Delhi District Court
State vs Santosh And Anothers (1-B,1-Jc) on 13 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-06, NEW DELHI DISTRICT
PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
Sessions Case No. 8598/2016
FIR No. 356/2015
PS Vasant Kunj North
Under Section 302/201/34 IPC
CNR No. DLND01-000764/2015
State
Vs.
1. Santosh
S/o Sh. Sheetal Shah
R/o 705/C, Ward No. 3,
Mehrauli, New Delhi
2. Rajesh
S/o Sh. Shatrughan
R/o 78, Dheeraj Nagar,
Manav Sanskar School,
New Sector-29, Faridabad,
Haryana.
Date of Institution 06.07.2015
Date of Committal 15.07.2015
Charge framed Under Section Section 302/201/34 IPC against
accused Santosh &
Section 201/34 IPC against
accused Rajesh
State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 1 of 55
Date of reserving Judgment 06.02.2026
Date of Pronouncement of 13.02.2026
Judgment
Final Judgment Accused Santosh is acquitted
for the Charge under Section
302/201 IPC.
Accused Rajesh is acquitted for
the Charge under Section 201
IPC.
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts:
1. Accused namely Santosh facing trial for Charge under Sections 302/201/34 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') whereas accused Rajesh was facing trial for Charge under Section 201/34 IPC on the allegations that on 06.04.2015 after 9:00 p.m. near DDA Park, Near Gas Agency, Kishangarh, Delhi within jurisdiction of PS Vasant Kunj (North), New Delhi, accused Santosh had committed the murder of Narian Bengali by way of strangulation by a गमछा ( A piece of towel type) and on 07.04.2015 at about 6/6:30 am., at the above said place, both accused persons in furtherance of their common intentions threw the dead body of aforesaid Narian Bengali in the bushes with intention to disappear the evidence of offence of murder.State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 2 of 55
Registration of FIR and investigation conducted:
2. As per the prosecution case, on 07.04.2015, a DD No. 20A regarding lying of a Dead Body in the bushes of a Park at Vasant Kunj Near Har Kishangarh Gas Agency was received. The said DD was marked to SI Vivek Malik for investigation. Accordingly, SI Vivek Malik along with Ct. Giriraj reached at the spot where they met the caller Atul Bhargawa S/o Jagdish Bhargawa, who informed that a dead body of a male aged about 35 years is lying inside the park and a Gamcha is tied on his neck. On the pointing out of the Caller, SI Vivek Malik reached about 250-300 meters inside the DDA Park from the main gate, where a male dead body was found lying. The head of the dead body was towards the North and the feet towards the South.
On inspection, it was found that the Gamcha was wrapped around the neck of the deceased three times and tied tightly with a knot. The deceased was wearing a blue-coloured half-sleeve T-shirt, on the front of which the word "NUMERIC" was written in capital English letters, and he was wearing dark grey pants. The hook and chain of the pants were found open. A White and Pink colour Gamcha was wrapped all around the neck. On superficial examination of the dead body, no fresh external injury marks were found. On personal search of the deceased, cash of ₹105 was recovered from the right pocket of the pants, which was taken into possession by the police through seizure memo. On inquiry from nearby persons at the spot, neither eye- witness was found, nor anyone could identify the deceased. From the State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 3 of 55 condition of the spot and the manner in which the scarf was tied around the neck of the dead body, it appeared that some unknown person/persons have committed the murder of the deceased. 2.1 Then SI Vivek Malik made his endorsement on DD Entry No. 20A and the present case was registered under appropriate sections and a copy of the rukka was handed over to SHO through the Duty Officer. Crime Team reached at the spot. The I/C Crime Team SI Sandeep Sharma inspected the spot and submitted his report to the IO, which was perused and placed on file. Photographs of the scene of crime were taken from different angles by Ct. Sandeep No. 1947/SD (Photographer). Statements of SI Sandeep Sharma and Ct. Sandeep No. 1947/SD (Photographer) were recorded. During that time ASI Inderjeet, I/C Dog Squad, arrived at the spot along with Dog Rubby. As per the directions of the IO, smell of the alleged person was taken from the dead body and an attempt was made to trace the alleged. ASI Inderjeet, I/C Dog Squad, took the smell of the alleged from the dead body and Dog Rubby roamed nearby, however Dog Rubby did not give any indication regarding the alleged. During the investigation, the IO inspected the spot and prepared a rough site plan without scale. During that time Ct. Giriraj arrived at the spot along with copy of FIR and original rukka and produced the same before the IO. Asgar Ali S/o Viram Ali R/o Plot No. 34 ( Tej Pal ka Makan), Ward No. 2, Mehrauli, DDA Park arrived at the spot, who identified the aforesaid dead body and stated that the dead body is of Narayan Bangali, who had been State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 4 of 55 residing in Kishangarh for the last about 20 years. The dead body was sent through Ct. Giriraj No. 2000/SD and SI Vivek Malik with the help of Harsa Van to AIIMS Hospital. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded. WT message was issued. 2.2 Thereafter, during investigation, the IO interrogated Sh. Rama S/o Gurdayal R/o H. No. 20/9, Gobardha ka Makan, Kishangarh, New Delhi, whose statement was recorded, wherein he stated that he resides at the aforesaid address and works as a driver in Sec-A, Vasant Kunj. On 06-04-15, he was on night duty from 8:00 PM. When, he reached late for duty, the Supervisor did not allow him to perform duty and told him to return and come the next day. While returning, he thought of buying one quarter bottle of liquor from Santosh selling liquor in DDA Park, Kishangarh, and for taking liquor, he reached DDA Park at around 8:30-9:00 PM. and on search of Santosh, he reached at Dates Tree where Santosh along with another person was standing. That person was wearing a blue-coloured T-shirt and black colour pants, whom he had seen earlier also roaming around the park many times in drunken condition. He gave Rs. 30/- to Santosh and bought a quarter bottle and went to his house. Next morning, while going home, near the park he saw that a large crowd had gathered and he came to know that a person had been found dead in the park. The police were removing the dead body from there. He saw that the dead person was the same person who was sitting near Santosh, the previous night. As his neighbour Gopal had died, he State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 5 of 55 went to Mehrauli to attend his funeral and later came and told everything to the police.
2.3 During investigation, IO recorded the statement of Sh. Govind Sharma S/o Bhagwan Dass Sharma, wherein he stated that he is addicted to consuming liquor and Santosh sells liquor illegally in the bushes of DDA Park, Kishangarh, and he also purchases liquor daily from Santosh and sometimes brings liquor home and consumes it, but often sits there and drinks. He further stated that on 07.04.2015 at about 6:00-6:30 A.M., he went near Santosh in DDA Park to drink liquor. Santosh appeared very frightened and told him that during the night he had killed a Bangali person whose dead body was lying near the Keekar Tree and sought help for lifting the dead body and throwing it away, but he refused. After some time, a boy came near Santosh and both of them started lifting the dead body of the Bangali person and took it towards the bushes. He got scared and left. After going some distance, he turned back and saw Santosh and that boy taking the dead body towards the bushes. Out of fear, he went home and due to fear did not tell anyone about this.
2.4 During further investigation, IO along with Sh. Govind Sharma, Ct. Suresh and Ct. Karamveer went in search of Santosh, the liquor seller, and went to a jhuggi near DDA Park. Seeing the police party, the suspect entered inside the jhuggi. On suspicion, IO and witness Govind Sharma entered the jhuggi where the suspect was identified as Santosh by the Sh. Govind Sharma. Santosh was State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 6 of 55 apprehended and Sh. Govind Sharma told the IO that he was the same Santosh, liquor seller, who on 07.04.2015 between 6:00-6:30 AM had lifted the dead body of a Bangali person from near the Keekar tree in DDA Park along with his associate and took it towards the bushes, which he had seen. Accused Santosh was formally arrested in the case after completing arrest formalities and his disclosure statement was recorded.
2.5 During further investigation, Inspector along with witness Govind Sharma and accused Santosh went in search of Santosh's associate and reached near the Jheel, DDA Park where one person was found sleeping. They reached towards him and woke him. On inquiry, his name was revealed as Rajesh S/o Shyamnath. Sh. Govind Sharma identified him as the same person who, on 07.04.2015 in the morning along with Santosh lifted the dead body of a Bangali person from near the Keekar tree in DDA Park and took it towards the bushes. Accused Rajesh was arrested after completing arrest formalities and his disclosure statement was recorded. During further investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded. Accused Santosh pointed out the place of occurrence i.e. DDA Park / Shiv Shakti Park, Kishangarh, Delhi, towards the western direction near a fig tree and stated that on 06.04.2015 he strangulated the Bangali person with a Gamcha and killed him. On 07-04-15 in the morning between 6:00-6:30 AM, he along with his associate Rajesh, lifted the dead body of the Bangali person from under the Keekar tree and threw State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 7 of 55 it into the bushes where the dead body of Narayan Bangali was found. On the basis of pointing out, pointing out memo and site plan were prepared.
2.6 During further investigation, the slippers of deceased Narayan Bangali were recovered at the instance of Asgar Ali S/o Viram Ali and were taken into police possession. Post-mortem of the dead body of deceased Narayan Bangali was conducted at AIIMS Hospital Mortuary and PM Report was obtained wherein doctor opined the cause of death, is asphyxia due to strangulation. Statements of witnesses Sh. Rama and Sh. Govind Sharma were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Court. 2.7 After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed for the offence under Section 302/201/34 IPC against accused Santosh and Section 201/34 IPC accused Rajesh before the concerned Court and it was duly committed to this Court.
Charge:
3. On 24.08.2015, Charge for the offences punishable under Sections 302/201/34 IPC was framed against accused Santosh and charge for the offences punishable under Section 201/34 IPC was framed against accused Rajesh by the Ld. Predecessor Court, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 8 of 55The Trial Prosecution evidence:
4. To prove its case against the accused persons, the prosecution had examined 22 witnesses, that is, PW-1 Sh. Rama ( Complainant); PW-2 Sh. Govind Sharma (Public Witness), PW-3 Sh. Atul Bhargawa (Public Witness), PW-4 Sh. Sandeep Maan (Public Witness), PW-5 Inspector Sandeep Sharma (Incharge-Crime Team), PW-6 ASI Fukeria (Duty Officer), PW-7 Retd. Ct. Sandeep Kumar Yadav (Photographer, Mobile Crime Team), PW-8 HC Giri Raj (Witness of Investigation), PW-9 Ct. Rampal (Wireless Set Operator, PHQ), PW-10 Ct. Suresh (Witness of Investigation), PW-11 Ct. Karamvir (Witness of Investigation), PW-12 Sh. Pawan Singh (Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd.), PW-13 ASI Virendra Kumar (Witness of Investigation), PW-14 Raj Singh (Doctor), PW-15 Dr. Adarsh Kumar ( Forensic Expert), PW-16 HC Sachin Dabas (Witness of Investigation), PW-17 Sh. Vinod Kumar (Public Witness), PW-18 SI Manoj (Witness of Investigation), PW-19 Inspector Vivek (1st IO), PW-20 HC Surender Kumar (Witness of Investigation), PW-21 Retd. ACP Mahesh Kumar (Witness of Investigation) and PW-22 (2nd Investigating Officer).
Statement of accused Under Section 294 Cr. PC
5. Joint statement of both accused persons under Section 294 Cr. PC was recorded wherein they did not dispute the genuineness and recording of statements under Section 164 Cr.PC of Sh. Rama and State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 9 of 55 Sh.Govind Sharma, deposit of exhibits to RFSL vide RC and acknowledgment and FSL Report dated 05.11.2015. The same were exhibited as Ex. A1 to A-5 respectively. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed on submissions of Ld. Additonal Prosecutor.
Statement of accused Under Section 351 of BNSS (earlier Section 313 Cr.P.C.)
6. After prosecution evidence was over, on 21.08.2025, accused Santosh was examined under Section 351 of BNSS (Earlier Section 313 Cr.PC), wherein he reiterated his innocence and stated that has been falsely implicated in the present case by the IO and he is not indulged in the business of selling illicit liquor. He was not present at the spot at the relevant time. He claimed that he neither met deceased Bengali ever nor known to him. Public witnesses namely Rama and Govind Sharma have deposed falsely against him at the behest of police officials. Accused Santosh chose to lead defence evidence, however, failed to examine any witness in his defence.
7. Accused Rajesh was also examined under Section 351 of BNSS (Earlier Section 313 Cr.PC), wherein he reiterated his innocence and examined one witness in his defence.
Defence Evidence
8. Accused Rajesh examined his father Sh. Shatrughan as DW-1, who deposed that his daughter lives in Mehrauli and on 08th April, his State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 10 of 55 son Rajesh left house for his work towards Mehrauli and on 09th, his daughter called him that police had picked Rajesh. Police came to his residence 2-3 times for inquiry.
8.1 During cross examination, witness stated that in the morning of 09th April, he came to know about the present case. He admitted that he came to depose before this Court as accused Rajesh is his son and he wants him to be acquitted.
Final Arguments:
9. The Court has heard the final arguments as advanced by Ms.Manisha Singh, Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State and Sh. Jitender Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for accused Santosh and Sh. Umakant Kataria, Ld. LAC for accused Rajesh and has gone through the entire material available on record including written synopsis/arguments filed on behalf of accused Santosh.
Arguments on behalf of the Prosecution
10. At the thresh-hold, it is argued by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State that the present matter is based upon the circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has been able to prove on record, the connection of accused with the present crime and his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with the help of ocular evidence; medical evidence; the scientific evidence in the form of FSL result. She further submitted that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution stand fully established, State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 11 of 55 the chain of circumstances is complete, and every link in the said chain indicates only towards the guilt of the accused persons. The contradiction/discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses are so minor, that none of them go to the root of the case.
Arguments on behalf of accused Santosh
11. Ld. Counsel for the accused Santosh submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and such circumstances relied upon by the prosecution have not been satisfactorily established and do not provide a complete chain which is required to prove the guilt of the accused. He further submitted that there are material contradictions in the depositions of material witnesses, hence, the same deserves to be discarded. He further submitted that the standard of proof required to convict a person in a case of circumstantial evidence, has not been met in the present case. Hence, the accused deserves to be acquitted.
Arguments on behalf of accused Rajesh
12. Ld. LAC for accused Rajesh argued that the accused Rajesh was not present at the time of alleged offence and plea of alibi has been taken for which DW-1 has been examined.
State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 12 of 55Appreciation of facts and relevant law:
13. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is established principle of law that a witness may lie but the circumstances do not lie. In the present case, there is no eye witness of the alleged incident. The guilt of the accused can only 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 Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. 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.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Sharad Bridhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra cited as (1984) 4 SCC 116 has laid down the five golden Principles for appreciation of circumstantial evidence and has termed the same as Panchsheel of the Proof of Case based on circumstantial evidence. The said 5 golden principles are as follows: -
(i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be and not merely 'may be' fully established.
(ii) 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.State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 13 of 55
(iii) The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency.
(iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
(v) 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.
15. Thus, before recording the conviction of any accused the aforesaid five condition must be satisfied. The prosecution has to establish its case on the basis of aforesaid five golden Principles and to secure conviction of any 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 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 than 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.State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 14 of 55
16. Considering the principles governing a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, this Court shall now proceed to discuss the evidence led by the prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the accused persons. The prosecution has portrayed the following circumstances in its endeavor to establish the charge against the accused Santosh.
a) Finding of abandoned dead body of the deceased Narain Bengali.
17. The prosecution has examined the PCR Caller i.e. PW-3 Sh.Atul Bhargawa, an independent public person, who made a call on number 100 informing the police about the lying of dead body of an unknown in the DDA park. He deposed that in the morning of 07.04.2015, he had gone to DDA Park, Krishan Garg for morning walk as usual and saw that many unknown persons were standing towards Nala side and they were saying that someone was lying dead there. He also went there and saw that one dead body of mature person was lying in the bushes near the Nala. He inquired from the persons available there but no information about the deceased could be received. He asked them to make a call on 100 number but none of them informed the police and went here and there. Then, he made a call to police and after some time, SHO and other police officers reached there. He had also seen the face of the dead body but he could not identify him. He also did not see any person who killed the said person or who threw the dead body in the park. He had only made a call to the police. Police State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 15 of 55 recorded his statement in that regard. Witness correctly identified the photographs of the dead body of deceased as ExPW3/A (Collectively).
17.1 PW-2 Sh. Govind Sharma deposed that on 10.04.2015, he went to the mortuary of AIIMS hospital, where he identified the dead body of Narain @ Bengali as the dead body which he had seen hiding in bushes in the morning of 07.04.2015 at DDA park by both the accused persons. He proved the dead body identification memo as Ex.PW2/A.
b) There has been death of the deceased by homicide;
18. PW-14 Sh. Raj Singh, Junior Medical Record Officer, AIIMS Hospital, Delhi appeared on behalf of Dr. Neeraj (since left the services of the hospital), who prepared the MLC No. 4348/2015 dated 07.04.2015 of Sh. Narayan Bangali and proved the same as Ex.PW14/A. 18.1 PW-15 Dr. Adarsh Kumar, Professor Forensic Medicine, AIIMS, New Delhi appeared on behalf of Dr. Karthik Krishna, the then Sr. Resident, Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, AIIMS, who conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased Narayan Bangali. He proved the Postmortem Report No. 382-15 dated 10.04.2015 in respect of deceased Narayan Bangali (aged 35 State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 16 of 55 years) S/o Unknown as Ex.PW15/A as per which the cause of death was 'Asphyxia due to strangulation'.
18.2 Hence, from the testimony of the aforesaid witness it is clear that a dead body of an unknown person was found near the park and on post mortem it was revealed that the death was caused by homicide, hence the first and second circumstance stand proved.
c) The deceased was last seen with the accused soon before his death
19. The most important circumstances putforth by the prosecution on the basis of which the entire case is based is the last seen theory and following witnesses have been examined to prove the same. 19.1 PW-1 Sh. Rama, a last seen public witness deposed that on 06.04.2015, he reached late for reporting on his duty as a Guard and hence supervisor did not give him duty for that day and told him that he should go back and report for duty on the next day. His duty on 06.04.2015 was from 08.00 p.m, however, he had reported late at about 08.30 p.m., therefore, he thought to buy whiskey from DDA park, Kishangarh where accused Santosh (Correctly identified as present in the Court) used to sell liquor. He reached DDA park to buy liquor from accused Santosh at about 09.00 p.m., where he found accused Santosh standing along with one other person near a dates tree. The said person with accused Santosh was wearing a blue colour T-shirt and black trousers. He had not seen said person, who was with State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 17 of 55 accused Santosh on earlier occasion. He purchased one quarter bottle of liquor from accused Santosh for Rs. 30/-
19.2 PW-1 further deposed that on the next morning i.e. 07.04.2015, he again went to the above said park to purchase a quarter bottle of liquor from accused Santosh, as he had to attend his duty in the night. He reached the said park at about at about 06.00-06.30 am and saw that the crowd had gathered in the park and came to know that a dead body had been recovered from the park. He saw the dead body in the park and found that it was the body of the same person whom he had seen on 06.04.2015 in the night with accused Santosh in the said park. Thereafter, he left the park for attending the last rites of one of his neighbours at Mehrauli.
19.3 PW-1 further deposed that on 08.04.2015, he met the police officials, who inquired from him and recorded his statement. His statement under section 164 Cr.PC was also recorded before the Court on 25.06.2015. Witness proved his statement under Section 164 Cr. PC along with proceedings as Ex.PW1/A. The deceased was also known as Bengali.
19.4 At the request of Ld. Addl. PP for the State, permission was granted to ask leading question to the witness. Witness admitted that he had told to the police in his statement that he had earlier also seen the said person (subsequently deceased) in the vicinity of the park after consuming liquor. Two photographs of the deceased on record have been shown to the witness and he has identified the said State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 18 of 55 photographs as of the deceased and proved the same along with their negatives as Ex.PW1/X (Colly.).
19.5 During cross examination, witness stated that earlier one supervisor Mr. Badal used to maintain the register regarding their duty, however, now said Mr. Badal has also left said job. He worked as guard there only for about four months. He further stated that during investigation, he never accompanied the police officials to the place where he used to report for duty. The police also did not take him to the place where he used to report for duty during investigation. He further stated that the Malis used to reside at one side of the park inside the park. The dates tree where he purchased quarter bottle of liquor from accused Santosh is at one end of the park whereas the Malis used to reside at the other side of the park and it would take around five-six minutes by foot to cover the distance. That if one shouts from near the dates tree then the noise of said shout would not be heard at the residence of the Malis. About 6-7 Malis reside with their families in the park and the Malis also used to water the plants in the park. There is no other construction between the residence of the Malis and the dates tree in the park. He further stated that on 07.04.2015, in the morning when he saw the body of the deceased in the park then the said body was lying at about 2 Meters away from the said dates tree. He did not intimate the police immediately at the time he saw the body of the deceased in the park. He had not seen the deceased prior to 06.04.2015.
State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 19 of 5520. Now, coming to the relevant law on the point of 'Last Seen'. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Crl. A. No. 700/2011 titled as Raju @ Ranthu @ Raju Kumar, has held as under:
"5. xxxxxxx, the gap between the last seen time, and the time of death was eight hours. Being daytime, it could not be said with certainty that the deceased was only with the present Appellants and none else.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
17. As discussed previously, the prosecution's burden was to prove each circumstance conclusively and beyond reasonable doubt as well as the proof which linked all circumstances by the same degree of proof and establish beyond any doubt that it was the accused alone who could be the author of the crime and that every hypothesis of his innocence had to be ruled-out.
xxxxxxx"
21. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Krishna Kumar Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1180, has held that:
"8. When once it is found that the death involved in the case is culpable homicide amounting murder, the next question would be who is/are the culprit(s)? It is to establish that the appellants are the culprits and for that the prosecution had relied on the circumstantial evidence referred to hereinbefore. As noticed hereinbefore the appellants were found guilty based on the circumstantial evidence and the first link in the chain of circumstantial evidence is the 'last seen' evidence. 'Last seen' as a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence, would suggest existence of oral testimony of at least one witness to establish that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused. In this State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 20 of 55 context it is relevant to refer to the following decisions: -
9. In the decision in State of UP Vs. Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114, this Court held thus:
"The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and then the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being a part of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long-time gap and the possibility of other person coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases."
22. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Jabir v. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 32, has observed as under:
28. This Court is also of the opinion that apart from the above serious infirmities, there is no evidence, oral or any material object, which connects the appellant-accused with the crime. It has been repeatedly emphasized by this court, that the "last seen" doctrine has limited application, where the time lag between the time the deceased was seen last with the accused, and the time of murder, is narrow; furthermore, the court should not convict an accused only on the basis of the "last seen" circumstance.
xxxxx State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 21 of 55
29.Recently, in Rambraksh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2014) 12 SCC 279 this court after reviewing previous decisions, stated as follows:
"10. It is trite law that a conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely on the ground that the accused was last seen with the deceased. In other words, a conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen together.
Normally, last seen theory comes into play where the time gap, between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead, is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the perpetrator of the crime becomes impossible. To record a conviction, the last seen together itself would not be sufficient and the prosecution has to complete the chain of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused.
11. In a similar fact situation this Court in the case of Krishnan v. State of Tamil (2014) 12 SCC 279, held as follows:
21. The conviction cannot be based only on circumstance of last seen together with the deceased. In Arjun Marik Vs. State of Bihar (1994) Supp (2) SCC 372) , it has been held that "31. xxxxxxxxx But it is settled law that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances to record the finding that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 22 of 55 the accused and, therefore, no conviction on that basis alone can be founded."
23. As per the testimony of PW-1, the deceased was seen accused Santosh on 06.04.2015 at about 9:00 p.m. and the dead body was found lying abandoned on the next morning 07.04.2015 at about 10:00 a.m., as deposed by PW-3/PCR Caller. Even if we believe, the version of PW-2 as to finding of abandoned dead body of the deceased, it was seen by him on 07.04.2015 at about 6:00 - 6:30 a.m. In the PM Report proved as Ex.PW15/A, the estimate time since death is not mentioned since it was done after three days. Hence, the time gap between the last seen theory is 13 hours, as per the PCR Caller and 09 hours as per PW-2 (though he is not a PCR Caller).
24. The witness of prosecution PW-1 has only stated that he has seen accused Santosh and deceased together on 06.04.2015 at about 9:00 p.m. but there is no witness of the prosecution to prove that accused Santosh and deceased were together during the entire night and till the time abandoned dead body of deceased was found by the public. Even, the possibility of intervention of any third person has not been ruled out by the prosecution. Hence, this circumstances of last seen theory has to be well corroborated by other circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused Santosh for committing murder of deceased Narain Bengali.
State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 23 of 55d) Motive
25. Motive is relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. Motive is the moves a man to do a particular work. Generally, there can be no action without any motive. Under Section 8 of Evidence Act, several factors including preparation, previous threat, previous altercation, previous litigation between the accused and the victim becomes relevant.
26. The mere existence of motive is by itself is not an incriminating circumstance. Motive cannot be a substitute of proof however it is a corroborating factor in proving the case of the prosecution. The motive for the commission of offence is of vital importance in a criminal trial and in cases based on circumstantial evidence motive itself will be a circumstance which the Court has to consider deeply. The existence of motive which operates in the mind of perpetrator may not be known to others and hence it has to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of this case.
27. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Sheo Shankar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr cited as (2011) 3 SCC 654 observed as under:
"15. The legal position regarding proof of motive as an essential requirement for bringing home the guilt of accused is fairly well settle by a long line of decision of this Court. These decisions have made a clear distinction between cases where the prosecution relies State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 24 of 55 upon the circumstantial evidence on one hand and those were relying upon the testimonies of the eye witnesses on the other. In the former category of cases proof of motive is given the importance it deserves, for proof of motive itself constitutes a link in the chain of circumstances upon which the prosecution may rely. Proof of motive, however, recedes into background in cases where the prosecution relies upon and eye witness account of the occurrence. That is because if the Court upon a proper appraisal of the deposition of the eye witnesses comes to the conclusion that the version given by them is credible, absence of evidence to prove the motive is rendered inconsequential. Conversely, even if the prosecution succeeds in establishing a strong motive for the commission of the offence, but the evidence of the eye witnesses is found unreliable or unworthy of credit, existence of motive does not by itself provide a safe basis for convicting the accused. That does not, however, mean that proof of motive even in a case which rests on an eye witness account does not lend strength to the prosecution case or fortify the Court in its ultimate conclusion proof of motive in such a situation certainly helps the prosecution and supports the eye witnesses."State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 25 of 55
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Nandu Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1454 , has held that :
"12. In a case based on substantial evidence, motive assumes great significance. 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.
29. In the present matter, there is complete absence of the motive putforth by the prosecution which could be attributed to the accused Santosh as to want of which, accused Santosh alleged to have commit the murder of deceased Narian Bengali by strangulation. No prosecution witness has been examined to state and to prove the motive for committing the alleged murder. Hence, the prosecution has completely failed in proving the present circumstance of motive with which or due to which the alleged crime/murder has been committed.
e) Extra judicial confession by the accused.
30. During cross examination of PW-2 Sh. Govind Sharma, he was confronted with his statement Mark PW2/X and he denied the suggestion that on 07.04.2015 when he went to purchase liquor in DDA Park, he met accused Santosh who was in perplexed state of State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 26 of 55 mind or that he told him "Usne Raat Ko Bengali Ka Kaam Kar Diya Hai.". However, volunteered that while he was returning from the park, he saw accused Santosh was shouting and saying ' Sharma Ji Kuch Kand ho gaya hai, aao aur lash to utha kar jungle mein phenk do." This cannot be termed as extra judicial confession by accused Santosh regarding commission of murder of deceased Narian Bengali by him. Moreso, this has not been stated by him anywhere in his examination in chief by prosecution and only voluntarily stated while confronting his statement made to the IO. Hence, there is no extra judicial confession of accused Santosh regarding commission of murder of deceased proved on record.
f) Previous and Subsequent conduct of the accused;
31. The previous and subsequent conduct of accused is relevant u/s 8 of Indian Evidence Act. A fact can be proved by the conduct of accused and surrounding circumstances and prosecution may corroborate its case from the conduct of accused also. The conduct of accused in absconding after the commission of offence, in destroying the evidence, behaving in an unnatural way etc. are relevant under Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, the previous as well as subsequent conduct of the accused also assumes importance in cases based on circumstantial evidence and the relevant law on the this point is discussed hereinafter.
State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 27 of 5532. The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in C.R.A. No. 176/2019 titled as Md. Firoz Ala @ Firoj Alam Vs. State of West Bengal, has held that:
"31........It is settled law abscondence of an accused by itself does not establish his guilt. In Sk. Yusuf Vs. State of Bengal (2011) 11 SCC 754, the Apex Court held as follows:-
"31. ... It is a settled legal proposition that in case a person is absconding after commission of offence of which he may not even be the author, such a circumstance alone may not be enough to draw an adverse inference against him as it would go against the doctrine of innocence. It is quite possible that he may be running away merely on being suspected, out of fear of police arrest and harassment."
33. In the present matter, IO/PW-22 Prabhu Dayal deposed that he along with PW-2 Sh. Govind Sharma, PW-10 Ct. Suresh and PW-11 Ct. Karambir went to jhuggis near DDA Park and when they reached there one person on seeing them entered into one jhuggi. He further deposed that PW-2 Sh. Govind Sharma identified that person as Santosh, who used to sell liquor and asked help to move the dead body. However, PW-2 Sh. Govind Sharma in his examination in chief has deposed that he returned from his from work and thereafter police met him at about 6:00-7:00 p.m. on 07.04.2015 at Gate No. 7 of DDA Park, Kishan Garh and he pointed out to them the spot where he saw the dead body lying under a tree near the boundary wall of DDA Park. He further deposed that the police had already arrested accused State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 28 of 55 Santosh and he was sitting in a police Gypsy. Even during cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, this witness denied the suggestion that the police arrested accused Santosh from the jhuggi in my presence from the address as told by him. Hence, it is clear from the record that accused Santosh was arrested soon after the matter was reported to the police and there is no evidence putforth on record that he was hiding from police or tried to abscond.
34. The subsequent conduct of destroying the evidence shall be dealt in succeeding paragraphs for charge under Section 201 IPC framed against both accused persons.
g) Medical or scientific or documentary or electronic evidence against the accused
35. In order to complete the chain of circumstances, it was necessary for the prosecution to bring on record any medical evidence or scientific evidence pointing towards the guilt of the accused Santosh for committing murder of deceased. In this regard, the testimony of relevant witnesses are reproduced hereinbelow.
36. PW-5 Inspector Sandeep Sharma, Incharge, Crime Team South District, New Delhi deposed that on 07.04.2015 at about 10.30 a.m. on receipt of call from Control Room, South District, he along with photographer Ct. Sandeep and proficient SI Anup reached at the place of occurrence i.e. Jheel Park, Kishangarh, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, where the SHO, Inspector Prabhu Dayal, SI Vivek Malik along with State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 29 of 55 staff were present at the spot. He further deposed that a dead body of unknown person was lying inside the park. The crime scene was inspected by him thoroughly and Ct. Sandeep clicked the photographs of the dead body and the scene of crime from different angles and the proficient tried to lift the chance prints but the same could not be lifted. He prepared detailed inspection report Ex.PW5/A.
37. PW-7 Ex.Ct. Sandeep Kumar, Photographer in Mobile Crime Team deposed that on 07.04.2015, he was posted as photographer in the mobile crime team, South District and on the said day, upon receipt of call from the Control Room, South District, he alongwith SI Sandeep (Incharge) and SI Anoop (proficient) reached at the spot i.e. Kishan Garh DDA Park, Vasant Kunj where the IO / Insp. Prabhu Dayal and other staff members met them. One dead body was lying near the drain/nala in the park. He clicked 11 photographs of the dead body from different angles at the scene of crime. The In-charge, Mobile Crime Team inspected the scene of crime and submitted detailed report. He further deposed that he had developed the positives with the help of negatives and handed over the same to IO on 12.06.2015 and proved the said photographs as Ex.PW3/A (Colly.) and their respective negatives as Ex.PW7/A-1 to Ex.PW7-11.
38. Only documentary evidence putforth by the prosecution in the present case is the crime spot inspection report and its photographs, however, no earth control or fingerprints or footprints are stated to have been lifted from the spot by the investigating agency in order to State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 30 of 55 prove the circumstances against the accused Santosh. Even, it has not been proved on record that the Gamcha with which the deceased was strangulated belonged to accused Santosh. Moreso, wearing cloths of the accused at the time of alleged offence have not been seized to show any sign of resistance by the deceased and even no nail clippings of the deceased have been taken to for traces of accused Santosh or for matching his DNA. Furthermore, no medical with respect to injury sustained by accused Santosh in scuffle or resistance at the time of strangulation of the deceased has been proved on record.
39. Only electronic evidence with respect to mobile number used by accused to show his presence/location at or around the spot has been putforth by the prosecution as PW-4 Sh. Sandeep Maan, public witness deposed that in the year 2015, he was driving Tata ACE vehicle and he was having a mobile phone no. 9910767430 which was registered in the name of his father but he was using the same. He used to make call to accused Santosh (Correctly identified) at his mobile number as he had taken loan from him and he wanted him to return the same.
40. At the request of Ld. Addl. PP for the State, witness was cross examined during which he admitted that the police had inquired from him in this case and had recorded his statement. (vol.) His statement was recorded when he came from the Jail. He further admitted that the mobile phone number of accused Santosh was 9891741972.
State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 31 of 5541. PW-12 Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd. deposed that the mobile No. 9891741972 was issued in the name of Sh. Palan Sarkar R/o Dhakapalhar Mouja Habibpur, Mald resident of 12/9, Kishan Garh, Vasant Kunj, Delhi. He proved the CAF, CDR for the period from 01.04.2015 to 07.04.2015 of aforesaid mobile No. as Ex.PW12/A and Ex.PW12/B respectively. He also proved Certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW12/C and copy of identity proof of Sh. Palan Sarkar as Ex.PW12/D.
42. Therefore, as already stated that there is no medical, scientific, electronic evidence to connect the accused Santosh for murder of deceased except his location at or around the spot.
h) Investigation conducted to connect the accused with the present matter
43. The fair and impartial investigation is the rule of law. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Ankush Maruti Shinde and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2019) 15 Supreme Court Cases 470, has observed that :
'It has to be uppermost kept in mind that impartial and truthful investigation is imperative. It is judiciously acknowledged that fair trial includes fair investigation as envisaged by Articles 20 & 21 of the Constitution of India. The role of the police is to be one for protection of life, liberty and property of citizens, that investigation of offences being one of its foremost duties. That the aim of investigation is State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 32 of 55 ultimately to search for truth and to bring the offender to book.
Apart from ensuring that the offences do not go unpunished, it is the duty of the prosecution to ensure fairness in the proceedings and also to ensure that all relevant facts and circumstances are brought to the notice of the court for just determination of the truth so that due justice prevails. It is the responsibility of the investigating agency to ensure that every investigation is fair and does not erode the freedom of an individual, except in accordance with law. One of the established facets of a just, fair and transparent investigation is the right of an accused to ask for all such documents that he may be entitled to under the scheme contemplated by the Cr.PC.
Nothing is allowed by the law which is contrary to the truth. In Indian criminal jurisprudence, the accused is placed in a somewhat advantageous position than under different jurisprudences of some of the countries in the world. The criminal justice administration system in India places human rights and dignity for human rights at a much higher pedestal and the accused is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty. The alleged accused is entitled to fair and true investigation and fair trial and the prosecution is expected to play a balanced role in the trial of a crime. The investigation should be judicious, fair, transparent and expeditious to ensure compliance with the basic rule of law. These are the fundamental canons of our criminal jurisprudence and they are quite in conformity with the Constitutional mandate contained in Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India."
44. The relevant portion of witnesses qua the investigation is reproduced hereinafter. PW-6 ASI Fukeria, Duty Officer deposed that on 07.04.2015, he was posted as Duty Officer at PS Vasant Kunj North State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 33 of 55 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and on that day, at about 10.15 am the wireless operator informed on intercom that one dead body is lying in the bushes at big Shakti Park (bada Shakti Park) near Kishangarh Gas Agency. He reduced the information in his own handwriting in the Roznamcha as DD No. 20 A (Ex.PW6/A) and a copy of the same was given to Ct. Giriraj with the instructions to take the same to SI Vivek Malik, who was to take further course of action in the matter. He had also shared the information with the SHO and Inspector PD Meena. He further deposed that on the same day, at about 12.35 pm, upon receipt of rukka from Ct. Giriraj sent by SI Vivek Malik, he got the formal FIR (Ex.PW6/B) recorded through the computer operator in CIPA Room. After registration of the FIR, further investigation was entrusted to Inspector P.D. Meena. He handed over the rukka and copy of the FIR to Ct. Giriraj with the instructions to take the same and handover to Inspector P.D. Meena at the spot. He made his endorsement on rukka is Ex.PW 6/C. He also proved the kayami as well as the bandi entry in the roznamcha as Ex.PW-6/D and Ex.PW 6/E respectively. He handed over the copies of the FIR to the special messenger for delivery of the same to Ld. MM and the Joint CP etc. He also proved Certificate under section 65 B of the Evidence Act as Ex.PW 6/F.
45. PW-8 HC Giri Raj, witness of investigation deposed that on 07.04.2015, he was posted as Constable at PS Vasant Kunj (North) and on that day, on receipt of DD No. 20A, he alongwith SI Vivek Malik State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 34 of 55 reached at spot i.e. Kishan Garh DDA Park, Vasant Kunj where the IO spoke to the caller on phone who asked the IO to come at the main gate of the DDA park. They reached the main gate where the caller met them and he told that about 200-300 meter inside the park one male dead body was lying in the bushes. Accordingly, they went inside and saw that a male dead body was lying near the drain/ nala in the park. By that time, the SHO alongwith other staff members had also reached there. They made efforts to get the dead body identified but the identity could not be established. No eye witness was found present at the spot. He further deposed that the IO prepared rukka on the DD entry and handed over same to him for registration of the case. After the registration of the case, he returned to the spot and handed over the rukka and FIR to Inspector Prabhu Dayal as he was entrusted with the investigation of the case. Thereafter, as per the instructions of the IC, the dead body alongwith a forwarding letter was taken to the AIIMS hospital where MLC was prepared and dead body was got preserved in the mortuary for 24 hours. Thereafter, he returned to the police station and handed over the MLC to the IO and IO recorded my statement to this effect.
46. PW-10 HC Suresh, witness of investigation deposed that on 08.04.2015, he was posted as above and on that day, he along with Ct. Karamvir joined the investigation of this case with the IO and on the said day, he alongwith the IO reached at Kishangarh Road, near DD Park, Shiv Shakti Park main gate for investigation of this case where State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 35 of 55 one Sh. Rama met them and told the IO that he is the guard in Sector A, Vasant Kunj and that on 06.04.2015 his duty was to start from 8:00 pm but he reached late for his duties and for this reason the Supervisor did not assign him the duty. He further told that since he was not doing duty so he went to buy the liquor from Santosh in the DDA Park in between 8:00 to 9:00 pm and found that Santosh was standing with one more person who was wearing blue T-shirt and black pant. Rama purchased liquor from Santosh and went home. The next morning Rama was passing from near the park and noticed that a number of persons were gathered in the park and he came to know that some person is lying dead in the park. The police were removing the dead body from the park and at that time he saw that dead body was of the person who was standing with Santosh at the time when Rama had purchased liquor from Santosh. Since, one neighbour of Rama had expired so he went away at that time. However, subsequently Rama informed everything to the IO and the IO recorded his statement thereafter he went. Thereafter, they alongwith the IO went inside the park where one Govind Sharma was found present. On inquiry, Govind Sharma informed the IO that he is in the habit of consuming liquor and that Santosh is indulged in selling liquor in bushes of DDA park and that he often buys liquor from him. He further told that on 07.04.2015 at about 6:00 / 6:30 am he had gone to buy liquor from Santosh in the DDA park and found that Santosh was very scared. Santosh told him that he had killed Bangali in the previous night and State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 36 of 55 that dead body is lying in the park and requested him to help in disposing off the dead body into the bushes. Govind Sharma said that dead body of Bangali was lying near kikar tree in the park and that he refused to help Santosh in disposing off the dead body. By that time, one more person came there. Govind Sharma was scared seeing the dead body and started moving from the park. From some distance Govind Sharma noticed that Santosh alongwith the person who had come to him and whose name was subsequently known as Rajesh, took the dead body of Bangali towards the bushes. The IO recorded the statement of Govind Sharma to this effect. Govind Sharma also told the IO that Santosh can be found near the bushes of DDA park. At about 6:30 p.m., they alongwith the IO and Sh. Govind Sharma reached near the jhuggies of the DDA park where one person met them. On seeing him, Govind Sharma informed the IO that he is accused Santosh. The IO interrogated the accused and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/C and conducted his personal search vide personal search memo Ex.PW2/D. During the course of interrogation, the accused made disclosure statement Ex.PW10/A. In pursuance of the disclosure statement, they alongwith Sh. Govind Sharma and accused Santosh reached near the foul water pond in the park at about 8:30 p.m. where one person was sleeping. He was checked by the torch of the mobile phone and on seeing him, Govind Sharma confirmed that he is the same person who helped Santosh in disposing off the dead body. The IO interrogated the accused and arrested him State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 37 of 55 vide arrest memo EX.PW2/E and conducted his personal search and also recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW10/B. The IO recorded the statement of Govind Sharma to this effect. Thereafter, they came back to the police station where the IO recorded his statement. Witness correctly identified both accused persons.
47. PW-10 HC Suresh further deposed that on 09.04.2015, he alongwith Ct. Karamvir joined the investigation of this case with the IO and on the said day, IO took out accused Santosh and accused Rajesh from the Lock Up and gave their custody to him and Ct. Karamvir. He further deposed that both the accused Santosh and Rajesh led them to DDA Park / Shiv Shakti Park and while the IO was inspecting the scene of crime at the instance of the accused persons, one Sh. Asgar Ali came to the spot at about 9:00 am. One sleeper was found lying towards the North of the Kikad tree whereas another sleeper was found towards the west side of the Kikad tree. Sh. Asgar identify both the sleepers as belonging to his friend deceased Narayan Bangali. The IO prepared the pullanda of the sleepers and sealed the same with the seal of PD and took into possession the same. Accused Santosh pointed out the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex.PW10/C. Accused Rajesh pointed out the place where the dead body was disposed of and IO prepared the pointing out memo Ex.PW10/D. The IO recorded his statement as well as statement of Asgar to this effect.
State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 38 of 5548. PW-10 HC Suresh further deposed that on 10.04.2015, he again joined investigation of this case with IO and on that day, at about 9:30 a.m. he accompanied the IO to AIIMS mortuary where Sh. Asgar Ali and Sh. Govind Sharma identified the dead body of deceased Narayan Bangali in the mortuary. The IO conducted the inquest proceedings and got the post mortem conducted. After the post mortem the doctor in the hospital handed over one sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of Department of Forensic Medicine AIIMS hospital containing ligature material alongwith the sample seal. The doctor also handed over to him one plastic box containing blood in gauze and one pullanda containing the clothes of the deceased, both sealed with the seal of Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS hospital alongwith sample seals. The doctor also handed over to him one box containing viscera of the deceased duly sealed with the seal of Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS hospital alongwith the sample seals. He produced all the said material/exhibits to the IO which were separately sealed by the IO vide seizure memos Ex.PW10/E, Ex.PW10/F and Ex.PW10/G respectively. IO recorded his statement to this effect. Witness correctly identified the sleepers as Ex.PW10/P-1.
49. PW-11 HC Karamvir, another witness of investigation deposed on similar lines of PW-10 since they both joined the investigation with IO Inspector Prabhu Dayal.
50. PW-13 ASI Virendra Kumar, witness of investigation deposed that on 18.05.2015, he was posted at PS Vasant Kunj North and on State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 39 of 55 that day, on the directions of the IO, he took three sealed exhibits/pullandas of this case FIR from the Malkhana Mohrar along with FSL form and forwarding letter vide Road Certificate No. 73/21/2015 and deposited the same RFSL, Chankaya Puri. He obtained receipt from the FSL and submitted the same with MHC(M). During the tenure the above said case property in his possession and nothing was tampered are allowed to be tampered with the same. IO also recorded his statement.
51. PW-16 HC Sachin Dabas, witness of investigation deposed that on 18.05.2015, he was posted at PS Vasant Kunj North and working as MHC(M) and on that day, he had sent three exhibits duly sealed with the seal of 'AIIMS New Delhi' along with sample seal of the hospital through Ct. Virender vide RC No. 73/21/15 to RFSL, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi and on 27.05.2015, one pullanda which was also duly sealed with the seal of 'AIIMS New Delhi' along with sample seal of the hospital was also sent to RFSL, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi vide RC No. 84/21/15 through Ct. Deepak. He further deposed that both the constables had also returned him copy of acknowledgment receipt of exhibits submitted at RFSL, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi. The exhibits remained intact till they remained in his possession and no one had tampered with the said exhibits. Later on, IO recorded his statement.
52. PW-19 Inspector Vivek, witness of investigation deposed that on 07.04.2015, he received PCR call vide DD No. 20A dated State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 40 of 55 07.04.2015 (Ex.PW6/A), PS. Vasant Kunj North and he along with Giri Raj went to the spot i.e. Kishangarh, Shakti Park. He met PCR caller Atul at the spot, who informed that there was a dead body inside the park in the bushes. He along with Ct. Giri Raj went inside the park and saw the dead body in the bushes. It was dead body of a male aged about 35 years and there was Gamcha around his neck. His tongue was between the teeth and it appeared that he was strangulated. SHO and other staff came to the spot and called dog squad and crime team at the spot. He further deposed that on cursory search of the dead body, cash of Rs.105/- was found on his pant pocket which was seized vide memo Ex.PW-19/A. Efforts were made and enquiry was made from public persons if anybody could identify the dead body but nobody identified the dead body. Thereafter, he prepared the rukka which is Ex.PW-19/E and handed over the same to Ct. Giriraj and he went to PS and got the FIR registered. After registration of FIR, investigation was marked to Inspector Prabhu Dayal.
53. PW-20 HC Surender Kumar, Special Messanger who delivered copy of FIR to concerned Ld. MM, Joint CP, DCP, Addl. DCP and ACP on 07.04.2015..
54. PW-21 Retd. ACP Mahesh Kumar, Draftman proved the Scaled Site Plan as Ex.PW-21/A
55. PW-22 Inspector Prabhu Dayal, Investigating Officer deposed that on 07.04.2015 at about 2:00 pm, he was present at DDA Park, Kishangarh, New Delhi. Copy of FIR along with rukka was received State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 41 of 55 by him from Ct. Giriraj. At the spot, SI Sandeep Sharma (I/C Crime Team) and Ct. Sandeep (photographer) were present. SI Sandeep Sharma inspected the place of incident and handed over the report to him. Ct. Sandeep took 11 photographs of the place of incident from different angles. He further deposed that after enquiry; he recorded the statements of SI Sandeep Sharma and Ct. Sandeep under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In the meantime, ASI Indraj, I/C DOG, came to the spot along with Dog 'Ruby' however the Dog 'Ruby' did not give any indication. Thereafter, he issued WT message for identification of deceased (Ex. PW-22/A). He further deposed that in the meantime, one Asgar Ali S/o Viram Ali, R/o Tejpal ka Makaan, Kishangarh, Delhi came at the spot and identified the dead body of the deceased as one of his friends Narayan Bangali. Thereafter, he recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW22/B of the place where the dead body was found. Thereafter, dead body was sent to AIIMS hospital through SI Vivek Malik by 'Hersa Van'. He further deposed that caller Atul Bhargav met him at DDA Park and after enquiry, he recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, efforts were made to trace the accused but he could not be found.
56. PW-22 further deposed that on 08.04.2015, vide DD No. 9A, he along with Ct. Suresh, HC. Karamvir reached Kishangarh, Delhi in search of accused but accused could not be found there. Thereafter, at about 2:00 pm, he along with the staff reached in front of the main State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 42 of 55 Gate of DDA Park, where one Rama S/o Gurudayal was found and during interrogation, he stated that on 06.04.2015, his duty was at Sector A, Vasant Kunj as Security Guard from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. but since he got late therefore, he was not given duty by the Supervisor. Thereafter, Rama stated - voh Santosh (sharab bechne wale se) se sharab lekar aur kha peekar so jaata hai and thereafter, at about 8:30 - 9:00 p.m., he went to Santosh at DDA Park, Kishangarh, Delhi to purchase liquor, there he found standing one person wearing Blue T- shirt and Black pant with Santosh, whom he had seen many times earlier also and thereafter, he purchased one 'Pavua' from Santosh after paying him Rs.30/- and he reached his home. Rama further stated that on 07.04.2015, when he was walking near DDA Park, he saw a huge crowd in DDA Park and heard people saying about finding a dead body and when he went closer the dead body, he found that it was the dead body of the person who was found standing with Santosh, when he went to him to purchase liquor in the night of 06.04.2015 and thereafter, he went to attend the funeral of one of his neighbours Gopal. He had not stated this fact to anybody else other than him. After enquiry, he recorded the statement of Rama under Section s 161 Cr.P.C.
57. PW-22 further deposed that at about 4:00 pm, while being at the DDA Park itself, he inquired from one Govind Sharma S/o Gurudayal R/o Kishangarh, Delhi, who stated that 'voh rangai putai ka kaam karta hai aur sharab peene ka aadi hai aur Santosh (sharab bechne State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 43 of 55 wala) se DDA Park, Kishangarh se sharab kharidkar peeta hai'. Govind Sharma also informed that on 07.04.2015, at about 6:00-6:30 am, he went to DDA Park to purchase liquor from Santosh, he found that a dead body was lying under Keekar tree and Santosh told him that "maine bangali ka kaam kar diya". Govind also stated that Santosh asked him - iski dead body ko uthakar jhadiyon mein fekne mein uski madad kare but he (Govind) refused. Govind also stated - main vahan se jaane laga tabhi maine dekha ki Santosh eak ladke se baat kar rha tha uske baad Santosh aur voh ladka dead body ko lekar jhadiyon ki taraf le gaye. Jiske baad main vahan se apne ghar chala gaya aur maine yeh baat kisi ko nahi batai ". He had written whatever was stated before him by Govind and Rama.
58. PW-22 further deposed that during investigation, Govind Sharma stated that Santosh used to sell liquor in jhuggi near DDA Park. Thereafter, on the saying of Govind Sharma, he along with other police officials and Govind Sharma went to jhuggi near DDA Park where, after seeing them one person entered the jhuggi. Govind Sharma identified before them that he was Santosh. They entered the jhuggi and checked the jhuggi with torch of mobile phone. Accused Santosh was inside the jhuggi and Govind Sharma stated that he was same Santosh, who used to sell liquor in DDA Park and he had moved the dead body with the help of one another person from Keekar tree towards the bushes. He interrogated Santosh and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW-10/A. Accused Santosh was arrested and State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 44 of 55 his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW-2/C and Ex. PW-2/C. Accused Santosh disclosed that the person who had helped him in moving the dead body was a habitual drunkard and he can be found near DDA park. He along with the police officials, Govind and accused Santosh went in search of that person who had helped him moving the dead body. One person was found sleeping near Gande Paani Ki Jheel inside DDA Park. That person was checked with torch and Govind stated that he was the person who had helped Santosh in moving the dead body from Keekar tree towards the bushes. They woke up that person by putting torch light on his face. He further deposed that on interrogation, he came to know the name of the said person as Rajesh. He recorded disclosure statement of Rajesh Ex.PW1/B after his interrogation. Accused Rajesh was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW-2/E and Ex.PW-2/F. He also recorded statement of Govind under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After medical examination, both the accused were kept in lockup. The articles found in the personal search of the accused were kept in malkhana.
59. PW-22 further deposed that on 09.04.2015, both the accused were taken to lockup. He along with Ct. Karamvir, Ct. Suresh and Ct. Amar and both accused went to the spot at DDA park at the instance of the accused persons. In the meantime, Asgar Ali, friend of the deceased also met them in the DDA park. Asgar Ali identified two slippers found at the spot as the slippers of deceased Narayan Bangali.
State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 45 of 55One slipper of left feet was found on the North side of Keekar tree at a distance of 6 steps and the slipper of right feet was found on West side of keekar tree at a distance of 11 steps. He prepared site plan Ex.PW22/C at the instance of Asgar Ali which showed all the spots. He also prepared separate pointing out memos Ex. PW-10/C and Ex. PW-10/D at the instance of accused Santosh and Rajesh. He seized the sleepers of the deceased vide memo Ex. PW-11/A. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Asgar Ali and discharged him. Both accused were produced before the Court after their medical examination and they were remanded to JC. Case property i.e. slippers were deposited in malkhana.
60. PW-22 further deposed that on next date i.e. on 10.04.2015, he along with Asgar Ali and Govind went to AIIMS mortuary where the dead body was identified by Asgar Ali and Govind and their statements were recorded in this regard Ex.PW22/A1 and Ex.PW2/A respectively. He also prepared the inquest papers and got conducted postmortem of the dead body. He proved his application to Head of Department, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, AIIMS for conducting postmortem as Ex. PW-22/A2 and the inquest form as Ex.PW-22/A3. After postmortem of the dead body, the doctor handed over ligature material i.e. Gamcha in sealed condition along with sample seal, clothes of the deceased with blood on gauze of the deceased in sealed condition with sample seal and viscera box in sealed condition with sample seal. All the exhibits were sealed with State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 46 of 55 the seal of Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS, New Delhi. He seized all the exhibits, the seizure memo of ligature material with sample seal is Ex. PW-10/E, seizure memo of blood on gauze and clothes of deceased with sample seal is Ex. PW-10/F, seizure memo of viscera box with sample seal is Ex. PW-10/G. He further deposed that he handed over dead body to Asgar Ali for last rites as no family member of the deceased could be traced. All the exhibits were deposited in Malkhana. Thereafter, he sent request (Ex. PW-22/A4) to obtain CDR with CAF and location chart of mobile number used by accused Santosh. The Nodal Officer provided CAF, CDR and Certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act with location chart of the mobile number used by accused Santosh i.e. Ex. PW-12/A, Ex. PW-12/B, Ex. PW-12/C and Ex. PW-12/D. He came to know that the mobile number was issued to one Palen Sarkar. On analysing the CDR, he came to know that accused Santosh was in regular conversation with one Sandeep Maan S/o Sultan Singh. He called Sandeep Maan for enquiry and he stated that the said mobile number used by him was issued in his father's name and that he used to regularly call Santosh to buy liquor from him. Sandeep also stated that he used to talk to Santosh on mobile no. 9891741972. He further deposed that thereafter; he collected the PCR form (Ex. PW-9/A) from Ct. Rampal and recorded his statement. He got prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PW21/A. Thereafter, he collected postmortem report of the deceased through SI Manoj and sent the exhibits to FSL through State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 47 of 55 police staff. He also recorded the statement of witnesses. On completion of investigation, he prepared the chargesheet against Santosh and Rajesh. During course of investigation, he got recorded statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of Rama (Ex.A-1) and Govind (Ex.A-2). After receipt of FSL results, he also prepared the supplementary chargesheet. He interrogated Vinod Kumar and recorded his statement. He had also taken into possession a copy of Khasra Khatoni from Vinod Kumar and the same was placed on record. He correctly identified the case property i.e. slippers Ex.PW10/P-1. Witness also correctly identified both accused persons.
61. During cross examination, PW-22 admitted that none of the witness named by him in his statement is the eye witness to murder. (Vol. There is eye witness of dead body disposal and last seen witness ) and during investigation, no recovery of liquor was made from accused Santosh. He admitted that pursuant to disclosure statement of accused Santosh, no recovery was affected.
62. From the careful perusal of all the prosecution witnesses to the investigation, it surfaced that the investigation has not been conducted properly and seems to be only done stereotype. It is not free from lacunas which go to the root of the case of the prosecution. The investigation conducted does not complete the ring of circumstances in order to prove the hypothesis that it is only accused Santosh who committed the murder of deceased by strangulation.
State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 48 of 55Evidence with regard to charge under Section 201 IPC against both accused persons.
63. There is only one witness of the prosecution to prove the charge under Section 201 IPC, who is PW-2 Govind Sharma, a public witness, deposed that he seldom consumes liquor and accused Santosh (correctly identified) used to sell liquor near the bushes of DDA park. Sometimes, he used to go to accused Santosh to purchase liquor. He further deposed that on 07.04.2015 at about 06.30 a.m., he along with 4-5 other persons, was walking at intervals between each other, went to DDA park to purchase liquor from accused Santosh, however, they did not find accused Santosh there but one of his workers was present though he also was not having any liquor. He saw that a dead body was lying under a Khajoor tree (Dates tree) near the boundary wall of DDA park and at that time accused Santosh requested him to shift the dead body from there. He refused to help accused Santosh and went to gate No. 7 of DDA park. Thereafter, he left the park and returned home and went to attend to his job at Kishan Garh at about 09.00 a.m. and at that time, he did not see or hear anything else. He further deposed that on 07.04.2015 at about 08.00 a.m., he also made a call to police at number 100 to intimate about the above said facts and told the police that someone was lying dead under a tree near the DDA park and also told that accused Santosh had requested him to help him to shift the dead body from that place. He further deposed that he returned from his job and thereafter the police met him at about 06.00- State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 49 of 55 07.00 p.m on 07.04.2015 at gate Go. 7 of DDA park, Kishangarh. He pointed out to the police the spot where he saw the dead body lying under a tree near the boundary wall of DDA park. The police had already arrested accused Santosh and he was sitting in a police gypsy. Thereafter, he told the police that accused Santosh was the same person who used to sell liquor near DDA park and had also requested him to shift the dead body of a person lying under a tree near the boundary of DDA park. Witness further stated that on 07.04.2015 at the morning time, when he was coming back along with 4-5 other persons from the DDA park, he saw that accused Santosh with the help of accused Rajesh (Correctly identified) was shifting the dead body of that person near bushes of a jheel having dirty water in the DDA park. At that time, about 100-200 public persons and some boys who were playing Cricket also saw both the accused persons shifting the dead body. The said park is a very big park and open to public. He further deposed that on 07.04.2015, he was taken to PS Vasant Kunj for the purpose of investigation and he saw that accused Rajesh had been apprehended by the police and was brought in the police station Vasant Kunj on 08.04.2015. He signed on various documents at the Police Station, however, while signing he was not aware regarding the contents of those documents. His statement was recorded by the police on 08.04.2015. He further deposed that his statement was again recorded by the police on 10.04.2015 and on 25.06.2015 the Magistrate also recorded his statement. Witness proved his statement State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 50 of 55 under Section 164 Cr. PC and the proceedings as Ex.PW2/B. He also correctly identified the photographs of deceased Narain @ Bengali on record as Ex.PW1/X (Colly.).
63.1 At the request of Ld. Addl. PP for the State, permission was granted to ask leading question to the witness and witness stated that during investigation, on 08.04.2015, his statement Mark Ex.PW2/X was recorded and he stated to the police that he used to purchase liquor from accused Santosh or that he sometimes used to consume liquor at the DDA Park, Kishangarh. He admitted that after sometime of his refusal to help accused Santosh in disposal of the dead body, he saw that accused Rajesh came there, both the accused had some talks with each other and thereafter both the accused took away the dead body of Narain @ Bengali towards the bushes. He further stated that at that time, he became afraid and as such he went away to his home from the park. He proved arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Santosh as Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D respectively. He also proved the arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Rajesh as Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F respectively.
63.2 During cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Rajesh, witness stated that his eye sight is weak and he cannot read even a close document. He can only see clearly upto a distance of about ten meters and wear spectacles, however, at the relevant time, he was not wearing any spectacles. He entered the park at the relevant time from Gate no. 7. The dead body was not visible from Gate No. 7.
State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 51 of 55He further stated that when he immediately returned to his residence from the park, it was also dark and foggy and things were not visible and he had not made any call at 100 number. He admitted that he is not a witness to the incident of any alleged murder and he had seen the accused Rajesh for the first time only at PS and prior to that he never seen him.
63.3 The said witness re-examined by the prosecution and he deposed that at the time of his earlier examination recorded on 30.11.2015, he had given the date of incident as 07.04.2015 and he had also narrated that on that day, in the morning when he was coming back along with 4-5 persons from the DDA park, he saw that accused Santosh with the help of accused Rajesh was shifting the dead body of deceased near the bushes of a jheel having dirty water in the said DDA park. He further admitted that for the first time he had seen the accused Rajesh in the DDA park while he was shifting the dead body along with accused Santosh and on the second occasion in the PS. 63.4 The testimony of PW-2 is full of material contradictions as at the first instance he stated that when he reached the spot, accused Santosh was not present but without telling as to when accused Santosh reached the spot, he stated that accused Santosh asked him to help to lift the dead body and throw away but he denied. Then, he saw accused Santosh and Rajesh lifting the deadbody in order to hide the same in the bushes. However, he has admitted that the spot was State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 52 of 55 an open public place and at that time, there were about 100-200 persons present in the park. It does not appeal to a prudent mind that if at all accused Santosh has committed the murder of deceased, he will stay at the spot and in presence of 100-200 persons would try to destroy the evidence by hiding it under the bushes, which was visible to the public at large as per the version of PW-3/PCR Caller as well as the police witnesses, who reached at the spot.
64. Even, PW-2 has admitted that he did not make any call to police at the first instance to report about the dead body or the extra judicial confession made by accused Santosh or about accused Santosh asking him for help in hiding the dead body or about both the accused persons lifting the dead body and hiding the same in the bushes.
65. PW-2 even stated that he made a call to PCR on 07.04.2015 at about 8:00 a.m. reporting the incident to the police but there is no evidence corroborating the said call and PW-9 Ct. Rampal, Wireless Set Operator, deposed that at 10:10:49 am one Sh. Atul Bhargava made a call at number 100 from his mobile number 9582811254 and informed about lying of a dead body in bushes at bada shakti park, Kishangarh and proved the PCR Call Record as EX.PW9/A.
66. Hence, the testimony of PW-2 which is full of major contradictions to the record, does not inspire confidence of the Court.
State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 53 of 55Conclusion/findings :
67. It is a fundamental doctrine of criminal law that the onus to prove its case lies on the prosecution. Thus, in a criminal trial, the onus to prove the commission of offence by the accused is always upon the prosecution and the same never shifts upon the accused. The prosecution has to establish before the Court that the accused had committed the offence beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts.
68. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nanjundappa and Anr. V. State of Karnataka, decided on 17th May, 2022 has reiterated its view taken in the judgment titled as S.L.Goswami V. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1972 Crl.L.J.511 SC that :
'....the onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage, does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases, where defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false, that burden upon the prosecution does not become any less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if, the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution'.
69. In view of the above discussion, the Prosecution has not proved the chain of circumstances. The presumption is always in favour of the Accused unless proven otherwise by the prosecution.
State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 54 of 55The circumstances presented before this Court taken together with the evidence produced by the prosecution fails to conclusively establish the hypothesis of the guilt of the Accused. Even the prosecution could not convincingly testify the 'Motive' of the accused.
70. As in a criminal trial the onus is on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused before the Court beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts, however, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against both the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, in the present facts & circumstances. Accordingly, both the accused persons namely Santosh and Rajesh are acquitted of the charge against them in present FIR bearing No. 365/2015, PS Vasant Kunj North under Section 302/201/34 IPC. Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI BARNALA BARNALA TANDON Pronounced in the open TANDON Date:
2026.02.13 Court on 13.02.2026 18:36:37 +0530 (Shefali Barnala Tandon) ASJ-06 / New Delhi District Patiala House Court/13.02.2026 (gr) 1. It is certified that this Judgment contains 55 pages and each page bears my signatures. Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI BARNALA BARNALA TANDON TANDON Date: 2026.02.13 18:36:42 +0530 (Shefali Barnala Tandon) ASJ-06 / New Delhi District Patiala House Court/13.02.2026 (gr) State Vs. Santosh & Anr. FIR No. 356/2015 PS Vasant Kunj (North) Page 55 of 55