Delhi District Court
State vs Prem Nath Bhardwaj @ Pawan on 11 September, 2025
(Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.
FIR No. 386/2017
IN THE COURT OF BABRU BHAN, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-04, NORTH-EAST DISTRICT, KKD
COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.
FIR No. 386/2017
PS Bhajan Pura
(a) Session Case No. 316/2017
(CNR No-DLNE01-009782-2016)
(b) Date of offence 21.07.2017
(c) Accused 1. Prem Nath Bhardwaj @ Pawan
S/o- Sh. Laxman Nath Bhardwaj
R/o- H.No-A/2, Gali No-B-1, Mukund
Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094
2. Amar
S/o- Sh. Raghuveer @ Kalwa
R/o- Mohalla Dengra, Laxmi Nagar,
Nagar Kshetra, Mathura, U.P
(d) Offence U/s 302/34/201 IPC
(e) Plea of Accused Not guilty
(f) Final Order Acquitted
(g) Date of Institution 13.11.2017
(h) Date when Judgment 08.08.2025
was reserved
(I) Date of Judgment 11.09.2025
Digitally
signed by
BABRU
BABRU BHAN
BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11
17:42:24
+0530
Page 1 of 31
(Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.
FIR No. 386/2017
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. As per the story projected by the prosecution, one Madan Mohan (hereinafter referred as the deceased), was residing at H.No-412, C- Block, Bhajan Pura, Delhi on rent. One Ajay, PW-3 was also residing at C-412, C-Block, Bhajan Pura, Delhi in the adjacent room on the same floor.
2. On 20.07.2017, at about 11:00-11:30 PM, Ajay PW-3 came out of his room to answer the call of nature. He saw that accused Pawan @ Premnath (hereinafter referred as Pawan) alongwith another person (who was subsequently identified as accused Amar) were present in the room of the deceased. PW-3 did not notice anything unusual therefore he returned to his room after relieving himself. In the morning next day, the room of the deceased was found locked from outside. It remained locked and nobody visited the room till 22.07.2017.
3. On 22.07.2017, Ajay PW-3, noticed that room of the deceased was reeking with a very foul smell. He accordingly informed Ashu (son of the landlord) about the same. Ashu reached at the spot and made a PCR call. It appears that Sanjay Verma, PW-6 also made a PCR call that his father was missing and his room was locked.
4. The PCR call was recorded in form of DD No-65B at PS Bhajan Pura. Same was assigned to ASI Harkesh, PW-12. ASI Harkesh Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11 17:42:25 +0530 Page 2 of 31 (Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.FIR No. 386/2017
reached the spot alongwith HC Satender, PW-11 and met with Sanjay Verma, PW-6 (son of the deceased) and Ajay Kumar, PW-3. ASI Harkesh, PW-12 noticed that a bunch of keys was lying outside the room of the deceased. He opened the room and entered in it. By the time, the concerned SHO alongwith other police staff had also reached the spot. One single bed with the box was lying in the room. It was opened and body of the deceased was found in the same in semi-decomposed state. Blood stains were also visible in the bed. Crime team was called at the spot.
5. SI Manish Kumar, PW-5 was in-charge of crime team. He reached the spot alongwith HC Sudhir, PW-8, crime team photographer and ASI Akshay Kumar, finger-print expert. PW-5 inspected the spot and prepared his report Ex. PW5/A. On instructions of SI Manish Kumar, HC Sudhir, PW-8 took 34 photographs of the scene of crime which are Ex. PW8/P-1 to Ex. PW8/P-34. It may be noted here itself that PW-8 had also given a certificate u/s 65 B Ex. PW8/A in support of the photographs.
6. In the meanwhile, HC Amrik Singh, PW-9 also reached the spot. ASI Harkesh, PW-12 left HC Amrik Singh, PW-9 at the spot and he alongwith HC Satender, PW-11 removed the body of the deceased to mortuary of GTB Hospital. Body was preserved there.
7. ASI Harkesh, PW-12 thereafter returned to the spot. Since, no eye witness was found, he prepared the rukka Ex. PW12/A on DD No-65B and handed over the same to HC Amrik Singh for Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11 17:42:21 +0530 Page 3 of 31 (Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.FIR No. 386/2017
registration of FIR.
8. ASI Ompal Singh, PW-1 was discharging duties of Duty Officer at PS Bhajan Pura on that day. On basis of rukka sent by ASI Harkesh, he registered the FIR Ex. PW1/A of the case in hand and made a DD No-10A in this regard. After registration of the FIR, PW-1 made a corresponding endorsement Ex. PW1/B on the rukka. Subsequently, he issued a certificate u/s 65B Ex.PW1/C, in support of the FIR. The copy of FIR was sent to the concerned Magistrate of the area and senior police officers through special messenger, ASI Ravinder, PW-10.
9. After registration of FIR, Insp. Rajiv Ranjan, PW-22 reached the spot and subsequent investigation of the case was handed over to him.
10. During the investigation conducted on 22.07.2017, FSL team was also called at the spot. The FSL team took blood samples from the ground and pillow cover and sealed the same with the seal of FSL. Earth control was also taken into possession. ASI Harkesh PW-12, seized the aforesaid samples in presence of HC Mukesh PW-4, vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A & Ex.PW4/B.
11. On 23.07.2017, on instructions of the IO, ASI Harkesh PW-12, alongwith HC Satender PW-11, went to GTB hospital for postmortem of the deceased. Dead body of the deceased was got identified from Hitesh Verma PW-2, and Sanjay Verma PW-6, vide memo Ex. PW12/B & Ex. PW12/C. Thereafter, Dr. Priya Jain Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11 17:42:24 +0530 Page 4 of 31 (Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.FIR No. 386/2017
PW-15, conducted the postmortem upon the body of the deceased. PW-15 opined via her report Ex. PW15/A that the death of deceased was due to "asphyxia as a result of anti-mortem compression of the neck produced by blunt force". She has further mentioned in the report that extra-vascasion of blood was found present in the soft tissue and muscles of the neck and hyoid bone was fractured.
12. After the postmortem, body was handed over to the Hitesh Verma PW-2, vide handing over memo Ex.PW2/A.
13. On 23.07.2017, in the evening, Insp. Rajiv Ranjan received an information that accused Pawan will visit his house via Khajuri Chowk. At about, 03:30 PM, Insp. Rajiv Ranjan PW-22, alongwith SI Prem Pal PW-16, went to the spot disclosed by the secret informer and arrested accused Pawan vide memo Ex. PW16/A. After the arrest, IO conducted the personal search of accused Pawan vide memo Ex.PW16/B. Accused Pawan made a disclosure statement Ex.PW16/C and pointed out the place of incident vide memo Ex.PW16/D. IO recorded the supplementary disclosure statement Ex. PW12/D of accused Pawan wherein he stated that he alongwith co-accused Amar strangulated the deceased.
14. During further course of investigation, co-accused Amar was apprehended vide memo Ex. PW12/E because he had revealed his age below 18 years (he was subsequently declared major). He was personally searched vide memo Ex. PW12/F. His disclosure statement Ex. PW12/G was recorded by the IO. Accused Amar Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11 17:42:23 +0530 Page 5 of 31 (Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.FIR No. 386/2017
pointed out the place of incident vide memo Ex. PW12/J. He was taken to place of incident where he pointed out the gamcha with which deceased was allegedly strangulated. IO seized the gamcha vide memo Ex. PW12/H.
15. On 29.07.2017, IO moved an application for test identification parade of co-accused Amar but he refused to participate in the same.
16. The investigation of the case was transferred to Insp. T.R Meena PW-23 on 20.09.2017. During his tenure of investigation, he collected PCR form Ex. PW7/A and supporting certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW7/B from SI Harish Chandra PW-7.
17. After accused Amar was declared major, he was shifted to Tihar Jail where IO formally arrested him vide memo Ex.PW23/A.
18. In the meanwhile, on 25.09.2017, IO Insp. T R Meena called Insp. Mahesh Kumar PW-14 to H. No-C-412, 3rd Floor, Bhajan Pura, Delhi. There, on instructions of Insp. T.R Meena and ASI Harkesh, Insp. Mahesh Kumar PW-14, took measurements and prepared rough notes. On the basis of these notes, he prepared a scaled site- plan Ex. PW14/A.
19. On 06.10.2017, IO sent accused Pawan to JPC Hospital alongwith Ct. Sachin PW-13, for collection of his blood samples. Dr. Siminpreet Kaur PW-21, collected the blood samples of accused Pawan vide MLC Ex.PW21/A. She sealed the same with the seal of Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11 17:42:22 +0530 Page 6 of 31 (Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.FIR No. 386/2017
CMO and handed over to Ct. Sachin PW-13. Ct. Sachin PW-13 returned at PS and handed over the samples to IO Insp. T R Meena PW-23. He seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/A.
20. On 13.10.2017, on instructions of the IO, Ct. Yogender PW-19, deposited all the sealed pullandas in FSL.
21. IO got collected the FSL result Ex. PW23/B.
22. On completion of investigation, IO filed the charge-sheet accusing the accused persons for the offences u/s 302/201/34 IPC.
23. On basis of material collected during investigation, Court framed the charges for offences u/s 302/201/34 IPC against both the accused persons vide order dated 27.11.2017. During the trial, accused Amar absconded and Court had to issue process u/s 82/83 Cr.P.C against him. After execution of the proceedings, he was declared a "Proclaimed Offender" on 27.07.2024. He was subsequently apprehended again. He has been accordingly charged additionally for offence u/s 174A vide order dated 22.05.2025. Similarly, accused Pawan was also declared "Proclaimed Offender"
on 19.09.2024. Therefore, he has also been charged for the offences u/s 174A vide order dated 22.05.2025. For the aforesaid charges framed against them, accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
24. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 23 witnesses. Many of the witnesses examined are the police officials, who participated in Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11 17:42:22 +0530 Page 7 of 31 (Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.FIR No. 386/2017
formal process of investigation. Their respective brief roles have already been mentioned in the foregoing part of the judgment. For sake of brevity, their detailed testimony is not being reproduced again. The brief of the testimonies of remaining material witnesses are given below.
25. Ajay, PW-3 has deposed that, he was residing on rent in a room situated at 3rd floor of H.No-C-412. One Madan Mohan (the deceased) was also residing in two rooms in front of his room. One maid servant namely Sunita used to work for the deceased. She was mother of accused Pawan. Accused Pawan was also a frequent visitor to the room of the deceased. Further deposed that the maid servant used to stay at the house of the deceased for 2-3 days continuously on some occasions. On 20.07.2017, at about 11:00- 11:30 PM, witness came out of his room to answer the call of nature. He saw that accused Pawan @ Premnath (hereinafter referred as Pawan) alongwith another person (who was subsequently identified as accused Amar) were present in the room of the deceased. PW-3 did not notice anything unusual therefore he returned to his room after relieving himself. In the morning, next day, the room of the deceased was found locked from outside. It remained locked and nobody visited the room till 22.07.2017.
26. PW-3, further deposed that on 22.07.2017, he noticed that room of the deceased was reeking with a very foul smell. He accordingly informed Ashu (son of the landlord) about the same. He reached at the spot and made a PCR call. PW-3 has further deposed that Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11 17:42:23 +0530 Page 8 of 31 (Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.FIR No. 386/2017
Sanjay Verma (son of the deceased) also reached the spot. Police also came there and a large crowd gathered at the spot. Before arrival of the police, parents of accused Pawan had also arrived at the spot. Witness has further deposed that keys of the lock of the room were lying near the doormat. Thereafter, he went downstairs and learnt subsequently that body of Madan Mohan was recovered from the room. He has further deposed that he had heard that mother of Pawan had illicit relation with the deceased. He also came to know that deceased Madan Mohan had bought an e- rickshaw for father of accused Pawan. Further that house of Pawan was being maintained by deceased Madan Mohan. He further stated that he had once seen accused Pawan residing in the room of deceased Madan Mohan. During cross-examination by Ld. PP, this witness admitted that he had given the statement to the police on the same day.
27. Sanjay Verma (son of the deceased), PW-6 has deposed that his father was living separately from them for last about 3 years. Their mother had already expired in the year 2013. Further stated that he had come to know that his father had kept one lady Sunita as maid and on some occasions she used to stay with his father. He also came to know that his father had illicit relation with Sunita. He had also advised his father to end his relations with Sunita but he would not listen. Further deposed that on 21.07.2017, he received a telephone call from Sunita wherein she inquired about his father. She also informed him that his father had not returned back to his Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11 17:42:26 +0530 Page 9 of 31 (Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.FIR No. 386/2017
room after he had left to attend some party. She also told the witness that she had not gone for work because she was busy and his father was also not picking up the call. Thereafter, witness made a call to Mahesh (landlord) and told him about the facts.
28. PW-6 has further deposed that on 22.07.2017, he called the son of the landlord namely Ashish who called him at the spot. The room was locked and a foul smell was emitting from the room. Keys of the room were found under the foot mat. The room was opened and body of the deceased was recovered. One Ajay told that he had seen accused Pawan and one more person outside the room of his father in the night of 19.07.2017. He further stated that Sunita kept calling him in the night of 20.07.2017. He further stated that he had seen accused Pawan in the room of his father on 2-3 occasions. Once his father had told him that Pawan had objection on his relations with Sunita. Witness further stated that his father had told him once that accused Pawan had threatened him.
29. Sudhir Kumar Solanki, PW-17 produced the school record regarding Date of Birth of accused Amar. The documents produced by PW-17 are Ex. PW17/A to Ex.PW17/C. As per record of the school, the date of birth of accused Amar is 01.07.1999.
30. Rohit Kumar, PW-18 is the landlord of the premises where deceased was residing. He has deposed that he had seen one lady in the rented room of the deceased on 2-3 occasions when he visited there to collect the rent from deceased Madan Mohan. Other tenant Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11 17:42:25 +0530 Page 10 of 31 (Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.FIR No. 386/2017
namely Ajay had told the witness that the name of the said lady was Sunita. He also came to know that the said lady had illicit relations with deceased Madan Mohan. Further deposed that on 22.07.2017, his tenant Ajay had told him that two boys had visited the rented premises of deceased Madan Mohan on 20.07.2017, at about 11:00 PM. Subsequently he came to know about murder of Madan Mohan.
31. HC Arun, PW-20 was posted as MHC(M) at the relevant time. He has proved the record of the properties related to this case deposited and taken out from the Malkhana from time to time. The relevant entries proved by this witness in this regard are Ex.PW20/A to Ex.PW20/C.
32. ASI Ashok Singh, CW-1 had executed the process u/s 82 Cr.P.C against accused Amar. The documents proved by this witness regarding the same are Ex.CW1/A to Ex.CW1/C.
33. HC Ashwini Chauhan, had executed process u/s 82 against accused Pawan. The documents proved by this witness are Ex.CW1/A to Ex.CW1/D.
34. The prosecution evidence was followed by the Statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. During their statement, the entire incriminating evidence and circumstances were put to the accused persons. However, the accused persons denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded innocence. They explained in sync that they were innocent but were falsely implicated due to enmity.
Digitally
signed by
BABRU
BABRU BHAN
BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11
17:42:23
+0530
Page 11 of 31
(Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.
FIR No. 386/201735. Accused Amar did not opt to lead any defense evidence. Although, accused Pawan had expressed his willingness to lead defense evidence but neither any list of defense witnesses or documents was ever filed nor any submission was ever made for seeking opportunity to lead defense evidence.
36. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments. This Court has already heard the final arguments on behalf of Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Defense Counsel. Now, this Court proceeds with the Judgment.
37. One of the charge framed against both the accused persons is for offence u/s 174A IPC. The prosecution has claimed that proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the accused Amar and same were duly executed by ASI Ashok Singh. To prove the proper execution of the proceedings, ASI Ashok Singh has been examined to prove the documents Ex.CW1/A to Ex.CW1/E. Since, Accused Amar failed to appear within the stipulated period, he was declared "Proclaimed Offender" on 27.07.2024. As per the prosecution, the aforesaid absence of accused Amar brought his conduct in the purview of section 174A IPC.
38. Similarly, process u/s 82 Cr.P.C was issued against accused Pawan and same was duly executed by HC Ashwini. The report and other documents regarding the execution are Ex.CW1/A to Ex.CW1/D. Accused Pawan also failed to appear before the Court within the stipulated period and he was also declared a "Proclaimed Offender"
Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11 17:42:26 +0530 Page 12 of 31 (Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.FIR No. 386/2017
on 19.09.2024. Hence, he has also been charged for offence u/s 174A IPC.
39. The offence u/s 174A IPC is completed when a person against whom process u/s 82 Cr.P.C is executed fails to appear on the stipulated date and time. Here in this case, such offence was completed against accused Prem Nath @ Pawan on 14.12.2023, when he failed to appear before the Court after execution of precess u/s 82 Cr.P.C.
40. Similarly, offence u/s 174A IPC was completed against accused Amar on 25.04.2024, when he did not appear before the Court on stipulated date and time.
41. So, although both the accused persons were declared Proclaimed Offender after BNS and BNSS came into force but the offence u/s 174A IPC was already completed much before that. Therefore, the procedure and manner of taking cognizance stipulated u/s 195 Cr.P.C shall apply.
42. Recently, in case titled as Amandeep Gill & Anr vs The State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi, Delhi High Court 2024, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has made following relevant observations regarding the offence u/s 174A IPC:
"12.12. Be that as it may, it is unmistakably evident that the omission of Section 174-A from the purview of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as a mere inadvertent oversight. It gets more particularly obvious, when viewed through the lens Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11 17:42:24 +0530 Page 13 of 31 (Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.FIR No. 386/2017
of the deliberate simultaneous legislative action taken to amend Schedule-1. This deliberate choice to eschew any alteration in Section 195 Cr.P.C. while making concurrent changes elsewhere in the same Code suggests a level of intentionality that cannot be readily discounted. ... 12.15. Nevertheless, even if we were to entertain the notion that the non-exclusion of Section 174-A of IPC from the purview of Section 195 Cr.P.C. was by an inadvertent oversight/omission in the legislation, it is crucial to recognize that any benefit arising from such an inadvertence or oversight would accrue to the advantage of the accused, rather than the prosecution. In the realm of criminal jurisprudence, matters pertaining to personal liberty hold a paramount position. Such matters pertaining to personal liberty should never be predicated upon inferences drawn against the accused from presumed intentions and/or inadvertent omissions on the part of the legislature. The sanctity of personal liberty demands nothing less than clear and categorical legislative provisions ensuring that justice is not compromised by inferences drawn against the accused from legislative ambiguity or oversights. 12.16. In conclusion, it is held that Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), in its present form, encompasses Section 174-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) within its purview."
43. It is the settled legal position that where the law bars any court from taking cognizance of an offence except on a complaint filed in particular manner, such Court is precluded from taking cognizance in any other manner. Since the offence u/s 174A IPC, as interpreted above by Hon'ble High Court, falls in the ambit of Section 195 Cr.P.C, the cognizance can be taken only on a complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. made by the Court, which has declared the accused as a Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11 17:42:23 +0530 Page 14 of 31 (Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.FIR No. 386/2017
proclaimed offender u/s 82 Cr.P.C. The record of this case would reveal that this Court had declared both the accused persons as "Proclaimed Offender". After their arrest, the same Court proceeded to frame charges for offence u/s 174A IPC without any complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C.
44. To the humble understanding of this Court, after the accused persons were arrested, the Court was supposed to make a complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C to Ld. CJM. However, no such complaint was ever made. Since, the procedure followed and the cognizance of offence u/s 174A IPC was not as per law, the entire proceedings against the accused persons for offence u/s 174A IPC are vitiated. Therefore, the accused persons cannot be convicted for offence u/s 174A IPC. They are accordingly acquitted from the charges for the offence u/s 174A IPC.
45. Now, coming towards the offence of murder in question. Same was not witnessed by anyone. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The important aspects and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to prove the case against the accused shall be dealt with separately under the different headings for the sake of convenience and proper appreciation of the evidence. Before that, it would be appropriate to have a glance at the legal position as to the cases based on circumstantial evidence.
46. The law on the circumstantial evidence has been well settled. The principles of law governing the proof of a criminal charge by Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11 17:42:25 +0530 Page 15 of 31 (Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.FIR No. 386/2017
circumstantial evidence need hardly any reiteration. From the several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court available on the issue, the said principles can be summed up by stating that not only the prosecution must prove and establish the incriminating circumstance against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt but the said circumstances must give rise to only one conclusion to the exclusion of all others, namely, that it is the accused and nobody else who had committed the crime.
47. In case titled as Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) SC, the Apex Court has laid down following guiding principles while appreciating evidence in a case based upon circumstantial evidence :
i) The circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn should be fully established.
ii) The circumstances should be conclusive in nature.
iii) All the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and should also be in-
consistence with the innocence of the accused.
iv) The circumstances should, to a moral certainty, exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused."
48. While discussing the quality of evidence required in cases based upon circumstantial evidence, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has made following observations in case titled as Sameer @ Mustakim Vs. State, 2018, Delhi High Court :
"45. when a murder charge is to be proved solely on Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11 17:42:22 +0530 Page 16 of 31 (Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.FIR No. 386/2017
circumstantial evidence, as in this case, presumption of innocence of the accused must have a dominant role. In Nibaran Chandra Roy Vs. King Emperor, it was held that the fact that an accused person was found with a gun in his hand immediately after a gun was fired and a man was killed on the spot from which the gun was fired may be strong circumstantial evidence against the accused, but it is an error of law to hold that the burden of proving innocence lies upon the accused under such circumstances. It seems, therefore, to follow that whatever force a presumption arising u/s 106 of the Evidence Act may have in civil or less serious criminal cases, in trial for murder it is extremely weak comparison with the dominant presumption of innocence."
49. So, the burden to prove the circumstances from which an inference of guilt of the accused is sought to be drawn, always lies upon the prosecution. The circumstances should be of definite tendency conclusively pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Once the prosecution discharges the aforesaid burden, the role of presumption u/s 106 Indian Evidence Act comes into play. In the trial of serious cases like murder, this presumption is extremely weak in comparison with the dominant presumption of innocence.
50. In backdrop of the legal position as to the criminal cases based upon circumstantial evidence, the different important aspects of the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused are being examined as follows :
MOTIVE -
Digitally
signed by
BABRU
BABRU BHAN
BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11
17:42:24
+0530
Page 17 of 31
(Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.FIR No. 386/2017
51. As has been discussed above, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, there has to be a complete and unbreakable chain of events to prove the guilt of the accused. Where a series of circumstances are dependent on one another, they are to be read as one ingredient as a whole and not separately as it is not possible for the Court to truncate and break the chain of circumstances as the very concept of chain of circumstances would be defeated. In that event and where the circumstantial evidence consist of chain of circumstances linked with one another, the Court has to take cumulative evidence of the prosecution before acquitting and convicting the accused. Motive assumes importance in the case bases upon circumstantial evidence for it is motive which complete the chain of events.
52. In Suresh Chandra Bahri vs State Of Bihar on 13 July, 1994, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has discussed the importance of motive as a compelling force to commit a crime. The relevant observations are :
"21.At the very outset we may mention that sometimes motive plays an important role and becomes a compelling force to commit a crime and therefore motive behind the crime is a relevant factor for which evidence may be adduced. A motive is something which prompts a person to form an opinion or intention to do certain illegal act or even a legal act but with illegal means with a view to achieve that intention. In a case where there is clear proof of motive for the commission of the crime it affords Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11 17:42:26 +0530 Page 18 of 31 (Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.FIR No. 386/2017
added support to the finding of the court that the accused was guilty of the offence charged with. But it has to be remembered that the absence of proof of motive does not render the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused nonetheless untrustworthy or unreliable because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to a certain course of action leading to the commission of the crime. In the present case before us the prosecution has adduced evidence that the appellant Suresh Bahri had strong motive to eliminate his wife and two children from his way which evidence has been accepted by both the courts below. We shall, therefore, have a look at the said evidence to see whether the two courts are justified or not in taking the view that the appellant Suresh Bahri had a strong motive to hatch a conspiracy with the assistance of the other two appellants, namely, Raj Pal Sharma and Gurbachan Singh to commit the murder of his wife and the two children."
53. Based upon the aforesaid preposition of law, this Court shall now examine the motive for the murder in question. Here in this case, the prosecution has claimed that deceased Madan Mohan was a widower. After death of his wife, he was living separately from his children. One lady Sunita used to work as a maid with deceased Madan Mohan. Over the period, deceased had developed intimacy with Sunita. Accused Pawan is the son of Sunita and he was harbouring anger against deceased Madan Mohan for the illicit relationship with his mother. For that reason, he alongwith his friend Amar killed the deceased.
Digitally
signed by
BABRU
BABRU BHAN
BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11
17:42:25
+0530
Page 19 of 31
(Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.
FIR No. 386/201754. To prove the alleged motive, the prosecution has first placed reliance upon the statement of Ajay, PW-3 who was residing in the neighbourhood of the deceased. This witness deposed in his examination-in-chief that one maid namely Sunita was working in the house of deceased and accused Pawan is son of Sunita. He further stated that accused Pawan also used to visit the house of deceased oftenly. Beside the above statement, PW-3 did not say anything regarding any verbal altercation or any other dispute between the deceased and Pawan. During cross-examination, a suggestion was put to PW-3 regarding the nature of relationship between father of the accused Pawan and the deceased upon which the witness replied that on some occasions, he had seen the father of the accused Pawan and the deceased exchanging hot words. Another suggestion was given to the witness about some casual incidents of altercation between accused Pawan and the deceased on the issue of payment of e-rickshaw which deceased had bought for the father of the accused Pawan. Witness admitted having witnessed some of such incidents. PW-3 further stated during his cross-examination that deceased never told him about any threat to his life from the accused persons.
55. So, it appears from the statement of PW-3 that although accused Pawan was a frequent visitor to the house of the deceased but he never indulged in any altercation with the deceased on the issue of the alleged relationship of the deceased with the mother of the accused. Although, there were some incidents of exchange of hot Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11 17:42:23 +0530 Page 20 of 31 (Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.FIR No. 386/2017
words between accused Pawan and the deceased but same were not on the issue of the relationship of the deceased with the mother of accused Pawan. These were the minor altercations on the issue of non-payment of the e-rickshaw which the deceased had purchased for the father of accused Pawan. Further, the very fact that the deceased had purchased e-rickshaw for the father of the accused Pawan indicates that relationship between the deceased and family of the accused Pawan were not that bad. The deceased was actually helping the family of the accused Pawan. Further, had the accused Pawan been against the relationship of his mother and the deceased, he would not have been a frequent visitor to the house of the deceased. It is also relevant to note that besides some isolated incidents of exchange of hot words on the issue of the payment of e-rickshaw, most of these visits were peaceful. So, as far as testimony of PW-3 is concerned, same does not prove any strong motive against accused Pawan for which he could have murdered the deceased.
56. The second relevant witness for the motive of the murder in question is Sanjay Verma PW-6 (son of the deceased). This witness has also deposed in his examination-in-chief that his father was residing separately from them and they had also heard that his father had developed illicit relations with a said lady. They advised their father to end his relations with the lady but he would not listen. PW-6 has further deposed that he had seen accused Pawan at the room of his father on some occasions when he visited there. It is Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11 17:42:21 +0530 Page 21 of 31 (Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.FIR No. 386/2017
relevant to note that PW-6 has expressly admitted in his examination-in-chief that he never saw accused Pawan giving threats to his father.
57. In statement recorded on 06.04.2018, Sanjay Verma PW-6, had stated that he never saw accused Pawan advancing threats to his father but when he appeared for his further examination on 09.04.2018, he changed his statement and went to state that accused Pawan was against the relationship of his mother with the deceased and his father had also told him once that accused Pawan had threatened him for having relationship with his mother. So, in his statement recorded on 09.04.2018, PW-6 made material improvement on the aspect that accused Pawan was not happy with the relationship between his mother and the deceased. Had any such threat ever been advanced by accused Pawan to the deceased, PW-6 would have definitely mentioned about the same on 06.04.2018, when he had stated that he had never seen accused Pawan giving any threat to his father.
58. Further, in his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C, PW-6 had stated to the IO that his father was residing separately and his other siblings had completely cut off their relationship with his father due to his conduct. Despite having four children, the deceased was living separately. Considering the strained relationship between the deceased and his children, it is hard to believe that deceased would talk with PW-6 about his relationship with Sunita and attitude of her son Pawan towards him on account of the said relationship. Thus, Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11 17:42:26 +0530 Page 22 of 31 (Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.FIR No. 386/2017
this Court is of the opinion that statement of PW-6 also does not prove anything material regarding the motive for which accused Pawan could have murdered the deceased.
59. Rohit Kumar PW-18, is the landlord who had rented out the room to the deceased. He has not stated anything about any behaviour of accused Pawan showing his enmity with deceased. There is nothing in his statement which can suggest that accused Pawan used to indulge in verbal or physical altercation with the deceased on account of his relationship with the mother of the accused Pawan. Statement of PW-18 in fact proves that accused Pawan was a frequent and peaceful visitor to the residence of deceased Madan Mohan. There was no enmity or rancour between them. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove any strong motive for which accused Pawan and his friend Amar could have murdered the deceased.
LAST SEEN EVIDENCE
60. The second circumstance which the prosecution has sought to prove against the accused persons is that they were the last persons seen in the company of the deceased. To prove this circumstance, the prosecution has placed heavy reliance on the statement of PW3, Ajay Kumar. He has deposed in his court statement that in the night of 20.07.2017, at about 11:00-11:30 PM, he had seen accused Pawan and Amar in the room of the deceased. From next day onwards, the room of the deceased was found locked. On Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11 17:42:25 +0530 Page 23 of 31 (Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.FIR No. 386/2017
22.07.2017, witness felt a strong smell coming out of the room of the deceased. The police and son of the landlord were informed and body of the deceased was recovered. The postmortem of the body was conducted on 23.07.2017 and as per postmortem report Ex.
PW15/A, the death of the deceased had occurred three days prior to the date of postmortem. So, the postmortem report would be sufficient to establish that death of the deceased had occurred in the intervening night of 20.07.217 and 21.07.2017. The only question which now remains is that whether the version given by PW-3 that he had seen the accused persons in the room of the deceased in the intervening night of 20-21.07.2017, is truthful or not. Second question is that even if it is believed that PW-3 had seen the accused persons in the room of the deceased in the intervening night of 20- 21.07.2017, is that sufficient to conclude that none other than the accused persons had committed the murdered of the deceased.
61. Starting with the truthfulness of the version of PW-3 that he had seen the accused persons in the room of the deceased on 20.07.2017. PW-3 has also stated that the room of the deceased remained locked for two days till 22.07.2017 and police was informed in the morning of 22.07.2017, when a foul smell started coming out of the room. He has further deposed that police came at the spot and conducted inquiry from him and recorded his statement on the same day.
62. Now, if PW-3 was present at the spot when police arrived, the presence of the accused persons in the room of the deceased in the Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11 17:42:24 +0530 Page 24 of 31 (Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.FIR No. 386/2017
late hours of the night of 20.07.2017, at about 11:30 PM, was a very important fact which PW-3 must have told the police. In that eventuality, the accused persons who were last seen with the deceased would have been the prime suspect. Further, after the aforesaid disclosure about the presence of the accused persons, the first IO would have prepared the rukka on the statement of PW-3. However, PW-12 ASI Harkesh had prepared the rukka Ex.PW12/A on DD no-65B. The fact that rukka was prepared on DD No-65B indicates that initially the murder was being considered as a blind murder and no such information about presence of the accused persons in the room of the deceased was given to the police. Had PW-3 had disclosed anything about the presence of the accused persons, the rukka would have been prepared on his statement and not on DD. This fact that rukka was prepared on DD raises serious doubt that PW-3 had told anything about the presence of accused persons in the room of the deceased in the night of 20.07.2017. It is possible that this story of presence of the accused persons was subsequently fabricated.
63. Second fact which would raise further doubt on the case of the prosecution and truthfulness of PW-3 is the place where the key of the house of the deceased was found. In his examination-in-chief, PW-3 stated that key was found near curtain (probably he wanted to say under the footmat) of the room. PW-6 has also stated that the room of the deceased was opened with a key which was found beneath the footmat lying outside the room. HC Amrik Singh PW-9 Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11 17:42:21 +0530 Page 25 of 31 (Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.FIR No. 386/2017
has also deposed that ASI Harkesh picked up the key of the room from the steps in front of the room and opened the lock. HC Satender PW-11 has deposed that bunch of keys was found lying at the outside gate of the room and the door of the room was opened with the help of the keys. ASI Harkesh PW-12 has made the same statement regarding the position of the key.
64. So, all the witnesses who were first to visit the room of the deceased have deposed in sync that the key of the room was found lying outside and the lock was opened with the help of the key. However, a strong suspicion on this version of everybody discussed above is created by another version given by PW-3 during his cross- examination conducted on 03.04.2018, wherein he stated that the keys of the room of the deceased was found lying in front of his room covered under the door curtain. PW-3 further stated that he picked the keys and had placed the same on his refrigerator which was lying on the same floor. So, since PW-3 had removed the key which was lying beneath the door mat and had placed it on the refrigerator, how on earth it was found beneath the door mat by the police. If this version of PW-3 is to be believed, it indicates towards two possibilities. First is that someone picked up the keys from the refrigerator and opened the room and thereafter placed it under the footmat. In that situation, involvement of some third person cannot be ruled out. Second situation may be is that all the police witnesses are lying and key of the room was handed over to the police by PW-3 but this fact was deliberately concealed for the reasons best Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11 17:42:21 +0530 Page 26 of 31 (Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.FIR No. 386/2017
known to the police witnesses. Thus, the aforesaid discrepancies about the keys would further raise doubt on the case of the prosecution.
65. Further, since the room from which foul smell was emitting was locked and keys were found outside, the proper course of action for the investigating officer should have been to call the crime team and to get the chance-prints lifted from the lock and the key. However, no such efforts were made by ASI Harkesh PW-12. He himself opened the lock with the key. This carelessness of ASI Harkesh PW-12 resulted into destruction of a very strong piece of evidence.
66. In view of the discussions above, firstly, the very fact that PW-3 had seen the accused persons in the room of the deceased in the intervening night of 20-21.07.2017 appears to be unreliable because had he seen them in the room of the deceased in the intervening night of 20-21.07.2017, then he must have told the said facts to the IO when IO visited the spot in the morning of 22.07.2017. In that eventuality, rukka would have been prepared on the statement of PW-3 and not on DD no-65B. The fact that rukka was prepared on DD no-65B indicates towards the possibility that no such version was given by PW-3 on that day. It is possible that this version of having seen the accused persons in the room of the deceased by PW-3 was subsequently fabricated. Secondly, even if it is believed that PW-3 had seen the accused persons in the room of the deceased in the intervening night of 20-21.07.2017, the confusion regarding Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11 17:42:25 +0530 Page 27 of 31 (Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.FIR No. 386/2017
the place from where the key was found would create a strong possibility of opening of the room by some third person. In that case, the possibility of involvement of third person shall also come into picture. So, even if it is believed that PW-3 had seen the accused persons in the room of the deceased in the night of 20- 21.07.2017, it will not prove unerringly that only the accused persons and none else committed the murder of the deceased.
67. One more evidence which the prosecution has sought to use to prove the guilt of the accused persons is the recovery of a gamcha which the IO had seized vide memo Ex.PW12/H. In light of the recovery of gamcha, an argument has been made on behalf of the prosecution that accused Prem Nath @ Pawan had disclosed in his disclosure statement that this gamcha was used for strangulating the deceased.
68. In case titled as Digamber Vaishnav & Anr. Versus State of Chhattisgarh: (2019) 4 SCC 522, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India made following observations on the relevancy of recovery:
"29. The second circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the evidence of recovery. Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is not the discovery of every fact that is admissible but the discovery of relevant fact is alone admissible. Relevancy is nothing but the connection or the link between the facts discovered with the crime. The recovery of the motorcycle is sought to be relied upon as a circumstance against the Appellants. There is nothing on record to show that the motorcycle recovered at the Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11 17:42:24 +0530 Page 28 of 31 (Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.FIR No. 386/2017
instance of Appellant No. 1, belongs to him. PW-13, IO, in his cross-examination admits that he does not know whether the Appellant No. 1 is the owner of the motorcycle. He further admits that no attempts were made by him to enquire about the owner of the vehicle."
69. It has been clarified by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid case that it is not every recovery which is relevant u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act. The recovery must be of a relevant fact. Relevancy is nothing but nexus between the fact recovered and the crime in question. Here in this case, the case projected by the prosecution is that a gamcha was recovered vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/H, at instance of accused Prem Nath @ Pawan. Accused disclosed in his disclosure statement that this gamcha was used in commission of the crime to strangulate the deceased. Besides the disclosure statement, there is nothing on record which can show that this gamcha was used to strangulate the deceased. There is no scientific evidence in this regard. No efforts were made by the IO to send the gamcha to the FSL to find out the traces of tissues of the deceased upon it or the fibre of the gamcha upon the neck of the deceased. Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish the link between the gamcha and the offence in question. There is no evidence on record to prove that gamcha was the material which was used as ligature to strangulate the deceased. Thus, the recovery of the gamcha is also irrelevant.
70. The conclusion of the above discussion is that prosecution has sought to prove the guilt of the accused persons through three Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11 17:42:25 +0530 Page 29 of 31 (Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.FIR No. 386/2017
circumstances. First is the motive that deceased was having illicit relations with the mother of the accused Pawan and due to the same, he was carrying grudge against the deceased. However, the prosecution has failed to prove this motive. The witnesses have deposed that accused Pawan was a regular visitor to the house of the deceased but besides some minor verbal altercations on the issue of the payment of the e-rickshaw, none had ever seen him arguing with the deceased on issue of the alleged relationship. Thus, no strong motive has been proved by the prosecution.
71. Second circumstance is that PW-3 had last seen the accused persons in the room of the deceased. On this circumstance, firstly, it appears that PW-3 did not tell anything about the presence of accused persons in the room of the deceased in the night of 20- 21.07.2017 to the IO on 22.07.2017. Had any such information been given by PW-3 to the IO, then FIR would have been registered on that statement and not on DD No-65B. Thus, possibility cannot be ruled out that the story of presence of accused persons was subsequently fabricated.
72. Lastly, police witnesses have stated that the lock of the house of the deceased was opened with a key which was found lying outside the room. This stand of the police is demolished by PW-3 when he stated that he had picked up the key lying outside the room of the deceased and put it on the refrigerator which was lying on the same floor. Thus, it was never clarified that who had the possession of keys with which the door was opened. If the version of PW-3 is to Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11 17:42:23 +0530 Page 30 of 31 (Judgment) State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr.FIR No. 386/2017
be believed then it is also possible that someone picked up the keys from the refrigerator, used it for opening the door and thereafter threw it in front of the room. In that case, involvement of some third person cannot be ruled out. So, even if it is believed that PW-3 had seen the accused persons in the room of the deceased in the night of 20-21.07.2017, it cannot be considered a conclusive proof of the fact that only they had committed the murder of the deceased and none else. Possibility of involvement of some third person cannot be ruled out.
73. In nutshell, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. There are multiple doubts in the case of the prosecution. By extending the benefit of doubt, both the accused persons are acquitted from the charge of offence u/s 302/34 IPC also.
74. Ordered accordingly.
Announced in open Digitally Court on 11th September, 2025. signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
2025.09.11 17:42:43 +0530 ( BABRU BHAN) ASJ-04, N/E KKD COURT DELHI/ 11.09.2025 Digitally signed by BABRU BABRU BHAN BHAN Date:
State Vs. Prem Nath Bhardwaj & Anr. 2025.09.11 17:42:26 +0530 Page 31 of 31