the spot and both the injured were taken to the hospital immediately. As already discussed, PW-10 and PW-19 reached the spot immediately when they were informed about the incident by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4. PW-19 SI Suresh Kumar in his examination in chief testified that injured Lata Arora was got sent to DDU hospital in Government Gypsy through HC Jagidsh whereas PCR was also called at the spot and another injured Rajender Arora was got sent through PCR Van. PW-14 Head Constable Jagdish Prasad testified that he received the information from Duty Officer at about 09:00 PM and thereafter he reached there and further testified that after reaching the place of incident, he saw both the injured and accused and he shifted the injured Lata Aora in the Government Gypsy to DDU hospital and was got admitted in the hospital vide MLC No. 3631 i.e. Ex.PW-9/A. The testimony of PW-14 and PW-19 is Signature Not Verified SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.22PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07 corroborated by the MLC Ex.PW-9/A and Ex.PW-9/B. This establishes that both the injured were taken to the hospital at the time as mentioned in their respective MLC.
25. However, there are certain police official witnesses, who claimed that they had seen both the injureds persons at the place of occurrence even after 11:08 PM. PW-15 ASI Rajender Prasad in his examination in chief testified that at about 01:30 AM, he was informed by Duty Officer to reach the place of incident i.e. Flat No. A-1/102A, Upper Ground Floor, Gali No. 5, Raja Puri, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. Accordingly, he went there and he claimed that he saw both the injured Lata @ Latha Arora and Rajender Arora in injured condition at the spot and further testified that he alongwith police official took the injured Rajender Arora to DDU Hospital in PCR Van where injured Rajender Arora was declared brought dead. Interestingly, the testimony of PW-15 to that extent was not disputed by the prosecution. In other words, the prosecution claimed that both the injured were at the spot till 01:30 AM, which is contrary to the MLC Ex.PW-9/A and Ex.PW-9/B. 25.1. Similarly, PW-21 SI Jagdish in his examination in chief testified that he received the DD No. 118-A (Ex.PW-21/A) at about 10:20 PM, thereafter, as per instruction, he reached the place of incident alongwith HC Suresh where SHO alongwith other police staff members Signature Not Verified SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.23PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07 met him and he further claimed that at the spot he saw one injured in pool of blood in a chair and he had already died whereas he also claimed that he saw one lady in pool of blood on the floor. Since he received the DD at about 10:20 PM, it means that he must have reached the spot between 10:40 PM to 10:50 PM. According to PW-21, both the injureds were at the spot when he reached there and in his cross examination, he further claimed that he tried to talk to injured Lata Arora but she was not in a condition to speak, thus, he did not make any inquiry from her. The testimony of PW-21 to the extent that he received the DD No. 118/A, at about 10:20 PM is corroborated by DD No. 118/A (Ex.PW-21/A), which shows that it was received at 22:17:30 hours and the same was communicated to HC Jagdish through phone.
26. PW-22 Inspector Anil Kumar is the Investigating Officer. He in his examination in chief testified that he reached the spot after making departure entry vide DD No. 122-A (Ex.PW-22/A). Perusal of Ex.PW-22/A reveals that the same was made at 22:40:43 hours, it means that PW-22 must have reached the spot around 11:00 PM. However, he further testified that when he reached the spot, he saw a male person, aged between 54-55 years, lying unconscious in injured condition in a chair whose name was revealed as Rajender Arora whereas a female, aged about 75 years, was lying at the spot in pool of blood and her name was revealed as Lata Arora. He further testified that Signature Not Verified SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.24PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07 breathing of Rajender Arora was missing while the breathing of Lata Arora was noticeable. He further testified that he shifted injured Lata Arora to DDU hospital in official gypsy whereas Rajender Arora was sent to DDU hospital in PCR Van. In his cross examination, he further testified that he reached the spot by 10:50 PM as it was located at the distance between 1.5 km to 2 km from Police Station and he further claimed that SI Jagdish (PW-21) and HC Suresh reached the spot within 10 minutes after him and further claimed that they must have also reached the spot prior to 11:00 PM. Thus, according to PW-22, the injured were got sent to the hospital around 11:00 PM from the spot which is contrary to the MLC Ex.PW-9/A and Ex.PW-9/B.
27. On the basis of their testimony, Ld. Defence Counsel vehementally argued that both the injured persons were deprived of medical aid as there is inordinate delay on the part of police officials in providing medical aid. It was urged that though police reached the spot by 09:00 PM as testified by PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-19 but they were taken to hospital not prior to 11:00 PM as testified by PW-21 and PW-22. Even PW-15 claimed that both the injured were present at the spot till 01:30 AM. It was argued that since there was inordinate delay on the part of police officials in providing medical aid to both the injured, both the injured succumbed to their injuries.
Signature Not VerifiedSC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.25PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07
28. Now, the question arises whether the testimony of PW-15, PW-21 and PW-22 is trustworthy to the extent that they saw the injured persons at the spot till 01:30 AM.
29. PW-16 ASI Suresh Kumar in his examination in chief testified that between 08:45 PM to 09:00 PM, he was directed by the Duty Officer to reach the place of occurrence, accordingly, he reached there and further testified that he took two photographs from his mobile phone. The said photographs are Ex.PW-16/H (colly). In one photograph, accused Sunil Arora is visible sitting in a chair whereas in another photograph, another person is visible lying unconscious in the pool of blood and as per prosecution version the said person is deceased Rajender Arora. Since he was directed to reach the spot by Duty Officer by 09:00 PM, it means that he must have reached the spot prior to 09:30 PM.
30. PW-10 is the Constable Charan Singh (DHG) and he also testified that he took photographs from his mobile phone and same are collectively Ex.PW-10/A. In two photographs, accused Sunil Arora is visible whereas in another two photographs both the injured are visible.
31. PW-8 is HC Vikas who was a member of the Crime Team, being a photographer, and he testified that they received a call at 10:40 Signature Not Verified SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.26PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07 PM and thereafter, reached the spot and he took 59 photographs which are collectively Ex.PW-8/A. Since call ws received at 10:40 PM, it means that the Crime Team must have reached the spot prior to 11:00 PM. Perusal of these 59 photographs reveals that neither of the injured is visible in the said photographs. This shows that when these photographs were taken by PW-8, both the injured were not at the spot and rightly so because as per the MLC they had already been taken to DDU hospital.
32. From the above, it is established that the testimony of PW-15, who claimed that he saw both the injured at the spot even after 01:30 AM, PW-21 who claimed that he saw both the injured after 10:20 PM and the testimony of PW-22 who claimed that he saw both the injured after 22:40:43 hours are not trustworthy as the same is contrary to the MLC Ex.PW-9/A, Ex.PW-9/B and photos Ex.PW-16/H, Ex.PW-10/A and Ex.PW-8/A. 32.1. Even, their above statements amount to false evidence as defines under section 191 IPC which reads as under:-
"191. Giving false evidence. - Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence".Signature Not Verified
SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.27PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07 32.2. Being the police officials and witnesses before the Court, they were legally bound by law and oath to state truth before the Court but they made a false statement in the Court to the extent that they had seen both the injured at the spot when they reached there whereas both the injured had already been shifted to the hospital.
33. Even, their above acts also attract section 192 IPC which defines fabricating false evidence as they were well aware that their above statements shall be used as evidence in judicial proceedings. Needless to say that giving false evidence in judicial proceedings is punishable under section 193 IPC. Further giving false or fabricating evidence in a case, with intention to secure conviction, in which death is one of the punishments is further punishable under section 194 IPC.
34. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact that the above witnesses are the members of the disciplined enforcement agency i.e. Delhi Police, the above lapses cannot be appreciated in any manner. However, considering the fact that no reliance has been placed by the Court on their above testimony and no prejudice has been caused to the accused, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to proceed further against the said police officials for making false statement but to ensure that no such lapse occur in future in such a heinous crime, the lapses need to be brought in the notice of higher authorities to take appropriate Signature Not Verified SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.28PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07 action as they deem fit.
35. Now, coming to the moot question as to whether accused is entitled to claim the right to private defence, if yes, whether there is any material in this regard.
36. Section 100 of Indian Penal Code defines the right to private defence which may extend to cause death. The relevant portion of Section 100 of Indian Penal Code is re-produced as under:-
"100. When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death. - The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely: -
First. - Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
Secondly. - Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault".
36.1. Section 102 of Indian Penal Code defines the period when right to private defence commences and till when it ends. The same runs as under:-
"Section 102:- The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence may not have been committed; and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues".Signature Not Verified
SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.29PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07
37. Bare perusal of Section 100 of Indian Penal Code makes it clear that the right to private defence extending to cause death can be availed when the claimant may show that he may have reasonable cause to apprehend that if the right to private defence is not exercised, the death or grievous hurt would be the consequence of such assault. Further, section 102 Indian Penal Code makes it clear, to claim the right to private defence actual commission of offence is not necessary, it can even be claimed from the attempt or threat to commit the offence and it commences as soon as reasonable apprehension or danger arises from such attempt or threat and it continues as long as such apprehension or danger to the body continuous. In other words, the right of private defence commences and continues as soon as apprehension of danger to the body continues.
38. Now, question arises upon whom burden lies to prove that accused is entitled for right to private defence, answer is provided under section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under:-
"105. Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions. - When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances".Signature Not Verified
SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.30PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07
39. As right to private defence is available in the general exception under Chapter-IV of the Indian Penal Code and accused claims that his case falls within the Section 100, which is a part of general exception, in terms of section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, burden lies upon him. In other words, in order to claim the benefit of section 100 of the Indian Penal Code, burden lies upon the accused to establish that he had reasonable cause of apprehension that if he had not assaulted the deceased Rajender Arora, the alleged assault of deceased Rajender Arora would cause his or his mother's death. However, during trial, the accused preferred not to lead any evidence in his defence. Though, the accused had cross examined all the material witnesses but nothing is surfaced during their cross examination which may even suggest that accused had caused fatal injuries to the deceased Rajender Arora either to save himself from the alleged assault of deceased Rajender Arora or to save his mother from the assault of deceased Rajender Arora. On the contrary, there is no cogent material on record even to establish that accused Sunil Arora had sustained any injury in the alleged incident. As the plea taken by the accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.PC remained uncorroborated and unsupported by any cogent evidence, I do not find any substance in the plea taken by him.
Signature Not VerifiedSC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.31PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07
40. Now, coming to the next question whether any reliance can be placed on the FSL report Ex.PW-20/A.
41. During investigation, police seized number of exhibits such as one knife from the gate of the premises vide memo Ex.PW-16/A; another knife from kitchen vide memo Ex.PW-16/C; one scissor vide memo Ex.PW-16/B; one thapi vide memo Ex.PW-16/D; blood stain cloths of accused vide memo Ex.PW-16/E and blood stain cloths of both the deceased vide memo Ex.PW-16/F and Ex.PW-14/A. Though, PW-16 and PW-14 were cross examined by the accused but during their cross examination nothing is surfaced which may cast any doubt about the seizure of the said items.
42. PW-18 ASI Arvind Kumar was posted as MHC(M) and he testified that on 24.04.2019, 11 parcels duly sealed with the seal of "AB"; one parcel duly sealed with the seal of "CMO", DDUH and 3 parcel duly sealed with the seal of "PM", DDUH, were deposited in the Malkhana by Inspector Anil Kumar and he further testified that exhibits were sent to FSL on 26.04.2019, through Constable Ajay Rana (PW-
12). Both the witnesses testified that the parcels remained intact till remained in their custody.
Signature Not VerifiedSC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.32PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07
43. FSL report is Ex.PW-20/A and establishes that the seal was intact when the parcels were opened for examination. This establishes that the exhibits remained intact from the time when the exhibits were seized and till the time the same were examined in the FSL, thus in my view reliance can be placed on the FSL report.
44. During examination, DNA profile was generated from the blood found on knife, scissor, thapi, gause cloth pieces, marble pieces, cloths of accused and from the cloths of deceased and it was found that DNA profile generated from the above exhibits was similar. In other words, the blood of deceased Rajender Arora was found on the above exhibits including the cloth of the accused. During trial, accused failed to give any reasonable explanation how the blood of deceased Rajender Arora appeared on his cloths. As already discussed that there is no merit in the plea of right to private defence as taken by the accused in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.PC, it establishes that it was the accused who caused injuries to the deceased Rajender Arora by the exhibits such as knife, scissor and wooden thapi.
45. Due to degradation, DNA profile could not be generated from other exhibits including the blood sample of deceased Latha Arora and due to that reason, no opinion was given qua the blood of deceased Latha Arora in Ex.PW-20/A. Signature Not Verified SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.33PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07
46. Accused in his statement under section 313Cr.PC admitted that he alongwith deceased Rajender Arora and Latha Arora was residing in the said flat and further admitted that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 alongwith police officials came to his flat and found Rajender Arora and Latha Arora in injured condition in the pool of blood and he was also present in the said flat. He further admitted that the police officials sent both the injured to the hospital. Qua question no. 20, he admitted that he was sitting in the flat. In his statement under section 313 Cr.PC, he did not take the plea that any other person was also present in the said house. Rather, in his statement under section 313 Cr.PC, he took the plea that he caused injuries to deceased Rajender Arora to save himself and his mother from him. Since no other person was in the house, at the time of alleged incident except the above three i.e. two deceased and accused, in terms of section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, onus is upon the accused to establish if he had not caused injury to his mother then who else caused to her. But during trial, he failed to produce any trustworthy material on record. Thus, in my opinion accused is the person who caused injuries to his mother also.
47. From the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4, it becomes clear that when they entered into the house alongwith PW-10 and PW- 19, they found that the deceased Rajender Arora was lying in a chair in injured condition while his mother was found lying on the floor in Signature Not Verified SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.34PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07 injured condition and lot of blood was found on the floor and accused was also sitting there. This fact is also corroborated by PW-10 and PW-
19. Since the accused himself took the plea that he had caused injuries to the injured i.e. Rajender Arora and as already discussed, accused is not entitled for right to private defence, there is no reason to discard the prosecution case.
48. PW-3 is residing in the same building in which accused was residing alongwith both the deceased. He testified that deceased Latha Arora was residing with her both sons i.e. Rajender Arora and Sunil Arora at the upper ground floor while he was residing at the first floor. He further testified that accused and deceased Rajender Arora used to quarrel with each other on one pretext or another and he had heard the noise of quarrel several times prior to the date of incident. He further deposed that deceased Latha Arora used to take the side of her younger son i.e. deceased Rajender Arora. He further deposed that both her sons used to consume liquor. He also testified that both her sons never used to quarrel with neighbours. From his testimony, it is established that the relations between both the brothers were not cordial and during quarrel deceased Latha Arora used to take the side of her younger son Rajender Arora.
Signature Not VerifiedSC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.35PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07 48.1. He further testified that on 24.04.2019, at about 08:30 PM, he heard lot of noise of quarrel from the flat of deceased Latha Arora, accordingly he came out from his flat and saw that blood was coming out from the main door of the flat of deceased Latha Arora, consequently he made a call to the police from his flat. During his cross examination, he admitted that he did not enter into the flat of deceased Latha Arora. Since he did not enter in the flat of Latha Arora, he cannot say what had happened inside the flat but since PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 already testified that they saw both the deceased in pool of blood while accused was sitting there, non-deposition by PW-3 what he had seen in the flat is not helpful to the accused in any manner.
49. Now, coming to the postmortem reports Ex.PW-7/A and Ex.PW-7/B. Vide Ex.PW-7/A, postmortem was conducted on the dead body of deceased Rajender Arora @ Raju and during examination following external injuries were found on his body:-
(i) Contused lacerated wound of size 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm, was present on the left side of forehead, just above left eyebrow;
(ii) Contused lacerated wound of size 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm, was present on the left side of forehead, 1 cm above injury no. 1;
(iii) Contused lacerated wound of size 4 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm, was present on the left parietal region, 6 cm above left mastoid process;
(iv) Contused lacerated wound of size 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm, was present on the left parietal region, 2 cm above injury no. 3;Signature Not Verified
SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.36PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07
(v) Contused lacerated wound of size 5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm, was present on the left parietal region, 1 cm above injury no. 4;
(vi) Contused lacerated wound of size 4 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm, was present on the vertex region, 4 cm from injury no. 5;
(vii) Contused lacerated wound of size 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm, was present on the vertex region, 2 cm from injury no. 6;
(viii) Incised wound of size 4 cm x 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm, was present on the left side of neck, 1 cm below left angle of mandible;
(ix) Incised wound of size 3 cm x 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm, was present on the left side of neck, 1 cm below injury no. 8;
(x) Incised wound of size 1 cm x 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm, was present on the left side of neck, 1 cm below injury no. 9;
(xi) Incised wound of size 0.8 cm x 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm, was present on the left side of neck, 2 cm below injury no. 10;
(xii) Incised wound of size 1 cm x 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm, was present on the left side of neck, 1 cm below injury no. 11;
(xiii) Incised wound of size 5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.25 cm, was present on the right cheek, just in front of tragus;
(xiv) Incised wound of size 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.25 cm, was present on the right side of neck, 4 cm from midline;
(xv) Stab wound, wedge shaped in appearance, present on the right side of neck. The wound measured 3 cm x 0.25 cm x 5 cm, 3 cm below injury no. 14 and 6 cm from midline. The margins were clean cut, wound was horizontally placed and outer angle was sharp and inner angle was blunt. Trace of the stab wound: The stabbing weapon passed through the skin, subcutaneous tissue, cut through the muscle layers of the neck and injured neck vessles with extravasation of blood in the surround structures. The trace was directed downwards and to the left.
Signature Not VerifiedSC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.37PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07 49.1. As per the report, the cause of death was as under:-
(i) The cause of death is haemorrhagic shock via injury no. 15, which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
Injury 15 is caused by pointed stabbing weapon. Injury no. 1 to 7 are caused by blunt force trauma. Injury no. 8 to 14 are caused by sharp edged weapon. All the injuries are ante-mortem in nature and fresh in duration;
(ii) Manner of death is homicide;
(iii) Time since Death: About 12-24 hours;
50. It is evident from the postmortem report that injuries no. 1 to 7 were caused by blunt object and in this case wooden thapi was used by the accused. This establishes that injuries no. 1 to 7 were caused by the thapi whereas injuries no. 8 to 14 were caused by sharp edged weapon whereas injury no. 15 was caused by pointed stabbing weapon. In the instant case two blood stained knife and one blood stained scissor were recovered from the spot, this establishes that injuries no. 8 to 15 were caused by the said weapons.
51. As per Ex.PW-7/A, injury no. 15 is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
52. Vide Ex.PW-7/B, postmortem was conducted on the dead body of deceased Latha Arora, aged about 75 years and during examination following external injuries were found on her body:-
Signature Not VerifiedSC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.38PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07
(i) Contused lacerated wound of size 4 cm x 1 cm x scalp deep present over left parietal region of head, placed 5 cm from left ear;
(ii) Contused lacerated wound of size 4.3 cm x 3 cm x scalp deep present over left parietal region of head, placed 4 cm from left ear, 3 cm below injury no. 1;
(iii) Contused lacerated wound of size 5.3 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep present over left parietal region of head, placed 6 cm from left ear, 1.3 cm below injury no. 2;
(iv) Contused lacerated wound of size 3 cm x 1 cm x scalp deep present over occipital region of head, placed 12 cm from left ear, 5 cm below injury no. 3;
(v) Contused lacerated wound of size 3.5 cm x 1.5 cm x scalp deep present over occipital region of head, placed 7 cm from left ear, 5.5 cm below injury no. 4;
(vi) Incised wound of size 1.5 cm x 1 cm x skin deep present over left occipital region of head, placed 0.5 cm below injury no. 5;
(vii) Incised wound of size 2.6 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep present over right frontal region of head, placed over lateral end of right eye brow;
(viii) Contused lacerated wound of size 2 cm x 1 cm x skin deep present over right fronto- parietal region of head, placed 5 cm from right ear.
52.1. The following internal injuries were also found on the body of deceased Latha Arora:-
A- Scalp: Sub scalp contusion present over left parieto temporal occipital region;
B- Skull: Linear fracture line running along left temporal, left parietal, left occipital region, effusion of blood present at fracture site;Signature Not Verified
SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.39PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07 C- Brain, Meninges & Vessels: Diffuse Subdural hematoma on both cerebral hemispheres and sub arachnoid haemorrhage over bilateral parietal region.
B. Base of skull: NAD.
52.2. As per Ex.PW-7/B, the cause of death was opined as under:-
1. The cause of death is HEAD INJURY via injury no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 which are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature individually and collectively. Injury no. 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 8 are caused by blunt force trauma. Injury no. 6, 7 are caused by sharp edged weapon. All the injuries are ante mortem and fresh in duration.
2. TIME SINCE DEATH: Consistent to time of hospital death.
3. Manner of death is Homicide.
53. As evident from the Ex.PW-7/B, the cause of death is head injury via all injuries except injuries no. 6 and 7 which are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature individually and collectively and were caused by blunt force that indicates that the said injuries were caused by the thapi whereas injuries no. 6 and 7 were caused by sharp edged weapon i.e. knife or scissor.
54. It is evident from Ex.PW-7/A that injury no. 15 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of deceased Rajender Arora whereas in case of Latha Arora all injuries except injuries no. 6 and 7 were individually and collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. As already discussed that Signature Not Verified SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.40PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07 there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that injuries were caused to the deceased by accused Sunil Arora. The multiple injuries found on the dead bodies itself establishes that the injuries must have been caused voluntarily and with an intention to cause such bodily injuries.
55. Murder is defined under section 300 IPC. The relevant portion of section 300 IPC is re-produced as under:-
"300. Murder.- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or -
Secondly.- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or-
Thirdly.- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted as sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or-.
......
......
......
56. Applying the above provisions of section 300 IPC in the matrix of the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased persons, I am of the opinion that the action of the accused Sunil Arora in respect of deceased Rajender Arora falls within the four corners of second Signature Not Verified SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.41PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07 clause as the accused caused bodily injuries to deceased Rajender Arora intentionally and knowingly well that injury no. 15 was likely to cause death of Rajender Arora. Further, injury no. 15 also falls within the ambit of third clause as the same was inflicted with an intention that the intended injury is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injury no. 15 was caused at the vital part of the body i.e. neck. The intention of causing injury no. 15 establishes from the fact that the stabbing weapon pass through the skin subcutaneous tissue, cut through the muscle layers of the neck and caused injury neck vessels with extravasation of blood in the surrounding structure.
57. Similarly, applying the above provisions of section 300 IPC in the matrix of the injuries found on the dead body of deceased Latha Arora, it is established that the action of the accused falls under third clause of section 300 IPC as all the injuries except injuries no. 6 and 7 were found sufficient individually and collectively to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Undisputedly, deceased Lata @ Latha Arora was 75 years old lady and causing multiple blows with blunt force at the head shows that the injuries were caused with an intention to cause the death of Latha Arora.
58. Though, PW-7 was cross examined but noting is surfaced in his cross examination which may cast any doubt over the postmortem Signature Not Verified SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.42PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07 reports Ex.PW-7/A and Ex.PW-7/B.
59. Though, all the witnesses were cross examined by accused but nothing came out which may cause any dent in the testimony of any of the witnesses examined by the prosecution or which may help the accused person in any manner to prove his innocence.
60. Now, coming to the deposition of DW-1 HC Ramesh who proved DD No. 51/B as Ex.DW-1/A. Perusal of DD No. 51/B reveals that on 26.08.2016, deceased Lata Arora lodged a complaint in the Police Station at 04:10 PM which was assigned to Head Constable Om Prakash for inquiry. The copy of the complaint dated 26.08.2016 is on record which reveals that she made allegations against her deceased son Rajender Arora to the effect that he used to beat her after consuming liquor. This DD shows that deceased Rajender Arora used to mal-treat his mother and even used to beat her after consuming liquor but that incident pertains to the year Agusut-2016 whereas the incident in question had taken place on 24.09.2019. There is a long gap between both the incidents. In the absence of any other cogent material on record, no presumption can be drawn that since the deceased Lata Arora had lodged a complaint against her deceased son, her deceased son Rajender Arora had inflicted the fatal injuries to her, particularly when no inquiry report is on record qua DD No. 51/B. Even during trial, no Signature Not Verified SC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.43PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07 question was put to any of the witnesses to the effect that deceased Rajender Arora just prior to the incident or within a reasonable period had given any beating to his mother deceased Lata Arora. On the contrary, PW-3 testified that when both the brothers quarreled, deceased Lata Arora used to take the side of her deceased son Rajender Arora which is inconsistent to the allegations made in the complaint allegedly lodged by deceased Lata Arora in August-2016. Thus, I am of the view that DD No. 51-B and copy of the complaint is not helpful to the accused in any manner.
CONCLUSION:
61. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution succeeds to prove the guilt of accused Sunil Arora for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, accordingly, I hereby hold him guilty thereunder.
61.1. A copy of the judgment be sent to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, for his information and taking necessary action as he deems fit.
Announced in the open court on this 19th day of December, 2025. (PAWAN KUMAR JAIN) Principal District & Sessions Judge South-West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
Signature Not VerifiedSC No. 570/2019 State Vs. Sunil Arora Page No.44PAWAN of 44 KUMAR JAIN 19.12.2025 11:07