Delhi District Court
State vs Surender Kumar on 15 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI BANSAL,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02, SOUTH-WEST
DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 726/2018)
FIR No. 126/18
Police Station Dwarka South
Charge-sheet filed under Sections 302/201 IPC
Charges framed against accused U/s 302/ 2 0 1 / 3 4 IPC
Mamta
Charges framed against accused U/s 201/34 IPC
Surender
Charges framed against accused U/s 201/34 IPC
Chanu Paswan
State VERSUS 1. Surender Kumar
S/o Sh. Babu Ram
R/o H.No. B-234,
Bagdola Village, Dwarka,
New Delhi.
2. Ms. Mamta
W/o Sh. Surender Kumar
R/o H.No. B-234,
Bagdola Village, Dwarka,
New Delhi.
3. Chanu Paswan
S/o Late. Sh. Chathu Paswan
R/o H.No. B-192,
Bagdola Village Dwarka,
New Delhi. ... Accused persons
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 1 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:05 +0530
Date of Institution of case 06.09.2018
Case committed to Court of Sessions 11.09.2018
Judgment reserved on 15.07.2025
Judgment pronounced on 15.07.2025
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons namely Mamta, Surender and Chanu Paswan are facing trial for the offences alleged to be committed under section 302/201/34 IPC. Mamta is accused of committing murder of Karan on 25.04.2018 at about 5:30 PM, at Khasra No. 499/500, Gali no. 19, Sadh Nagar, Dwarka, New Delhi. It is further alleged that the accused person Surender and Chanu Paswan along with Mamta after commission of murder has disposed of the dead body of deceased Karan near boundary wall of SPG Complex so as to screen themselves from the legal punishment.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under: -
(a) The story of the prosecution is that on 08.05.2018 at about 7:15 P.M on receipt of DD No. 31 A, ASI Lal Chand and Ct. Sandeep Kumar reached near boundary wall of SPG Complex where Inspector Ashok Kumar, Ct. Rajesh Kumar and Ct. Som Dutt were found present on the spot. A colorful brown printed quilt was lying in the middle of the grass and bushes, in which the deceased was visible. The body seemed to have been composed. And the quilt was tied with pink chunni and green cloth. Body was FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 2 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:01 +0530
smelling bad. The dead body was lifted along with the quilt and kept on the pavement, on opening the quilt, it was found that the body was infested with maggots and his bones were visible. The deceased was tall about 5`6" and his age would be about 25-
30 years, there was no flesh on the face. The dead body was tied with a colorful plastic rope. Only the bones were visible, deceased was wearing a full sleeved shirt which had black stripe and a black pant. There was a sticker of Muskan on back pocket of the pant. Due to decomposition the body was appearing separated from the stomach as if it got divided into two parts. Deceased was wearing a green color band in the right hand. True Friend was written on the plastic band.
(b) Crime team was called and the inspection and photographs of the spot were taken and the search of the pants and shirt was carried out, but no identification material could be recovered. Despite a lot of effort, the dead body could not be identified and a request was prepared to send the dead body to Mortuary, DDU Hospital under supervision of Ct. Som Dutt. ASL Lal Chand prepared a Tahrir and Ct. Sandeep was sent to the police station to get the case registered.
(c) On the registration of the case Ct. Sandeep handed over rukka to Inspector Ashok Kumar. IO seized green color cloth (which was part of a pajami) by FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 3 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:02 +0530
which the quilt was tied up vide seizure memo. The colorful plastic rope having some black spots by which the dead body was tied inside the quilt was also seized by IO in a plastic ploythene. Thereafter, IO seized the printed quilt having light pink color, pink chunni and a loi of military color. Blackish spots were found chunni. IO also seized hair extracted from the quilt in which body was tied up and prepared site plan of the spot. IO seized the earth control from the spot. IO Inspector Ashok Kumar seized the printed quilt having light pink color, pink chunni and a lohi of military color. Blackish spots were found on chunni. The colorful plastic rope having some black spots by which the dead body was tied inside the quilt was also seized by him in a plastic polythene. He also seized one part of green color pajami and also seized hair extracted from the quilt in which body was tied up. Case properties were deposited in malkhana of PS Dwarka South. Statement of ASI Satpal (I/c Crime Team), HC Suresh (Photographer, Crime Team), Const. Rajesh, Const. Som Dutt, ASI Lal Chand, Const. Sandeep were recorded.
(d) On next day i.e. 09.05.2018, IO Inspector Ashok Kumar completed the identification process of deceased, issued hue and cry notice and had also given the information to missing person cell, details of deceased uploaded on gypnet, CBI/NCRB were FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 4 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:05 +0530
informed, wireless message was flashed. In
different police stations of Dwarka District, hue and cry notice were pasted. He also recorded statement of Inspector Prashant Rana, I/c Security, SPG, and HC Vellu Chamma, I/c QRT (SPG). On 06.06.2018, investigation of this case was transferred to Inspector Mukesh Kumar of PS Dwarka South.
(e) On 06.06.2018, one Rajesh Vishwakarma alongwith his son Vikas arrived at PS in search his missing son Karan. They have also handed over the IO Inspector Mukesh Kumar a photograph of his missing son Karan. IO Inspector Mukesh Kumar shown the photographs of the deceased of this case to Rajesh who identified the deceased as his son Karan. His statement u/s 161 CrPC was recorded by him. IO Inspector Mukesh Kumar alongwith other police staff visited to E-342, Gali No. 19, Sadh Nagar Part-2, Palam, where owner of the house namely Urmila was called, who stated that on ground floor in 2 rooms, one Mamta with her family including deceased Karan were residing but all of sudden, they left the said house. IO recorded statement u/s 161 CrPC of Urmila and other known persons of deceased Karan and also analyzed the CDR of deceased Karan and Mamta.
(f) On 09.06.2018, IO alongwith SI Vikas, Const.
Rajesh and W-Const. Manju reached at B-234, Sector-8, Bagdola, where accused Mamta and her FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 5 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:03 +0530
husband Surender were found present and accused Surender and Mamta were was arrested after questioning. Accused Chanu Paswan was also arrested at the instance of accused Mamta and Surender. After completion of investigation, IO filed the charge-sheet before the court.
3. During investigations of the case, statement of witnesses were recorded. On the basis of investigation, all the accused persons were charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 302/201/34 IPC.
4. Vide order dated 15.12.2018, charge for the offence punishable U/s 302 IPC was framed against accused Mamta and charge for the offence punishable u/s 201/34 IPC was also framed against accused Mamta, Surender and Chanu Paswan to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. To prove its case, prosecution examined 28 witnesses. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses along with its nature has been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
6. PW-1 Dr. Komal Singh deposed that on 24.05.2018, she conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Unknown, aged about 25-30 years, male on the request of Inspector Ashok Kumar vide his request letter Ex.PW1/A and inquest documents total 15 in number. She started conducting the PM at about 1:00 p.m to 2.30 p.m. After the post mortem, the apparent cause of death was asphyxia secondary to pressure over neck, injuring the hyoid bone of the neck and is sufficient to cause death in ordinary FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 6 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:02 +0530
course of nature. The time since death was about 2 weeks prior to the deposition of the body in the mortuary. The upper incisor teeth of right side and cloth were packed and sealed with the seal of 'PM DDUH' and handed over the same to IO. She gave her detailed postmortem report Ex.PW1/A.
7. PW-2 Ms. Urmila deposed that in the year 2018, accused Mamta alongwith her husband Surender with her devar namely Karan with two children were residing as a tenant. Two rooms of ground floor were given to them on Rs. 4600/-. They resided as tenant for 7-8 months in the year 2018. In the month of April-May they left her house where Mamta and her husband resided as tenant and went to Bagdola. IO recorded her statement.
8. PW-3 ASI Satpal deposed that on 08.05.2018 at about 7:30 P.M he received a message from Control Room. Thereafter he alongwith HC Suresh (photographer) and Ct. Amit (Proficient) reached at the spot i.e. near NSG boundary wall, Sector 8 Dwarka. Thereafter they inspected the spot till 8:30 PM. HC Suresh clicked the photographs of the spot at different angle of dead body. He prepared inspection report of the spot Ex. PW3/A and report was handed over to the IO. IO recorded his statement.
9. PW-4 Rajesh Vishwakarma deposed that he is labourer and used to ply rickshaw. He had four sons and four daughters. Deceased Karan was his eldest son, who was working at the shop of Jain Paneer Bhandar in Palam Village. His son Karan was residing in Sadh Nagar with Surender and FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 7 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:03 +0530
Mamta. Karan used to visit them and they also used to visit him. They also used to talk on phone. One day, he found the mobile phone of Karan switched off. He went to meet him but he was not found present at his house. He inquired from his landlord who informed that he had left from the room since long but he replied that Karan had not reached to their house. Even accused Mamta was also not found there. Neither accused Surender was there. Thereafter, he tried to locate his son everywhere for 2-3 days. He went to the house of Mamta at Bagdola where her parents were living. From the vicinity, he came to know that one dead body was lying in DDA park about one month prior to his visit at Village Bagdola. Thereafter he went to PS Dwarka South on 06.05.2018 and asked about the said dead body. In the police station, police showed him the cloths and photographs of his son Karan and on the built up he identified the cloths and photograph of Karan. He is sure that his son was murdered by accused Mamta and her husband-Surender. His blood was taken by the police during investigation for the purposes of DNA. This witness identified the clothes as Ex P1 (colly).
10. PW-5 Narendra Singh deposed that he is running shop of paneer supply in the name of New Choudhary Enterprises at Raj Nagar-II. Karan (since deceased), son of Rajesh Kumar, worked at his shop for about 20 days. Prior to that he was working with Jain Paneer, at Palam Phatak. Deceased was residing at Sadh Nagar. On 24.04.2018 at about 4 p.m, he (Karan) came to his shop and told him FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 8 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:00 +0530
that he is going to his native village due to some urgent work and will come on the next day. He (Karan) took Rs. 500/- from him. Thereafter, he left his shop on his bike. He was in contact with Karan and on 25.04.2018 at about 5- 5.30 p.m, he talked to him lastly. He (Karan) told him that he will not be coming now and the call got disconnected. Thereafter, Karan never had a talk with him. IO recorded his statement.
11. PW-6 Lakhmi Chand deposed that he is running a Paneer Shop by the name of 'Jain Paneer Bhandar' at Palam Fatak, Near Railway Crossing. In November 2017, one boy was working in his shop but he has forgotten his name. The said boy had started working in his shop 2-3 years prior to the year 2017, who had worked in his shop around 2½ years. He know the accused person present in the Court who was visiting his shop to meet the boy who was working in his shop. He does not have any talk with the accused Surender. Police carried out inquiry from him in connection with this case. His statement was recorded by the police. The boy who was working in his shop had died but he does not know how he had died. One day accused Surender came to him at around 08.30 PM and told him that tongue of said boy was out of his mouth. He suggested the accused to take him to the hospital. He is not aware if that boy was taken to the hospital by Surender or not. He came to know the fact that said boy had died in the police station when he was called there for investigation.
Since PW-6 resiled from his version, he was cross-
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 9 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:08 +0530
examined on behalf of State wherein he stated that police carried out investigation and recorded his statement on 08.06.2018. He informed to the police that the boy who was working in his shop and died, his name was Karan. Karan came to work in his shop in November 2017 and left the job in March 2018. He had informed to the police that he had seen Karan lastly in the intervening night of 22nd - 23rd April, 2018 outside his shop. He told the police that in the last days of April 2018, accused Surender, cousin of Karan came to his shop. Accused Surender came to his shop after 2-3 days and told him that he had taken Karan to hospital, who is fine now and had gone to his native place. He forgot the name and other instances because of lapse of time. PW-6 denied the other suggestions put to him on behalf of State.
12. PW-7 Ravinder deposed that he was working as Supervisor in SPG complex on behalf of Rakshak Security Pvt. Ltd company. Their company has employed 63 Housekeeping Staff in the SPG complex w.e.f. 01.06.2018. Accused Surender was also working in that complex for sweeping leafs etc. On 06.06.2018, at about 2.00 pm, he noticed that accused was not talking to them in the lunch break. On that day, accused left the work place at about 3.45 pm, whose duty hours were from 7.00 am to 4.00 pm. Accused deposited his gate pass and went to his house. After that day, accused did not return to the work nor he picked our call. On being asked leading question by Ld. Addl. P.P for State, PW-7 further stated that he is not sure about the gate FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 10 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:06 +0530
pass as the gate pass is used to be collected by the gate keeper at the gate of SPG Complex and not by him, from the accused. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel.
13. PW-8 HC Yogesh deposed that on 08.05.2018, he was assigned duties of Duty Officer. On that date, he received rukka from Const. Sandeep sent by ASI Lal Chand. He gone through the rukka and made his endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW8/A. Thereafter, he registered the present FIR. Copy of FIR and original rukka were handed over to Const. Sandeep for handing it over to IO Inspector Ashok Kumar for further investigation. Copy of FIR is proved as Ex.PW8/B. He further stated that he also issued certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW8/C. On 08.05.2018, at about 7.15 pm, he received a telephonic information from G-53 Operation who informed that one dead body is lying outside the boundary wall of SPG gate, Dwarka Sector-8, which he reduced into writing vide DD No. 31A Ex.PW8/D. After writing DD, same was marked to ASI Lal Chand for further necessary action.
14. PW-9 ASI Suresh deposed that on 08.05.2018, he was assigned duty of government photographer in Mobile Crime Team. At about 7.30 pm, on receiving information from Control Room, he alongwith Incharge Crime Team ASI Satpal reached at the spot i.e. near boundary wall, SPG Complex, on a road towards Shahbad, Dwarka Sector-8. They reached at the spot at about 8.00 pm and inspected the site till 8.30 pm. During inspection, on the FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 11 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:06 +0530
direction of IO ASI Lal Chand, he clicked 22 photographs of dead body and the spot from different angels from government digital camera. Later on, after developing photographs Ex PW 9/A-1 to A-22, the same were handed over to the IO. Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act regarding the photographs is proved as Ex.PW9/B. IO recorded his statement.
15. PW-10 HC Rajesh Kumar deposed that on 08.05.2018, he and Ct. Som Dutt were on patrolling duty, then at around 07:10 pm, during the patrol, it was reported that a dead body was lying in Sec-8, Dwarka on the road leading to Shahabad, near the boundary wall of SPG Complex. On information he and Ct. Som Dutt went to the spot where crowd was gathered. They met ASI Lal Chand and Ct. Sandeep at the spot. On the spot a brown printed quilt was lying between the grass and bushes, in which head of the deceased was visible. Foul smell was coming out of dead body. The quilt was tied with pink and green color cloth. The dead body was in decomposed condition infested with maggots. Bones of face of deceased were visible. Deceased was wearing white shirt and black pant. There was sticker of 'Muskan' on the back side pocket of his pant. Due to decomposition, the body was lying in two parts. Deceased was wearing a green color band on his hand in which 'true friend' was written. Crime Team reached at the spot and inspected the dead body. Photographs of the body were taken. Search of the pants and shirt was carried out but the identity was not FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 12 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:09 +0530
established. No item was recovered from the dead body. Despite lot of efforts, the dead body could not be identified and after preparing a request, the dead body was sent Mortuary, DDU Hospital under supervision of Ct. Somdutt. Thereafter, he was called to the Police Station by the Duty Officer. Duty Officer HC Yogesh Kumr gave him Special Report of above case to give to Ld. MM, Joint CP and DCP, Dwarka. Thereafter, his statement was recorded in this regard. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel.
16. PW-11 SI Lal Chand deposed that in year 2018, he was posted as ASI in Dwarka South Police Station. On 08.05.2018, his emergency duty was from 08.00 AM to 08.00 PM, at 07.15 PM on getting D.D. No. 31 A, he and Ct. Sandeep Kumar reached near boundary wall of SPG Complex where Inspector Ashok Kumar, Ct. Rajesh Kumar and Ct. Som Dutt were found present on the spot. A colorful brown printed quilt was lying in the middle of the grass and bushes, in which the deceased was visible. The body seemed to have been composed. And the quilt was tied with pink chunni and green cloth. Body was smelling bad. The dead body was lifted along with the quilt and kept on the pavement, on opening the quilt, it was found that the body was infested with maggots and his bones were visible. The deceased was tall about 5`6" and his age would be about 25-30 years, there was no flesh on the face. The dead body was tied with a colorful plastic rope. Only the bones were visible, deceased was wearing a FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 13 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:01 +0530
full sleeved shirt which had black stripe and a black pant. There was a sticker of Muskan on back pocket of the pant. Due to decomposition the body was appearing separated from the stomach as if it got divided into two parts. Deceased was wearing a green color band in the right hand. True Friend was written on the plastic band. Crime team was called and the inspection and photographs of the spot were taken and the search of the pants and shirt was carried out, but no identification material could be recovered. Despite a lot of effort, the dead body could not be identified and a request was prepared to send the dead body to Mortuary, DDU Hospital under supervision of Ct. Som Dutt. He prepared a Tehrir Ex PW 8/A and Ct. Sandeep. was sent to the police station to get the case registered. On the registration of the case Ct. Sandeep handed over rukka to Inspector Ashok Kumar. IO seized green color cloth ( which was part of a pajami) by which the quilt was tied up vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/A. The colorful plastic rope having some black spots by which the dead body was tied inside the quilt was also seized by IO in a plastic ploythene vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/B. Thereafter, IO seized the printed quilt having light pink color, pink chunni and a loi of military color. Blackish spots were found chunni. Seizure memo of the same is proved as Ex. PW11/C. IO also seized hair extracted from the quilt in which body was tied up vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/D. IO also prepared site plan of the spot.
PW-11 further deposed that IO also seized the earth FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 14 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:08 +0530
control from the spot vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/E. PW-11 identified the case property i.e. Pajami as Ex. P1, Pink chunni, military color loi and a light pink color quilt Ex. P-1/A, hair as now Ex. P-3, colorful plastic rope as Ex. P-4 and earth control as Ex. P-5. Thereafter, IO recorded his statement in this regard. This witness was cross- examined by Ld. defence counsel.
17. PW-12 Inspector Prashant Kumar Rana deposed that on 08.05.2018, he was on duty being on deputation from ITBP to SPG Sector-8, Dwarka, New Delhi and on that day he was discharging his official duty as Camp Security Incharge, Sector-8, Dwarka, from 07.00 AM to 07.00 PM and on that day QRT vehicle was with them for their security purpose and also for round the clock patrolling for SPG complex on which, HC Velu Chmmu (CRPF Unit) was on patrolling duty. At about 06.30 PM he was informed by HC Velu Chmmu that a dead body wrapped in quilt is lying near the wall of SPG complex. On the receipt of said information he had informed to his concerned senior officials and he along with them reached at the spot that is between pole number J-879 and J-880, where they found that a dead body wrapped in quilt was lying in the bushes near boundary wall of SPG Complex. Thereupon local police was informed on 100 number by him. Police came at the spot. His statement was recorded in this regard by the IO of this case.
18. PW-13 SI Vikas deposed that on 09.06.2018, he along with Inspector Mukesh Kumar, Ct. Rajesh Kumar W/Ct. Manju FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 15 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:00 +0530
with Driver and in Gypsy No. DL-1C-S-0509 went to search Surender and Mamta. At about 10.50 am, they parked the vehicle in front of H. No. B-234, Sec-B, Dwarka, New Delhi and went inside the house. A woman and man who were present in the house got scared on seeing them and started running. On suspicion they were overpowered. Their names were revealed as Surender Kumar and Mamta. They were arrested. Arrest memo of Surender Kumar is proved as Ex. PW13/A. Personal search memo of accused Surender is proved as Ex. PW13/A-1. IO also recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW13/A-2. IO also recorded disclosure statement of accused Mamta. A purse of the deceased Karan was recovered from the bushes from back side of the house no.B-234. In the purse some visiting cards and aadhar card of Karan was found. IO seized the same after sealing it with the seal of MKS vide seizure memo Ex. PW13/B. On information of accused Surender, accused Chanu Paswan was arrested from the house where Chanu was residing. Arrest memo of Chanu Paswan is proved as Ex.PW13/C. Personal search memo of accused Chanu Paswan is proved as Ex. PW13/C-1. IO also recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW13/C-2. At the instance of Chanu E- Rikshaw was recovered in which the dead body was taken. Seizure memo of E-rikshaw is proved as Ex. PW13/C-3. Accused Surender, Mamta and Chanu Paswan pointed out to the place where the dead body was disposed. IO prepared pointing out memo of the place of disposal of FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 16 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:07 +0530
dead body vide memo Ex. PW13/D, Ex. PW13/E and Ex. PW13/F. At the instance of accused Surender, a motorcycle of the deceased Karan bearing registration No. HR-26- AQ-7664 was seized which was parked on the backside of the platform near Shahabad Mohammadpur Railway gate. Seizure memo of motorcycle is proved as Ex. PW13/G. Thereafter, accused persons led them to the place of occurrence. Accused Surender and Mamta pointed out towards the place and stated that they murdered deceased Karan due to anger. Pointing out memo of accused Surender is proved as Ex. PW13/H. Pointing out memo of accused Mamta is proved as Ex. PW13/I. Accused persons were brought to the police station and sent to lockup. Again he joined the investigation of the case on 12.06.2018. Father of deceased Karan and brother of deceased Karan were taken by him to the DDU hospital for collection of their blood sample. In the hospital the Doctor handed over the blood sample of Rajesh father of deceased Karan vide seizure memo Ex. PW13/J. Doctor handed over the blood sample of brother of deceased Karan vide seizure memo Ex. PW13/K. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel.
19. PW-14 HC Pritam deposed that on 14.06.2018, he was posted as Constable at PS Dwarka South. On that day, on the instruction of the IO, he had collected six sealed pulandas alongwith one sample seal of "PMDDUH" and two sample seals of "DDUH CMO" from the MHC(M), vide RC No. 77/21/18 Ex.PW14/A and deposited the same FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 17 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:04 +0530
in FSL, Rohini. After depositing the same, he handed over the copy of acceptance of acknowledgement Ex.PW14/B to the MHC(M). So long as the exhibits remained in his custody, the same were not tampered in any manner whatsoever.
20. PW-15 HC Manju deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW-13 SI Vikas. She has also proved arrest memo of accused Mamta vide Ex PW 15/A, personal search memo of accused Mamta vide Ex PW 15/B and her disclosure statement vide Ex PW 15/C.
21. PW-16 Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd deposed that on the request of the IO, the then Nodal Officer Sh. Dev Kumar, has provided CDR, CAF and certificate U/s 65(b) Indian Evidence Act in respect of mobile no. 9899557149 for the period of 01.04.2018 till 01.05.2018. CDR and CAF of 9899557149 is already part of record Ex. PW16/A & B. Sh. Dev Kumar also provided to IO the copy of Election Identity card of customer namely Surender Kumar which was supplied at the time of applying for mobile number. Election Identity card of customer namely Surender Kumar is proved as Ex. PW16/C. Certificate U/s 65(B) Indian Evidence Act is proved as Ex. PW16/D.
22. PW-17 Sh. Ajay Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd.
deposed that on the request of the IO the then Nodal Officer Sh. Chandra Shekhar Tiwari has provided CDR, CAF in respect of mobile no. 9560661461 and 9958715184 for the period of 01.04.2018 till 01.05.2018.
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 18 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:08 +0530
CDR and CAF of 9560661461 is proved as Ex. PW17/A & B. As per the CAF name of the customer is Surendra Kumar S/o Sh. Babu Ram. CDR and CAF of 9958715184 is proved as Ex. PW17/C & D. As per the CAF name of the customer is Karan Sharma S/o Sh. Rajesh Sharma. Certificate U/s 65(B) Indian Evidence Act is already part of record in respect of mobile numbers 9560661461 and 9958715184, which is proved as Ex. PW17/E.
23. PW-18 ASI Hardeep Singh deposed that on 02.09.2018, he was posted as Assistant Draftsman at Mapping Section, South-West District, Sector 17 Dwarka. On that day he was called by Mukesh Kumar, ATO PS Dwarka South and he along with Inspector Mukesh Kumar reached at the place of incident i.e. road in front of DDA Park, D Block, Dwarka, Sector 8 where at the instance of IO, he took measurement of place of incident and prepared rough notes. Thereafter, on 10.09.2018, he prepared scaled site plan on the basis of said measurements noted in rough notes. Scaled site plan is proved as Ex. PW18/A. He handed over the same to IO and the rough notes were destroyed by him. His statement was recorded in this regard.
24. PW-19 SI (retired) Sohanvir Singh deposed that on 24.05.2018, on the directions of Inspector Ashok Kumar (the then SHO), he alongwith Const. Somdutt reached at mortuary of DDU Hospital in respect of present FIR. He got postmortem conducted on the dead body of unknown vide his request for postmortem Ex.PW19/A. After FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 19 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:08 +0530
conducting postmortem on the dead body of unknown, doctor concerned handed over him teeth of deceased in sealed condition sealed with the seal of "PM DDUH", which he taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/B. Doctor concerned also handed over him clothes of deceased in sealed condition sealed with the seal of "PM DDUH", which he taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/C. After conducting postmortem on the dead body of unknown, he got cremated the dead body at Nigam Bodh Ghat vide memo Ex.PW19/D. Thereafter, he came back to police station and case properties were deposited in malkhana. Case file was handed over to SHO concerned.
25. PW-20 Inspector Ashok Kumar deposed that on 08.05.2018, a PCR call regarding lying of a dead body at SPG Gate boundary wall, Dwarka Sector-8, was received in the police station vide DD No. 31A Ex.PW8/D, which was marked to ASI Lal Chand. On receipt of DD entry, ASI Lal Chand reached at the spot and he also reached the spot i.e. near boundary wall of SPG Complex, where ASI Lal Chand, Const. Sandeep, Const. Rajesh Kumar and Const. Som Dutt were found present, where a dead body of a male in highly decomposed position was found lying wrapped in a colorful brown printed quilt, in the middle of the grass and bushes. Quilt was tied with pink chunni and military color lohi (warm cloth like shawl). Crime Team was called at the spot. Body was smelling bad. The dead body was lifted alongwith the quilt and kept on the FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 20 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:04 +0530
pavement, on opening the quilt, it was found that the body was infested with maggots and his bones were visible. The deceased was tall about 5`6" and his age would be about 25-30 years, there was no flesh on the face. The dead body was tied with a colorful plastic rope. Only the bones were visible, deceased was wearing a full sleeved shirt which had black stripe and a black pant. There was a sticker of Muskan on back pocket of the pant. Due to decomposition the body was appearing separated from the stomach as if it got divided into two parts. Deceased was wearing a green color band in the right hand. "True Friend" was written on the plastic band. Crime Team inspected the spot and photographs of the spot were taken and the search of the pants and shirt was carried out, but no identification material could be recovered. Despite a lot of effort, the dead body could not be identified and a request was prepared to send the dead body to mortuary, DDU Hospital, through Const. Som Dutt. ASI Lal Chand prepared a tahrir and got registered the present FIR through Const. Sandeep. After registration of FIR, the investigation of case was handed over to him. During investigation, he inspected the site and prepared a site plan Ex.PW20/A and seized the earth control from the spot vide memo Ex.PW11/E. Thereafter, he seized the printed quilt having light pink color, pink chunni and a lohi of military color. Blackish spots were found on chunni. Seizure memo of the same is proved as Ex.PW11/C. The colorful plastic rope having some black spots by which the dead FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 21 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:05 +0530
body was tied inside the quilt was also seized by him in a plastic polythene. Seizure memo of colorful plastic rope is proved as Ex. PW11/B. He also seized one part of green color pajami vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/A. He also seized hair extracted from the quilt in which body was tied up. Seizure memo of the same is proved as Ex.PW11/D. All the case properties were sealed with the seal of "AK" and after use the seal was handed over to ASI Lal Chand. Case properties were deposited in malkhana of PS Dwarka South. Statement of ASI Satpal (I/c Crime Team), HC Suresh (Photographer, Crime Team), Const. Rajesh, Const. Som Dutt, ASI Lal Chand, Const. Sandeep were recorded.
PW-20 further stated that on next day i.e. 09.05.2018, he completed the identification process of deceased, issued hue and cry notice, he had also given the information to missing person cell, details of deceased uploaded on gypnet, CBI/NCRB were informed, wireless message was flashed. In different police stations of Dwarka District, hue and cry notice were pasted. He also recorded statement of Inspector Prashant Rana, I/c Security, SPG, and HC Vellu Chamma, I/c QRT (SPG). On 22.05.2018, he moved an application for request for conducting the postmortem on the dead body of deceased at DDU Hospital, where doctor told that they want to visit the spot first. Thereafter, visit of the doctors of DDU Hospital was arranged and they fixed the date for postmortem on 24.05.2018. On 24.05.2018, all the inquest papers were handed over SI Somvir to get conduct the FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 22 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:07 +0530
postmortem on the dead body of deceased. On 06.06.2018, investigation of this case was transferred to Inspector Mukesh Kumar of PS Dwarka South. He identified the case property i.e. Pajami as Ex.P-1. Pink chunni, military color lohi and a light pink color quilt as Ex.P-1/A, hair as Ex.P-3, colorful plastic rope as Ex.P-4 and earth control as Ex.P-5.
26. PW-21 HC Sandeep deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW-11 SI Lal Chand.
27. PW-22 Inspector Mukesh Kumar deposed that on 06.06.2018, investigation of this case was entrusted to him. On that day, one Rajesh Vishwakarma alongwith his son Vikas arrived at police station in search of his missing son Karan. They have also handed over him a photograph of his missing son Karan, which he seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/A. Photograph is proved as Ex.PW22/A-1. He had shown the photographs of the deceased of this case to Rajesh who identified the deceased as his son Karan. His (Rajesh) statement u/s 161 CrPC was recorded by him. He alongwith other police staff visited to E-342, Gali No. 19, Sadh Nagar Part-2, Palam, where owner of the house namely Urmila was called, who stated that on ground floor in 2 rooms, one Mamta with her family including deceased Karan were residing but all of sudden, they left the said house. He recorded statement u/s 161 CrPC of Urmila and other known persons of deceased Karan and also analyzed the CDR of deceased Karan and Mamta. On 09.06.2018, at about 10.50 am, he alongwith SI Vikas, Const. Rajesh and FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 23 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:02 +0530
W-Const. Manju reached at B-234, Sector-8, Bagdola, where accused Mamta and her husband Surender were found present. At about 11.00 am, accused Surender was arrested after questioning vide arrest memo Ex.PW13/A. Accused Surender was personally searched vide personal search memo Ex.PW13/A. Accused Surender made disclosure statement Ex.PW13/A-2. At about 11.30 am, accused Mamta was arrested after questioning vide arrest memo Ex.PW15/A. Accused Mamta was personally searched vide personal search memo Ex.PW15/B. Accused Mamta made disclosure statement vide Ex.PW15/C. One read colour raxine purse having mark of "Nike" was recovered from bushes at the instance of accused Mamta, in which aadhaar card of deceased Karan and other visiting cards were found. Same was seized into pulanda with the seal of "MKS". Same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/B. At about 12.00 noon, accused Chanu Paswan was arrested at the instance of accused Mamta and Surender from B-192, Dwarka Sector-8, Bagdola, vide arrest memo Ex.PW13/C. Accused Chanu was personally searched vide personal search memo Ex.PW13/C-1. Accused Chanu made disclosure statement vide Ex.PW13/C-2. At the instance of accused Chanu, green colour e-rickshaw bearing registration no. DL9ER2669 was recovered, on which they disposed of the body of Karan. E-rickshaw was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/C-3. PW-22 further deposed that at the instance of accused Mamta and Surender, pointing out memo of FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 24 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:01 +0530
E-342, Gali No. 19, Sadh Nagar Part-2, Palam, was prepared separately. Pointing out memo prepared at the instance of accused Surender vide Ex.PW13/H. Pointing out memo prepared at the instance of accused Mamta vide Ex.PW13/I. At the instance of accused persons, pointing out memo of SPG Complex boundary wall, Dwarka Sector-8, was prepared separately. Pointing out memo prepared at the instance of accused Mamta is proved as Ex.PW13/D. Pointing out memo prepared at the instance of accused Surender is proved as Ex.PW13/E. Pointing out memo prepared at the instance of accused Chanu is proved as Ex.PW13/F. At the instance of accused Surender, one motorcycle bearing no. HR26AQ7669 of red colour make Bajaj Discover was recovered from near platform Shahbad Mohamadpur, which belongs to deceased Karan and same was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/G. On 12.06.2018, blood sample of Rajesh and Vikas was taken from DDU Hospital and seized as per the memo. During investigation, on 09.06.2018, he prepared the site plan of the place of incident vide Ex PW 22/B and also also prepared site plan of the place where the dead body was recovered vide memo Ex PW 22/C. During investigation, he also got prepared scaled site plan from Draughtsman vide memo Ex.PW18/A. On 14.06.2018, exhibits of this case were sent to FSL for examination. During investigation, he collected the postmortem report Ex.PW1/A, analyzed the CDRs, recorded statement of relevant witnesses.
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 25 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:03 +0530
PW-22 further stated that on completion of investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet after reaching the conclusion that all accused persons namely Mamta, Surender and Chanu Paswan are involved in the commission of offence of murder of deceased Karan and disposed off his body after committing of his murder for screening themselves from the legal punishment of this case. On the basis of postmortem report, statement of witnesses specially Urmila, Lakhmi Chand Jain, Rajesh Vishwakarma, Vikas and Anil and recovery of aadhaar card of deceased Karan from purse, which was recovered at the instance of accused Mamta, recovery of motorcycle belongs to deceased Karan at the instance of accused Surender and recovery of e-rickshaw at the instance of accused Chanu, in which the dead body of deceased Karan was disposed off, DNA report which confirmed that the deceased Karan was son of Rajesh Vishwakarma, conduct of the accused persons Mamta and Surender after the incident that they left the house of Sadh Nagar Part-2, Palam, and shifted at Bagdola clearly indicate their involvement in the case. Further, after the analysis of CDR of accused persons, it was clear that accused Mamta, Surender and deceased Karan were known to each other and in constant touch with each other and mobile phone no. 9958715184 of deceased Karan was switched off since 25.04.2018 at 17.24 hours. After analysis the mobile phone of deceased Karan and mobile phone no. 9899557149 of accused Mamta, he reached at the FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 26 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:02 +0530
conclusion that accused Mamta and deceased Karan were in constant touch with each other in unusual manner. On further analyzing of CDR, it is confirmed that on 25.04.2018, between 15.27 hours to 21.43 hours, there were 9 phone calls between accused Mamta and Surender. It is further revealed from the location chart that the location of deceased Karan and accused Mamta was at the same place i.e. at Sadh Nagar, Palam, on 25.04.2018. It is further revealed from analyzing of CDR that there was a movement of accused Surender Between Bagdola to Sadh Nagar, Palam.
PW-22 further stated that he prepared the charge- sheet, which is on record from page no. 1 to 24, wherein he elaborately described the role of each accused persons and the circumstances of the case. The charge-sheet from page no. 1 to 24 is proved as Ex.PW22/D. Para Mark X at page no. 21 and 22 is his analysis about the CDR and location of accused persons namely Mamta and Surender and deceased Karan. The mobile phone no. 9899557149 issued in the name of accused Surender (husband of accused Mamta) and the same was being used by accused Mamta.
28. PW-23 Constable Somdutt deposed that on 08.05.2018, he and HC Rajesh were on patrolling duty. At about 7.10 pm, during the patrolling duty, it was reported that a dead body was lying in Dwarka Sector-8, on the road leading to Shahabad, near boundary wall of SPG Complex. On the said information, he and HC Rajesh went to the spot, where crowd was gathered. ASI Lal Chand and Const.
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 27 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:04 +0530
Sandeep were also found present at the spot. On the spot, a brown printed quilt was lying between the grass and bushes, in which head of the deceased was visible. Foul smell was coming out of the dead body. The quilt was tied with pink and green color cloth. The dead body was in decomposed condition infested with maggots. Bones of face of the deceased were visible. Deceased was wearing white shirt and black pant. There was sticker of "Muskan" on the back side pocket of his wearing pant. Due to decomposition, the dead body was lying in two parts. Deceased was wearing a green color band on his hand in which "true friend" was written. Crime Team reached at the spot and inspected the dead body. Photographs of the body were taken. Search of the pant and shirt was carried out but the identity was not established. No item was recovered from the dead body. Despite lot of efforts, the dead body could not be identified and after preparing a request letter, the dead body was sent mortuary, DDU Hospital, under his supervision. He got preserved the dead body for 72 hours in the mortuary of DDU Hospital.
29. PW-24 Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd. deposed that as per the CAF, the mobile number 9911709385 was issued in the name of one Chanu Paswan. The certified copy of E-KYC CAF pertaining to aforesaid mobile number is proved as Ex.PW24/A. The attested copy of CDR of said mobile number from 01.04.2018 to 10.06.2018 is proved as Ex.PW24/B (colly). Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act issued by him is proved as FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 28 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:07 +0530
Ex.PW24/C.
30. PW-25 Smt. Sangeeta deposed that he got married with Anil Kumar in the month of February 2008. Her father had gifted a motorcycle bearing no. HR26AQ7664 red colour Bajaj Discover to her in her marriage. Her husband used to drive the said motorcycle. On 05.01.2018, her husband had given the said motorcycle to Rajesh Vishwakarma, who is known to his husband for the purpose of use and sell. The said motorcycle was taken from their house by Karan Singh S/o Rajesh Vishwakarma. No written document was prepared to this effect. Later on, she came to know that some incident had happened with Karan Singh and his aforesaid motorcycle was seized by the police. On 01.11.2018, she went to PS Dwarka South, where she produced RC of aforesaid motorcycle to the police, who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/A. Said RC is proved as Ex.PW25/A1. She proved the motorcycle as Ex PW 25/P-1.
31. PW-26 Sh. Anil Kumar deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW-25 Smt. Sangeeta.
32. PW-27 Sh. Vikas Sharma deposed that they were four brothers and four sisters. Now, they are three brothers. His eldest brother Karan (since deceased) was residing at Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, and was working at Jain Paneer Bhandar. He used to visit him. In the month of February/March 2018, he had gone to meet his brother Karan at Jain Paneer Bhandar, near Palam fatak. From there, his brother took him to his residence at Sadh Nagar, FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 29 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:00 +0530
where he met Mamta, her children and her husband Surender, who were also residing there. His brother Karan had informed him that he (Karan) used to pay rent of the accommodation in which Mamta alongwith her children and her husband was residing. His brother Karan had taken motorcycle bearing registration no. HR26AQ7664 Bajaj Discover red colour in the month of January 2018. During investigation, he identified the said motorcycle in the PS Dwarka South on 23.10.2018. He told the police that the said motorcycle was being used by his brother Karan. He proved the said motorcycle as Ex PW 25/P-1.
33. PW-28 ASI Maha Singh deposed that on 08.05.2018, he was assigned duty of MHC(M). On that day, Inspector Ashok Kumar has deposited 5 sealed parcels sealed with the seal of "AK" alongwith copies of its seizure memo, which he deposited in the malkhana and made entry in register no. 19 vide serial no. 1512/18. Copy of said relevant entry of register no. 19 is proved as Ex.PW28/A. On 24.05.2018, SI Sohanvir has deposited 2 sealed parcels sealed with the seal of "PM DDU Hospital" alongwith copies of its seizure memo, which he deposited in the malkhana and made entry in register no. 19 vide serial no. 1549/18. Copy of said relevant entry of register no. 19 is proved as Ex.PW28/B. On 09.06.2018, Inspector Mukesh Kumar has deposited one motorcycle, one e-rickshaw and one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of "AKS" alongwith copies of its seizure memo, which he deposited in the malkhana and made entry in register no. 19 vide serial no.
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 30 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:07 +0530
1587/18. Copy of said relevant entry of register no. 19 is proved as Ex.PW28/C. On 12.06.2018, Inspector Mukesh Kumar has deposited blood sample of Vikas and Rajesh in sealed parcels sealed with the seal of "DDUH CMO"
alongwith copies of its seizure memo, which he deposited in the malkhana and made entry in register no. 19 vide serial no. 1603/18. Copy of said relevant entry of register no. 19 is proved as Ex.PW28/D. On 14.06.2018, on the directions of IO Inspector Mukesh Kumar, he handed over 6 sealed parcels alongwith 2 sample seals to Const. Pritam for depositing the same in FSL, Rohini, vide RC No. 77/21/18, copy of which is proved as Ex.PW14/A. After depositing the same, Const. Pritam has handed over him acknowledgment slip, which is proved as Ex.PW14/B. So long as the exhibits remained in his custody, the same were not tampered in any manner whatsoever.
34. In their statement recorded u/s 294 CrPC, accused persons namely Surender, Mamta and Chanu Paswan admitted MLC No. 7641 as Ex.PX-1, MLC No. 7642 as Ex.PX-2, MLC No. 5370 as Ex.PX-3 and FSL Report No. 218/B-5545 dated 29.10.2018 as Ex.PX-4.
35. Statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C of accused persons were recorded, wherein the accused persons were briefed on all the incriminating ocular and documentary evidence to which they denied and further deposed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Accused persons opted not to lead evidence in their defence.
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 31 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:01 +0530
36. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Naveen Kr. Verma, ld. Counsel for accused persons.
37. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story and have corroborated each other's version. To substantiate his submissions, he argued that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has proved the complete chain of circumstances against the accused. He also argued that the previous conduct and the subsequent conduct of the accused persons and the proximity of location of the deceased and the accused persons point towards the guilt of the accused persons. He also argued that the testimony of prosecution witnesses is of sterling quality and hence should be relied upon. He also argued that the prosecution has proved the ingredients of all the offences under which charges have been framed against the accused and hence accused should be convicted under all these sections.
38. Ld. Counsel for accused argued that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused. To substantiate his point, he argued that the recovery of motor bike, wallet/purse of the deceased and the e-rickshaw do not connect accused persons with the crime. It is also stated that the disclosure statement of the accused persons are confessional in nature and are inadmissible in evidence. He also argued that there is no eye witness of FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 32 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:02 +0530
alleged incident. He also argued that the chain of circumstances is not complete against the accused. He also argued that since the ingredients of alleged offences have not been proved by the prosecution and hence the accused should be acquitted under all the sections under which charges have been framed against him.
39. In the present case, charges under Sec. 302/34 IPC, 201/34 IPC, have been framed against the accused persons. These Sections have been elaborated as under: -
Section 302 IPC provides punishment for the commission of offence of murder which has been defined U/s 300 IPC.
300 Murder Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or Secondly- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or Thirdly- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or Fourthly-If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
Exception 1 When culpable homicide is not murder.
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offendor, whilst deprived of the power of self control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person my mistake or accident.
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 33 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:02 +0530
The above exception is subject to the following provisos:-
First-That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offendor as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
Secondly- That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of the public servant.
Thirdly-That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
Explanations: Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence amounting to murder is a question of fact.
Exception 2: Culpable homicide is not murder if the offendor, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm then is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
Exception 3: Culpable homicide is not murder if the offendor, being a public servant or adding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.
Exception 4: Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without pre meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offendor's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation : It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
Exception 5: Culpable homicide is not murder when the FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 34 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:01 +0530
person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, if a capital offence - shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with imprisonment for life - and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with less than ten years; imprisonment - and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.
Illustrations:-
A, knowing that B has murdered Z, assists B to hide the body with the intention of screening B from punishment. A is liable to imprisonment of either description for seven years, and also to fine.
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 35 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:04 +0530
if it were done by him alone.
40. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced, perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions of law. I have also considered the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for accused.
41. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is established principle of law that a witness may lie but not the circumstances. In the present case, there is no eye witness of the alleged incident of commission of murder of deceased Karan.
42. The guilt of the accused can also be proved through the circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence has to be appreciated as per the established principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The standard of proof required for conviction in case of circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances relied upon in support of conviction must be fully established and the chain of evidence proved by the prosecution must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.
43. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as 'Sharad Bridhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra cited as (1984) 4 SCC 116' has laid down the five golden priciples for appreciation of circumstantial evidence and FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 36 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:03 +0530
has termed the same as Panchsheel of the Proof of Case based on circumstantial evidence. The said five golden principles are as follows: -
(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be and not merely 'may be' fully established.
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypotheses of the guilt of accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypotheses except that the accused is guilty. (3) The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) They should exclude every possible hypotheses except the one to be proved.
(5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all probability the act must have been done by the accused.
44. Thus, before recording the conviction of accused the abovesaid five conditions must be satisfied. The prosecution has to establish its case on the basis of abovesaid five golden principles and to secure conviction of accused, the prosecution must fulfill the following requirements: -
(i) The circumstances from which the inference of the guilt of the accused is to be drawn must be firmly FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 37 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:00 +0530
established.
(ii) The established circumstances must be of such
definite tendency that points out towards the guilt of accused.
(iii) The chain of the circumstances must be so complete and there should not be any snap in the chain of circumstances.
(iv) The chain of circumstances must be so complete and incapable of any other hypotheses then that the guilt of the accused and same should also be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and must exclude every other possible hypotheses except with the hypotheses pointing out towards the guilt of the accused.
45. The law relating to circumstantial evidence, as explained in several decisions including Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622, Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 156, Harishchandra Ladaku Thange v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2007 SC 2957 and Vithal Eknath Adlinge v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2009 SC 2067 is fairly well - settled.
46. Reference can be made to the case of Sanatan Naskar and Anr. v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 8 SCC 249 , where it was observed as follows: -
"27. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that it is a case of circumstantial evidence as there was no FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 38 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:07 +0530
eyewitness to the occurrence. It is a settled principle of law that an accused can be punished if he is found guilty even in cases of circumstantial evidence provided, the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt complete chain of events and circumstances which definitely points towards the involvement and guilt of the suspect or accused, as the case may be. The accused will not be entitled to acquittal merely because there is no eyewitness in the case. It is also equally true that an accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence subject to satisfaction of the accepted principles in that regard."
47. In Gagan Kanojia v. State of Punjab (2006) 13 SCC 516 , the Supreme Court opined: -
"9. Indisputably, charges can be proved on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, when direct evidence is not available. It is well settled that in a case based on a circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove that within all human probabilities, the act must have been done by the accused. It is, however, necessary for the courts to remember that there is a long gap between 'may be true' and 'must be true'. Prosecution case is required to be covered by leading cogent, believable and credible evidence. Whereas the court must raise a presumption that the accused is innocent and in the event two views are possible, one indicating to his guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the defence available to the accused should be accepted, but at the same time, the court must not reject the evidence of the prosecution, proceeding on the basis that they are false, not trustworthy, unreliable and made on flimsy grounds or only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. The prosecution case, thus, must be judged in its entirety having regard to the totality of the circumstances. The approach of the court should be an integrated one and not truncated or isolated. The court should use the yardstick of probability and appreciate the intrinsic value of the evidence brought on records and analyze and assess the same objectively."
48. It can thus clearly be seen that it is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 39 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:15:59 +0530
conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The Court held that it is a primary principle that the accused 'must be' and not merely 'may be' proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved'. It has been held that the facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. It has further been held that the circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. It has been held that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused.
49. It is settled law that suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
50. In view of the aforesaid principles governing the case based on the circumstantial evidence, let us turn to the case in hand. Now it has to be examined as to whether accused persons who faced the trial are perpetrators of this crime. The incriminating circumstances relied upon by the FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 40 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:01 +0530
prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused persons are: -
(A) Disclosure Statements of Accused Person i.e., Mamta, Surender and Chanu Paswan Disclosure statement of Mamta leading to recovery of purse/wallet of deceased Karan.
PW 13 has proved the same Ex. PW13/A-2 and consequent recovery Ex. PW13/B Disclosure statement of Surender leading to recovery of motor bike of deceased Karan. PW 13 has proved the same Ex. PW13/G. Disclosure statement of Chanu Paswan leading to recovery of E-rickshaw used for disposal of the dead body. PW 13 has proved the same Ex. PW13/C-2 and consequent recovery Ex. PW13/C-3.
PW13 has prepared pointing out memo of the place where the dead body was disposed, which bears Ex. PW13/D, Ex. PW13/E and Ex. PW13/F and pointing out memo where accused Mamta murdered deceased Karan bearing Ex. PW13/H and Ex. PW13/I. (B) Previous conduct of the accused persons that deceased Karan resided with Accused person Mamta and Surender and Subsequent conduct of the accused persons that after the death of deceased Karan, the accused person Mamta and Surender left the place of residence FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 41 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:03 +0530
Evidence of Smt. Urmila (PW2), landlady to
show that deceased Karan was residing alongwith Mamta and Surender. During her cross-examination she stated that she had never heard from any neighbour regarding quarrel of Mamta and Surender. She also stated that she does not know anything about the present case.
Evidence of Sh. Rajesh Vishwakarma (PW4), father of Karan to show that deceased Karan was residing with Mamta and Surender, and to show subsequent conduct of Mamta and Surender in vacating the tenanted premises after death/killing Karna. He also stated that he met the landlord of the tenanted premised after his son Karan was not found. He has also identified the body of deceased Karan. He has also identified blood stained green color ladies pyjami of one leg, quilt, chunni and loi,stating that the same belongs to Mamta which is EX. P1 (colly). He also identified the clothes of deceased Karan, Ex. P2.
Evidence of Lakshmi Chand Jain (PW6) to show the relationship between deceased Karan and co-accused Surender.
Evidence of Vikas (PW27) brother of deceased also stated that deceased Karan was FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 42 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:04 +0530
residing with Mamta and Surender.
(C) Call Detail Records to establish the proximity of
location of Karan, Mamta and Surender at the time of death of Karan. And also that accused Mamta and deceased Karan were in constant touch with another in an unusual manner. On the date of incident i.e., 25.04.2018, there were 9 phone calls between 15.27 hours to 21.43 hours between accused Mamta and co-accused Surender.
(D) Motive to kill deceased Karan.
51. The above incriminating circumstances, in the light of material on record and the evidence produced during trial are dealt accordingly.
52. Disclosure Statement and their admissibility 52.1 It is a settled principle of law that a confessional statement made to a police officer is not admissible in evidence and only the discovery led by such statement is admissible. This was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Aghnoo Naghesia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119" wherein it was held as under: -
"A little reflection will show that the expression "confession" in ss. 24 to 30 refers to the confessional statement as a whole including not only the admissions of the offence but also all other admissions of incriminating facts related to the offence. Section 27 partially lifts the ban imposed by ss. 24. 25 and 26 in respect of so much of the information whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact discovered in consequence of the information, if the other conditions of the section are satisfied. Section 27 distinctly contemplates that an information leading to a discovery may be a part of the confession of the accused and thus, fall within the purview of ss.
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 43 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:08 +0530
24, 25 and 26 Section 27 thus shows that a confessional statement admitting the offence may contain additional information as part of the confession. Again, s. 30 permits the Court to take into consideration against a co-accused a confession of another accused affecting not only himself but the other co-accused. Section 30 thus shows that matters affecting other persons may from part of the confession.
If the first information report is given by the accused to a police officer and amounts to a confessional statement, proof of the confession is prohibited by s.
25. The confession includes not only the admission of the offence but all other admissions of incriminating facts related to the offence contained in the confessional statement. No part of the confessional statement is receivable in evidence except to the extent that the ban of s. 25 is lifted by.."
52.2 It will be useful to advert to the exposition in the case of Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 1 SCC 253, in particular, paragraphs 23 to 29 thereof. The same read thus: -
"23. While accepting or rejecting the factors of discovery, certain principles are to be kept in mind. The Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 has held thus: (IA p. 77) "... it is fallacious to treat the 'fact discovered' within the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person in custody that 'I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house' does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. But if to the statement the words be added 'with which I stabbed A', these FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 44 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:05 +0530
words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant."
52.3 In Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra, (1976) 1 SCC 828 ; (1976) 1 SCR 715, while dealing with the ambit and scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Court held that: (SCC pp. 831-32, paras 11-13) "11. Although the interpretation and scope of Section 27 has been the subject of several authoritative pronouncements, its application to concrete cases is not always free from difficulty. It will therefore be worthwhile at the outset, to have a short and swift glance at the section and be reminded of its requirements. The section says:
'27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.--Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.'
12. The expression 'provided that' together with the phrase 'whether it amounts to a confession or not' show that the section is in the nature of an exception to the preceding provisions particularly Sections 25 and 26. It is not necessary in this case to consider if this section qualifies, to any extent, Section 24, also. It will be seen that the first condition necessary for bringing this section into operation is the discovery of a fact, albeit a relevant fact, in consequence of the information received from a person accused of an offence. The second is that the discovery of such fact must be deposed to. The third is that at the time of the receipt of the information the accused must be in police custody.
The last but the most important condition is that only 'so much of the information' as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. The rest of the information has to be excluded. The word 'distinctly' means 'directly', 'indubitably', 'strictly', 'unmistakably'. The word has been advisedly used to FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 45 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:08 +0530
limit and define the scope of the provable information. The phrase 'distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered' is the linchpin of the provision. This phrase refers to that part of the information supplied by the accused which is the direct and immediate cause of the discovery. The reason behind this partial lifting of the ban against confessions and statements made to the police, is that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given by the accused, it affords some guarantee of truth of that part, and that part only, of the information which was the clear, immediate and proximate cause of the discovery. No such guarantee or assurance attaches to the rest of the statement which may be indirectly or remotely related to the fact discovered.
13. At one time it was held that the expression 'fact discovered' in the section is restricted to a physical or material fact which can be perceived by the senses, and that it does not include a mental fact (see Sukhan v. Emperor, AIR 1929 Lah 344; Ganu Chandra Kashid v. Emperor, AIR 1932 Bom 286). Now it is fairly settled that the expression 'fact discovered' includes not only the physical object produced, but also the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this (see Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor; Udai Bhan v. State of U.P., AIR 1962 SC 1116 ; (1962) 2 Cri LJ 251 ; 1962 Supp (2) SCR 830)." (emphasis in original) 52.4 In Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State of Uttaranchal, (2010) 2 SCC 583 after referring to the decision in Pulukuri Kotayya, the Court adverted to seizure of clothes of the deceased which were concealed by the accused. In that context, the Court opined that (Aftab Ahmad Anasari case,SCC p. 596, para 40) "40. ... the part of the disclosure statement, namely, that the appellant was ready to show the place where he had concealed the clothes of the deceased is clearly admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act because the same relates distinctly to the discovery of the clothes of the deceased from that very place. The contention that even if it is assumed for the sake of FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 46 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:06 +0530
argument that the clothes of the deceased were recovered from the house of the sister of the appellant pursuant to the voluntary disclosure statement made by the appellant, the prosecution has failed to prove that the clothes so recovered belonged to the deceased and therefore, the recovery of the clothes should not be treated as an incriminating circumstance, is devoid of merits."
52.5 In State of Maharashtra v. Damu, (2000) 6 SCC 269 it has been held as follows: (SCC p.283, para 35) "35. ... It is now well settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of a fact as envisaged in [Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872]. The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor is the most quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the 'fact discovered' envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect."
52.6 The similar principle has been laid down in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471, State of Punjab v. 21Asar Mohammad & Ors. Vs. State Of U.P. ABC 2019(I) January 2019 Gurnam Kaur, (2009) 11 SCC 225, Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State of Uttarancha, (2010) 2 SCC 583, Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 6 SCC 396, Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1 and Rumi Bora Dutta v. State of Assam, (2013) 7 SCC
417. 52.7 In the instant case, the discovery by itself does not point to the guilt of the accused person for murder or destruction of evidence. The discovery does not connect the accused persons to the crime in question. Recovery of FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 47 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:04 +0530
Purse/wallet by Mamta, e-rickshaw by Chanu Pasan and motor bike by Surrender does not link the accused persons to the crime. There is no evidence on record to show that the dead body of deceased Karan was carried on e- rickshaw for disposal. The possession of wallet/purse of deceased with accused Mamta does not imply that she has killed deceased Karan. Similarly, the recovery of bike from railway station does not connect accused Surrender to crime. It cannot be ruled out that Mamta and Surender were residing with deceased Karan, so they were bound to have knowledge of his things etc. Moreover, the discovery has taken place from open places and not from a place of hiding, which can be attributed to the personal knowledge of the accused persons. There is no weapon of offence. The only recovery made is of purse and bike of deceased Karan and an E-Rickshaw which as per the case of prosecution was used for disposal of dead body, there is no witness to corroborate the same. The discovery/disclosure statements are not signed by independent /public witnesses, which itself casts a doubt on their authenticity. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Judgment titled as ' Mohammad Burhan Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, cited as MANU/DE/3131/2017' has held that: -
'joining of independent public witness is not mere a formality; it is a vital safeguard to avoid false implication of individual. In number of cases either no independent public witnesses are associated on the pretext that none of them is available; in some cases only passerbyes are requested to join the investigation. Non-examination of independent public witness in the instant case is serious flaw and adverse inference is to FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 48 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:15:59 +0530
be drawn against the prosecution for withholding them' 52.8 This conclusion is further fortified by the judicial pronouncement in Mani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu on 8 January 2008: AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1021 wherein it is held as under: -
"21. The discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon on and conviction in such a serious matter cannot be based upon the discovery. Once the discovery fails, there would be literally nothing which would support the prosecution case. We have already held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the house where alleged blood stains were found belonged exclusively or was possessed exclusively by the appellant, we have further pointed out that the discovery was absolutely farcical. There is one other very relevant factor ignored by both the courts that the prosecution never made any attempts to prove that the clothes belonged to the appellants. There is literally no evidence to suggest anything to that effect. Therefore, even if we accept the discovery, it does not take us anywhere near the crime. Both the Courts below have ignored this very important aspect. Once these two important circumstances are disbelieved, there is nothing which would remain to support the prosecution theory. We also fail to understand the finding of the High Court in respect of the motive. In our opinion, there was no motive whatsoever much less entertainable by the present appellant...."
53. PREVIOUS AND SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF ACCUSED PERSONS 53.1 The prosecution has alleged that the previous and subsequent conduct of the accused persons Mamta and Surender is relevant. It is stated that the accused persons Mamta and Surender were residing together and to establish that fact PW-2 Urmila and PW-4 Rajesh FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 49 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:03 +0530
Vishwakrama, PW-6 Lakshmi Chand Jain and PW7 Vikas are examined. By examining these witnesses the prosecution is able to establish that accused Mamta and Sureneder were residing along with Karan, but, the prosecution is not able to prove that accused Mamta and Surender had killed the deceased. It is argued on behalf of the prosecution that accused Mamta and Karan were supposed to lodge a police complaint regarding Karan being missing or they could have informed the family of the deceased Karan about him missing but that was not done. The argument of the prosecution holds water so as to establish suspicion against the accused person but it does not prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, vacating the tenanted premises immediately after the death of the deceased Karan is also suspicious and suggest that accused persons have left the same under some apprehension/fear, but again this circumstance alone would not prove the guilt of the accused person. In the instant case, the testimony of none of the prosecution witness is sufficient to point out the guilt of accused persons herein. The testimony of PW 4, Rajesh Vishwarkarma does not inspire confidence as his credibility was demolished during his cross-examination. In his cross-examination he stated that he never met the landlady of the tenanted premises and he does not know the address of Mamta's parents. Similarly, all the witnesses together does not complete the chain of events to establish the guilt of accused persons. Firstly, none of them is any FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 50 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:00 +0530
eyewitness and secondly, that all by their testimonies could only establish that deceased Karan was residing with Mamta and Surender. It is one thing to say the deceased was residing with accused persons Mamta and Surender and it is an entirely different thing to impute the act of murder on accused Mamta. The story of prosecution is weak. The investigating agencies had not collected the DNA samples from the quilt, chunni, payjami etc to connect accused Mamta with them. The identification of these articles by PW4 does not inspire confidence, as he was not regularly residing with accused Mamta, so as to know that the same belong to accused Mamta. Thus, there are lapses on the part of investigation agency to connect the accused persons with the crime.
54. CALL DETAILS RECORD TO ESTABLISH PROXIMITY IN LOCATION AND LOVE AFFAIR BETWEEM ACCUSED MAMTA AND DECEASED KARAN 54.1 Prosecution has relied upon the CDR record to show the proximity in the location of deceased Karan and accused Mamta and Surender. PW 22 in his examination in chief has deposed that after the analysis of CDR of accused persons, it was clear that the accused Mamta, Surender and deceased Karan were known to each other and mobile phone no. 9958715184 of deceased Karan was switched off since 25.04.2018 at 17:24 Hrs. On analysis of CDR it was found that accused Mamta and Karan were in touch in an unusual manner and it was also confirmed that FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 51 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:08 +0530
on 25.04.2018, between 15.27 hours ro 21.43 hours, there were 9 phone calls between Mamta and Surender. It is further deposed that the location of deceased Karan and accused Mamta was at the same place i.e., at Sadh Nagar, Palam on 25.04.2018 and accused Surender had movement between Bagdola to Sadh Nagar. All these facts do not establish that accused Mamta had murdered deceased Karan. There is no last seen evidence on record to show that accused Mamta was last seen with Karan by anyone. The investigating agencies have not examined neighbours to throw light upon the same. Since accused Mamta and deceased Karan were residing together, proximity in their location is obvious and there is nothing strange about the same. However, this will not go to establish the guilt of the accused person. Even, if the story of the prosecution is believed that Mamta and deceased Karan were together and Mamta after killing Karna had kept the dead body of deceased Karan in her house for few hours until the arrival of her husband Surender. It is not believable that no one in the vicinity visited them or knocked their house for such duration. The prosecution is not able to explain the whereabouts of children of accused Mamta and Surender during that time, when the dead body was lying at home. Non-examination of neighbours by the investigating agencies has turned out to be fatal. Therefore, CDR in isolation can only point out towards grave suspicion of the involvement of accused person in the crime but do not establish the same beyond reasonable doubt.
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 52 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:07 +0530
55. MOTIVE FOR THE CRIME
55.1 Motive, plays a key role in the commission of any crime and its evaluation in the form of its impact upon the facts which constitutes and present the existence, non- existence, nature and extent of criminal liability in a person accused of committing an offence is a process which is foundational in ascertaining the truth with respect to the allegations in a criminal trial. Motive is a mental state, which is always locked in the inner compartment of the brain of the accused and it is only through other factual presentation of the witnesses, such mental state can be pulled out from such space and can be established in the process of fair criminal trial.
55.2 First of all the prosecution has to prove that deceased Karan was murdered. In the present case, there is no eye witness of the alleged incident. The story of prosecution is based upon hypothesis that deceased Karan and accused Mamta had physical relations which each other and when decease Karan tried to withdraw himself from accused Mamta, she had killed him. There is no eye witness to depose the same. In fact, the alleged love affair between deceased Karan and accused Mamta is not established, as no witness has deposed on the above said lines. In fact, PW2 Urmila had stated that decease Karan was devar of Mamta. PW2 further deposed that she has never received any complaints regarding quarrel between accused Mamta, Surender and deceased Karan. PW4 in his testimony has nowhere deposed that deceased Karan was FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 53 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:05 +0530
having illicit affair with accused Mamta. It is not out of place to mention, that deceased Karan was residing with Mamta alongwith her husband Surender and her children. It is highly unlikely that persons with illegitimate relations stay together in one household alongwith other family members. The prosecution has relied upon CDR to prove the love affair. The CDR is a very weak form of evidence to establish love affair between two individuals. There is no voice recording, CDR only shows the number of calls exchanged between the accused Mamta and Karan, which cannot lead to an inference that both of them were in affair. Except for the call detail records and disclosure statements of accused person there is nothing on record to show that Mamta was in relationship with deceased Karan. Just because deceased Karan and Mamta was regularly talking to each other would not lead to a conclusion that Mamta had an affair with Karan and had a motive to kill him when deceased Karan was withdrawing himself from the company of Mamta This is not sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
55.3 It is a settled proposition of criminal law that in a case based upon circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance. However, it is not as if motive alone becomes the crucial link in the case to be established by the prosecution and in its absence the case of prosecution must be discarded. But, at the same time, complete absence of motive assumes a different complexion and such absence definitely weighs in favour of the accused FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 54 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:09 +0530
person.
55.4 In view of the above discussion, in the considered opinion of this court so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, prosecution has miserably failed to establish the motive fact which was presented on its behalf as a crucial link in the chain of circumstances forming the foundation of complete allegations. This court is cognizant of the fact that there is no such principle or rule of law where, if the prosecution fails to prove the motive for commission of the crime, it must necessarily result in acquittal of the accused. But, at the same time, absence of motive to commit the crime coupled with lack of eye witness testimony becomes a significant fact against the prosecution case and in favour of the accused. In the present case, as already noted, there is no eye witness to the alleged crime and the case is purely based on circumstantial evidence. Hence, the fact of motive to commit the alleged crime remained not proved on record.
56. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sharad Birdichand Sarda (Supra), this court is of considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the circumstances from which the guilt of accused can be established. The fact established by the prosecution are not consistent with the hypotheses of the guilt of accused and the circumstances are not conclusive in nature. The chain of circumstances proved by the prosecution is not complete to prove that in all probabilities the alleged FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 55 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:06 +0530
offences have been committed only by the accused and none else.
57. It is established principle of law that if two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be accepted. The benefit of doubt must always go to the accused as the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
58. The Hon'ble Apex court in Rang Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1209 has held as follows:-
"The timetested rule in that acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person. Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the accused. A criminal court cannot afford to deprive liberty of the appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of certainty that the appellants were the real culprits."
59. In yet another decision in State of U.P. Vs. Ram Veer Singh and Another reported in 2007(6) Supreme 164 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: -
"The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two view are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to reappreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not."
60. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 56 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:05 +0530
always the burden of prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence produced before court. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of accused, charged with the commission of a crime, a criminal court has to ensure that facts constituting such crime are proved beyond the scope of any reasonable doubt. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts and merits. Definite doubts or lacunae in the case of the prosecution may result in benefit of doubt being given to the accused and consequential acquittal.
61. As far as the present case is concerned, as already noted the same is based on circumstantial evidence and it is settled principle of law that in a case which is hinged upon circumstantial evidence complete chain of circumstances has to be spelt out by the prosecution and even if one link in the chain is either missing or broken, the accused must get the benefit thereof. In the considered opinion of this court, none of the circumstances relied by the prosecution have been proved beyond the standard of reasonable doubt and thus all the accused persons who have faced trial are entitled for benefit thereof.
CONCLUSION
62. In the light of above discussions, it is held that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the circumstances that would lead to the only hypothesis of the guilt of the accused persons Mamta, Surender and Chanu Paswan.
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 57 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:06 +0530
63. It is therefore held that prosecution has failed to establish charge against accused persons. Accordingly, accused Mamta, Surender Kumar and Chanu Paswan stands acquitted in this case. Their personal bonds are canceled and sureties are discharged. Documents, if any, be returned to the sureties. Case Property, if any, be released to rightful owners. Accused persons are directed to furnish bonds in terms of Section 437-A Cr.P.C / 481 BNSS in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each within one week from today.
64. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 15.07.2025.
(SHIVALI BANSAL) ASJ-02, DWARKA COURTS, S-W DISTRICT, NEW DELHI FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 58 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:06 +0530