Delhi District Court
State vs Tillu @ Ramdas on 23 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN : ASJ-02 :
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS :
NEW DELHI
State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas
FIR No.: 79/1997
U/s : 302/34 IPC
PS : Okhla Industrial Area
Brief Details Of The Case
FIR Number : 79/1997
Offence complained of : U/s 302/34 IPC
Date of Offence : 03/04.02.1997
Name of the complainant : Smt. Sunita
W/o Late Sh. Kishan Lal
R/o H.No.A-75, Balmiki Mohalla
Tugalkabad Village Delhi
Name of the accused : 1. Tillu @ Ramdas
S/o Sh. Sundar Lal
R/o H.No.308, Armapur
Estate, Kanpur Uttar Pradesh
Also at Village Nai, Post Rahma,
Distt. Budaun, UP
2. Ramu
S/o Sh. Madan Lal
R/o Village Kanpur, P.S. Kotwali,
Distt. Farrukhabad Uttar Pradesh
Accused expired proceedings
abated.
FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 1 of 43
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of Institution : 23.02.2004
Date of Judgment reserved on : 16.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 23.09.2025
Final order : Accused Tillu @ Ramdas
Acquitted.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Tillu @ Ramdas S/o Sunder Lal faced trial in this case, for committing offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.
2. Prosecution case, as per charge-sheet was that on 04.02.1997, an information was received at Police Station Okhla Industrial Area, vide DD No. 24A, upon which Inspector Rajender Singh and SI Amrit Kumar along with other staff of police station reached to the spot i.e. Valmiki Mohalla, Near Mandir, Village Tugalkabad, New Delhi, where house of accused Ramu was found locked. Thereafter, when lock of said house was broken, dead body of deceased Kishan Lal S/o Dayal Masih was found on a bed (Charpai) inside the house and several injuries were found present on the body of Kishan Lal and there was a lot of blood inside the house. Thereafter, the spot was visited and inspected by the crime team and the exhibits lifted from there. Smt. Sunita (deceased's wife) met at the spot and her statement was recorded wherein she named both accused persons namely Ashok @ Ramu and Tillu @ Ramdas. Based on said averments, FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 2 of 43 FIR was registered and investigation ensued.
3. During course of investigation, both accused persons were searched but they were absconding from their addresses. Thereafter, raids had been conducted but accused evaded their arrest. Accused persons could not be arrested and process u/s 82 CrPC were initiated and on 15.05.1997 accused persons was declared 'Proclaimed Offender' and chargesheet was filed before the Court on 23.02.2004. Subsequently, statement of witnesses were recorded U/s 299 Cr.P.C. and file was consigned to record room.
4. During the pendency of present case accused Ramu S/o Sh. Madan Lal was also apprehended and sent to JC but he expired on 04.10.2022 while taking treatment at DDU Hospital and proceedings against accused Ramu was abated vide order dated 14.10.2022.
5. Thereafter, on 29.04.2024 accused Tillu @ Ramdas was formally arrested in this case and sent to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, supplementary charge sheet qua accused Tillu @ Ramdas was filed. Accused Tillu @ Ramdas was chargesheeted under Section 302/34 IPC. After filing of the chargesheet, Court took cognizance of the offences against accused. Proceedings under Section 207 Cr.P.C were concluded.
6. Arguments on charge were heard and based on the contents of chargesheet, accused was charged with offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Matter was then fixed for FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 3 of 43 prosecution evidence.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
7. Prosecution has examined 06 witnesses in support of its case: -
Serial Name of the Crux of deposition Number Witness
PW-1 Smt. Sunita Devi To prove the material essentials of the (complainant/wife offences alleged and her complaint she of the deceased) tendered the following documents in evidence :-
a) Seizure memo of danda Ex. PW1/A
b) Statement/complaint already Ex.PW3/A This witness has been duly cross-examined.
PW-2 (Retd.) ACP Witness deposed regarding the different Rajinder Singh stages of investigation conducted and prove Pathania the following documents:
a) Rukka Ex.PW2/A
b) Site Plan Ex.PW2/B
c) Seizure memo of parcel of viscera peti Ex.PW2/C
d) Form no.25.35 regarding death report - unnatural death by violence Ex.PW2/D
e) Application for conducting postmortem of deceased alongwith opinion of cause of death Ex.PW2/E FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 4 of 43
f) Written request for preserving the dead body for 24 hours in mortuary Ex.PW2/F
g) Departure DD No.23 dated 04.02.1997 regarding searching of accused persons Ex.PW2/G
h) Copy of departure entry no.40 dated 05.02.1997 Ex.PW2/H
i) Application for initiating proceeding U/s 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW2/I
j) Application for obtaining NBWs against both accused persons Ex.PW2/J
k) Application for declaring PO qua both accused persons Ex.PW2/K This witness has been duly cross-examined.
PW-3 (Retd.) ACP Witness deposed that further investigation of Anand Kumar Rai the case was marked to him and he had prepared the chargesheet and filed in the Court and at the time of preparing the chargesheet both accused persons were already declared PO.
This witness has been duly cross-examined.
PW-4 Inspt. Shailendra Witness deposed regarding the different Kumar Singh stages of investigation conducted and prove the following documents:
a) Application for interrogation and formal FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 5 of 43 arrest of accused Tillu @ Ramdas Ex.PW4/A
b) Disclosure statement of accused Tillu @ Ramdas Ex.PW4/B
c) Application for seekign one day PC qua accused Tillu @ Ramdas Ex.PW4/C
d) Pointing out memo of place of occurrence Ex.PW4/D
e) Supplementary disclosure statement of accused Tillu @ Ramdas Ex.PW4/E
f) Arrest memo qua accused Tillu @ Ramdas Ex.PW4/F This witness has been duly cross-examined.
PW-5 HC Amrish Witness deposed that he had joined the investigation with IO and prove the following documents:
a) Arrest memo of accused Tillu @ Ramdas dated 26.04.2024 Ex.PW5/A
b) Personal search of accused Tillu @ Ramdas Ex.PW5/B
c) Medical examination of accused Tillu @ Ramdas Ex.PW5/C
d) Kalandada prepared vide GD No.328A dated 26.04.2024 Ex.PW5/D
e) DD Entry No.328A dated 26.04.2024 FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 6 of 43 Ex.PW5/E This witness has been duly cross-examined.
PW-6 Retd. ACP Amrit Witness deposed regarding the different Kumar stages of investigation conducted.
This witness has been duly cross-examined.
8. Vide statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. recorded on 08.11.2024, the accused has admitted the genuineness of the following documents:
S. No. Documents Admitted
1. FIR No.79/1997 recorded by Duty Officer Ex.A
HC Tejpal (without content)
2. Postmortem report No.114/97 dated Ex.A1
05.02.1997 of deceased Kishan Lal
prepared by Dr. A Sinha, Department of
Forensic and AIIMS Hospital, Delhi
3. FSL report no.97/B-0219 dated 17.10.1997 Ex.A-2 (Colly)
and Biological report dated 17.10.2019
prepared by Dr. D S Chakoutra
4. Statement of Ct. Ghure Singh, Ex.A-3
Photographer who were taken the
photographs of scene of crime
5. Statement of ASI Sushil Kumar incharge Ex.A-4
Crime Team, who prepared crime team
report scene of crime which previously
FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 7 of 43
exhibited as Ex.PW1/A dated 21.07.2004
now
6. Statement of Ct. Satbir Singh Ex.A-5
7. Statement of Ct. Phool Singh Ex.A-6
8. Statement of HC Om Prakash MHC(M) Ex.A-7
9. Statement of Ct Suresh who deposited the Ex.A-8
sealed parcel in FSL
10. Statement of Ct. Daya Ram who deposited Ex.A-9
visera report in the CFSL
11. Statement of HC Sukhvinder regarding Ex.A-10
proceeding U/s 82/83 Cr.P.C. accused Tillu
@ Ramdas S/o Sunder Lal
12. Statement of HC Dharamvir regarding Ex.A-11
proceeding U/s 83 Cr.P.C. accused Tillu @
Ramdas S/o Sunder Lal
13. Scaled site plan of place of occurrence Ex.A-12
prepared by SI/ Draughtsman Madan Pal
14. Statement of Ct. Anil, Spl. Messenger for Ex.A-13
supplying copy of FIR to area magistrate
and Senior Officers
15. DD No.105A dated 26.04.2024 recorded by Ex.A-14
ASI Praveen Kumar
FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 8 of 43
16. Statement of Ct. Kapil regarding arrest, Ex.A-15 (Colly)
disclosure and pointing out memo of
accused Tillu @ Ramdas dated 29.04.2024
& 30.04.2024
17. Statement of ASI Manoj regarding arrest, Ex.A-16
disclosure and pointing out memo of
accused Tillu @ Ramdas dated 29.04.2024
18. DD No.24A dated 03/04.02.1997 regarding Ex.A-17
PCR call recorded by the then Duty Officer
19. DD No.258A dated 25.04.2024 made by SI Ex.A18
Naresh Kumar (Crime Branch Delhi)
regarding departure outstation alongwith SI
Sunil Pawar and HC Amrish Kumar for
departure with Govt. Vehicle alongwith
Arms and Ammunition in search of
proclaimed offender with permission of
senior officer.
9. Prosecution witnesses deposed regarding the offence in the present matter as follows:
PW-1 Smt. Sunita Devi (complainant) deposed that on 03.02.1997 she alongwith her husband Kishan Lal (deceased) came to her house from their workplace at about 5 pm. After about 10-15 minutes accused Ramu (since deceased) came to their house who was residing in their locality distance from 2-3 lanes from their house. Ramu had taken her husband with him at FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 9 of 43 his house/room where he was residing. Deceased Kishan Lal used to visit house of the Ramu. She slept on that night, and when she woke up about 3 am in the morning and she tried to search her husband in the same locality. Some people had informed her that they had seen her husband with Ramu going towards the house of Ramu. In the morning, at about 7 am she alongwith her brother Sarvesh went to the house of Ramu and house of Ramu was found locked. Her brother had peeped through the window of the house of Ramu and saw that blood stain was found inside the house and also saw that the dead body was wrapped in the cloth which was also blood stain on the cot lying in the room of the Ramu. Somebody had informed the police. Police came at spot. Police had broken open the door of house of Ramu and entered in the house. She also entered in the house with police. After unfolding the cloth/rajai over dead body of her husband and the dead body of her husband was found blood stained and also found in injured having wounds on the body of her husband and her husband expired at that time. Her husband received injury on his head, mouth, eyes and on his body. One axe was lying near the body of her husband. There was pool of blood found under the cot upon which dead body of her injured husband was lying and blood stain was also found in the room. She suspected that Ramu and Tillu @ Ramdas had committed murder of her husband because both were residing in the same room/house. They deposited a committee in TA (territory area) area where she was working and the said committee was withdraw by her husband Tillu @ Ramdas and Ramu and they had purchased liquor and then her husband alognwith Ramu and Tillu @ Ramdas went to their house. It may be that reason for committee amount FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 10 of 43 for committal of murder of her husband by the accused persons. Her statement was recorded by the police already Ex.PW3/A exhibited on 05.08.2004 which bears her thumb impression. She had shown the place of occurrence where murder of her husband was committed by accused persons. A danda was recovered from the house of accused Ramu (since deceased/proceedings abated) vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. Police had seized some other articles. The cot and blood stained clothes/razai and gadda clothes were recovered by the police from the spot. She did not remember if any other articles were also seized by the police from the spot.
She did not know if some other articles were seized by the police in presence of her brother. The seizure memo was already Ex.PW1/C, exhibited on 21.07.2004. She had identified the dead body of her husband and her statement regarding identification of dead body was recorded by IO. Same was already Ex.PW3/B on 05.08.2004. She had received the dead body of her husband after postmortem vide receipt already Ex. PW3/C exhibited on 05.08.2004. Witness correctly identify the accused. Accused Tillu @ Ramdas is brother-in-law (saala) of accused Ramu. Accused Tillu @ Ramdas and Ramu are involved for committal murder of her husband and they had committed murder of her husband. The case property was already exhibited in the statement of PW-2 Sarvesh examined U/s 299 Cr.P.C. and the same was already Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 (one broken lock, four empty bottle of country made liquor, comb, glass, one pair of hawai chappal), Ex.P3 (one quilt), Ex.P4 (one pillow) to Ex.P5 (clothes /shirt, paint, pair of socks, sweater, jacket which was worn by deceased) and the cot has already been Ex.P-6 in the testimony of PW1 witness examined as FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 11 of 43 PW3 U/s 299 Cr.P.C. on 05.08.2004. The case property was seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/D (exhibited during the testimony of witness PW1 Sarvesh recorded U/s 299 Cr.P.C.). The seized case property was not disputed.
During cross-examination on behalf Ld. Counsel for accused PW-1 deposed that on the day of incident she alongwith her husband Kishan Lal reached at their house at about 05:00 pm. At that time, her son namely Illu Prabhakar was also present who was aged about 7 years. On that day at about 05:15 pm accused Ramu came alongwith accused Tillu @ Ramdas at her house to call her husband Kishan Lal. On that day, she had cooked her dinner at around 06:00 pm. They did not take dinner because her husband not returned home. Accused Ramu took her husband to his house but she did not know where his house in the locality. Her brother Sarvesh also did not know the house of accused Ramu. She had fallen sleep at about 10 pm. She woke up about 11:00 pm and her husband was not found where he used to sleep outside her house. Thereafter, she went to house of her brother Sarvesh. The distance of house of her brother Sarvesh from her house which was about half an hour by walking distance. They had searched her husband but he could not be traced on that night. She voluntarily deposed that at about 04:00 am they were searching her husband in their area and told to some person that her husband was going from her house with Tillu @ Ramdas and Ramu and they did not know about the house of Ramu. Then, the public person had shown the house of Ramu to them. Thereafter, they reached at the house of Ramu. They FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 12 of 43 reached at the house of Ramu at about 4 am in the morning (on 04.02.1997). It was correct that there was friendly relation between her husband and accused Ramu. She was not well acquainted with Ramu. She did not know whether Ramu and her husband Kishan used to consume liquor being a friend. It was correct that she was not the eye witness of murder of her husband. The accused persons in the present matter had been absconding and could not be apprehended and were declared proclaimed offencer. Subsequently, with the efforts made by her, accused Ramu and Tillu @ Ramdas were apprehended by the police in the present matter. It was correct that she had no mobile number of Ramu and Tillu @ Ramdas. They opened a committee for financial help of each other at their working place. It was correct that the above said committee was opened with the help of her husband. There was residential area near the house of accused Ramu and some neighbourers house also situated near the house of accused Ramu.
PW-2 (Retd.) ACP Rajinder Singh Pathania deposed that on 04.02.1997, he was posted as Inspector and working as Additional SHO PS OIA. On that day, he received DD No.24A, which was already admitted and Ex.A17 thereafter, he alongwith SI Amrit, SI G. S. Rawat, ASI Uttam and other officials reached at spot where so many persons were gathered and the place of occurrence was locked. He had seen inside of the locked room where a dead body was lying on the cot. Thereafter, he had broke the lock of the room where the dead body was lying. The mattress smeared with blood and blood was also found on the ground and some bottles were also FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 13 of 43 smeared with blood and blood was spread on the walls and other places in the room. Near the place of incident he found a blood stained danda in the plot. He called to the crime team and photographer at spot. After sometime crime team reached at spot and had taken the photograph of spot from different angle and also taken the five finger prints from the spot as well as blood stained danda. Complainant Sunita wife of the deceased Kishan Lal met him at spot. He recorded her statement which was already Ex. PW3/A and the same was attested by him, thereafter, he had prepared the rukka and sent the rukka through Ct. Majister Chaudhary for registration of the case and rukka was Ex. PW2/A. After registration of case Ct. Majister case at spot and he had handed over him rukka alongwith FIR. He prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Ex.PW2/B. He sealed the blood stained danda in the cloth parcel with the seal of AKV and seized the same in this case vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/A. He had seized the blood stained cot and blood stained quilt and blood stained mattress and one blood stained red color bed sheet and blood stained quilt, mattress and bed sheet were sealed in cloth parcel with the seal of AKV and he also collected blood stained earth control from the place of occurrence and they put in the plastic box and sealed with seal of AKV. The above said articles were seized in this case vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/C. He also seized one old lock on which farista world was written and he also seized the empty bottle of country made liquor and the blood stained was also found on said bottles. The empty bottle was kept with the cap (dhakkan) and world PDM was written on the dhakkan of the bottles and one empty bottle was also found which was not having the cap (dhakkan). One blood FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 14 of 43 stained comb and one broken bottle on which Patiala Rose written also seized and one glass and one broken glass and some pieces of broken glass were also seized. He also seized blood stained comb of white color and two blood stained sleeper of children also seized and one blood stained underwear of the child and one crushed cap (dhakkan) was also seized on which PDM Delhi Excise was written. He also seized blood stained newspaper which was found affixed on the wall. He also seized one blood stained shoes belong to the deceased Kishan Lal was also found from the place of occurrence and same was seized. All the above said articles were sealed in a gatta box with the seal of AKV and seized in this case vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/D. He filled up the form 25.35 for the conducting the postmortem of the deceased. He got conducted the postmortem of the deceased and after getting the postmortem of the deceased Kishan Lal the viscera of the deceased was preserved. Ct. Satbir Singh collected sealed parcel of the blood goose and sample seal and seized parcel of the cloth of the deceased and sealed parcel of the viscera peti duly sealed with the seal of hospital. The above said articles were handed over to him and he had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/C. He collected the PM report from the hospital alongwith relevant documents. The PM report was already admitted and Ex.A1. He had filed the form no.25.35 regarding death report - unnatural death by violence at spot which was Ex.PW2/D. The application for conducting postmortem of deceased alongwith opinion of caused death prepared by him which was Ex.PW2/E. He recorded the statement of Sarvesh and Sunita regarding identification of the dead body which was already Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW3/B. He had FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 15 of 43 written the request for preserving the dead body of deceased for 24 hours in the mortuary and my said application was Ex.PW2/F. He collected the scene of crime report and placed on file same was already admitted and Ex.A4. After got conducting the postmortem report, dead body of Kishan Lal was handed over to his wife Sunita vide receipt already Ex.PW3/C. He had deposited the sealed parcels of the exhibits to the FSL Malviya Nagar, Delhi and viscera was sent to FSL Kolkatta. He obtained the NBWs of accused Ramu and Tillu @ Ramdas and the proceeding of U/s 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. was got conducted. During the investigation both accused was not traced and he got declared PO of both accused persons. The departure DD No.23 dated 04.02.1997 PP Okhla regarding searching the accused persons. The true copy of the above said DD entry was Ex.PW2/G. True copy of departure and arrival DD Entry No.40 dated 05.02.1997 made by SI Ved Singh was Ex. PW2/H. He made the application for initiating proceeding U/s 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. before the Court and same was Ex. PW2/I. He also made an application for obtaining NBWs against both accused persons in the Court which was Ex.PW2/J. He also made application in court for declaring PO both accused persons and same was allowed by court which was Ex.PW2/K. He also collected the scaled site plan from the draftsman same was already admitted and Ex.A12. He recorded the statement of all witnesses and supplementary statement of witness Sunita and Sarvesh U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of the witnesses namely photographer Ct Bhure Singh, ASI Sushil Kumar In-charge Crime Team was admitted by the accused and Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 respectively. After conducting the aforesaid investigation he had been transferred and further investigation was marked FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 16 of 43 to Inspt. Anand Rai who had prepared the chargesheet and filed in the Court. During the investigation both accused persons was absconding and declared PO.
During cross-examination on behalf accused PW-2 deposed that he was informed regarding the present matter by duty officer on 04.02.1997. He had received information regarding the same around 07:55 am. He was present at the police station at that time. He left for the spot within 5-7 minutes of receiving the information and reached the spot around 08:20 am. The distance between the police station and the spot was around 3 km. When, he had seen the dead body from the window, and thereafter, had broken open the lock, the rukka was not prepared at that time. He voluntarily deposed that after breaking open the lock the wife of the deceased was also present and upon her statement rukka was prepared. There was no requirement of sanction from any senior official for breaking open the door when he saw the dead body. He had flashed the message through wireless regarding the incident, and therefore, the information was sent to Senior Officers. The aforesaid danda was sent to FSL for opinion on blood stains. He had prepared a rough site plan by using a scale, and thereafter, the same was got prepared through draughtsman which was a scaled site plan. He had sent rukka at around 10:15 am. Ct. Majister Chaudhary had gone to PS for registration of FIR alongwith rukka and he came back to spot around 01:00 pm alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka. After reaching the spot he had called the crime team firstly. He had not enquired about the relationship between the deceased and his wife at that time. He had not enquired about the nature of relationship between the FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 17 of 43 deceased his wife and co-accused Ramu. The finger print expert had lifted five finger print from the spot but he did not know who all were the persons whose finger prints had matched with the spot. During cross-examination witness was asked whether he had seen the accused Tillu @ Ramdas in the jurisdiction of PS OIA on 03.02.1997 and 04.02.1997 personally to which witness replied that accused had absconded from the spot and was never apprehended in the matter, and therefore, chargesheet after declaring them PO was filed. He have not seen the accused on 03.02.1997 or 04.02.1997.
PW-3 (Retd.) ACP Anand Kumar Rai deposed that in the year of 1997, he was working as Additional SHO PS OIA. After transfer of the Inspt. Rajender Pathania, further investigation was marked to him, who had conducted the investigation of the case. Accused Tillu @ Ramdas and Ramu were already got declared PO by Inspt. Rajender Pathania. He had prepared the chargesheet and filed in the Court. At the time of filing of chargesheet accused persons were already declared PO.
During cross-examination on behalf accused PW-3 deposed that except filing of chargesheet he did not investigate the matter. He prepared the chargesheet and filed in the court on 07.03.1998.
PW-4 Inspt. Shailendra Kumar Singh deposed that on 27.04.2024, he was posted at PS Okhla Industrial Area. On that day, copy of DD already Ex.A-14 and order of court dated 27.04.2024 handed over to him by SHO for further investigation. Next day i.e. on 28.04.2024, he got photocopy of FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 18 of 43 police file. Thereafter, he went to the Crime Branch Office Chanakyapuri and he had collected photocopy of kalandera prepared by the Crime Branch U/s 41.1 (c) Cr.P.C. regarding arrest of accused Tillu @ Ramdas alongwith arrest memo and personal search memo of Tillu Ramdas. He had examined the IO of kalendra HC Amresh and witness SI Naresh regarding arrest of accused Tillu @ Ramdas. The crime branch official produced accused Tillu @ Ramdas on 27.04.2024 and he was sent to JC. On 29.04.2024 accused Tillu @ Ramdas produced before the Court. He made an application for interrogation and formal arrest of accused before the Court and was Ex.PW4/A. After permission from the Court he interrogated the accused Tillu @ Ramdas and recorded his disclosure statement which was Ex.PW4/B in presence of Ct. Kapil and ASI Manoj. Thereafter, he moved an application for seeking one day police custody in the court which was Ex.PW4/C. As per disclosure statement they went at the place of occurrence where accused committed murder of deceased Kishan Lal and accused pointed out place of occurrence where he prepared pointing out memo of place of occurrence and same was Ex.PW4/D. Thereafter, he got medically examined the accused and sent to him lock-up of PS OIA. Next day, on 30.04.2024, he again interrogated the accused Tillu @ Ramdas and recorded his supplementary disclosure statement which was Ex.PW4/E. While interrogation of accused Tillu @ Ramdas in the police station complainant namely Sunita also came there and she identified the accused Tillu @ Ramdas. On 29.04.2024, he prepared the arrest memo which was Ex.PW4/F in presence of witness Ct. Kapil and ASI Manoj. He recorded the statement of complainant Sunita. He also recorded the statement of Ct.
FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 19 of 43Kapil and ASI Manoj. On 30.04.2024, he produced the accused before the court and sent him to JC. After completion of investigation, he prepared the supplementary chargesheet. The PO chargesheet has already filed in the Court. Witness correctly identify the accused.
During cross-examination on behalf accused PW-4 deposed that he had not informed the wife of the deceased regarding the arrest of accused Tillu @ Ramdas. He had met the complainant who was the wife of deceased at the police station. Accused was pointed out to be Tillu @ Ramdas by the complainant when she reached the police station. He had taken the accused to the place of incident after his arrest. The place of incident now constructed having two floors and he did not remember the exact number of the said house, and he had also enquired from the occupant/tenant of the house who told him that she was not aware about the house number. He had not prepared the site plan at that time. He had not enquired about any matrimonial dispute between the complainant Sunita and deceased Kishan Lal. He did not enquire regarding any relationship between complainant Sunita and accused Ashok @ Ramu. The place of incident currently was a populated area. He had not cited any public person as a witness to the pointing out memo since no one agreed to join the investigation.
PW-5 HC Amrish deposed that on 25.04.2024, he was posted at Crime Branch. On that day, he alongwith SI Sunil and SI Naresh and HC Rajesh went in search of the accused to Rishikesh. On 26.04.2024, he alongwith aforesaid officers went to look and search for accused Tillu @ Ramdas.
FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 20 of 43Thereafter, around 5am-6am in the morning, aforesaid accused Tillu @ Ramdas was found present at Ghat No.3, near Geeta Bhawan. At that time, IO had taken the assistance of Local Police. Thereafter, accused with great difficulty was apprehended and accused Tillu @ Ramdas was arrested in the present matter vide arrest memo dated 26.04.2024 Ex.PW5/A. Personal search of accused was conducted vide Ex.PW5/B. Thereafter, accused was brought to Delhi on the same day. Subsequently, medical examination of accused got conducted vide Ex.PW5/C and kalandra was prepared by the IO vide GD No.328A dated 26.04.2024 Ex.PW5/D. On next day, accused was produced before the concerned court and was sent to JC. He had also made arrival DD entry no.328A dated 26.04.2024 after arrest of the accused as PO and the attested copy was Ex.PW5/E. Witness correctly identify the accused.
During cross examination on behalf of accused PW-5 deposed that he had prepared the kalandra Ex.PW5/D. The information regarding presence of accused at Rishikesh was given to them by secret informer and the same was given by meeting the IO Inspt. Manmeet. The accused was found at Rishikesh among the baggers and sadhu on the ghat. The accused was wearing the clothes of red color at the time of his arrest as worn by sadhu's. It was correct that a call was made on phone no.8273692768 and the same was made by police team. He did not remember from whose mobile number the call was made on the aforesaid mobile number. It was correct that CDR record of the aforesaid mobile number has not been annexed with kalandra. The accused was having one small mobile phone which was FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 21 of 43 seized from him during his personal search. The ownership of the mobile phone was not investigated by him. He had not placed on record any document to show if the aforesaid mobile phone was registered on the name of accused Tillu @ Ramdas. The enquiry from the accused was made when he was apprehended at the ghat and regarding the present matter. IO tried to join the public witnesses at the time of apprehension of accused but none joined the investigation with the IO.
PW-6 (Retd.) ACP Amrit Kumar deposed that on 04.07.1997, he was posted as SI at PS OIA. On that day, an information received by him vide DD No.24A dated 04.07.1997. Thereafter, he alongwith Inspt. Rajinder, Ct. Satbir, and SI GS Rawat and ASI Uttam Singh and Ct. Mainster Chaudhary, reached at spot Balmiki Mohalla, near Temple Village Tuglakabad, house of Ramu, where the house of accused Ramu was found locked. Public persons were gathered at the spot and we broken the lock and entered into the room where dead body of Kishan Lal was found on the cot and he had received injury on the head and face and injuries was also received on deceased near his eyes and ears and blood was found on the clothes, which was lying on the cot and blood stains was also found on the wall of room. Where three empty country made liquor bottle was found and the lid of the bottle was also on the bottle and on empty broken bottle was also lying there and two glass were also lying there in which one glass was found broken. One lady namely Sunita was also met them and she identified the deceased as her husband. Statement of Smt. Sunita was recorded by Inspt. Rajinder Singh. Sleeper were also found in the room. One black color shoes was also found in the room. The above said blood FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 22 of 43 stain articles found at place of occurrence near about the deceased were sealed by the IO and sealed in this case. During search one blood stain wooden danda was also found at the back side of the above house which was wrapped by a cloth. The above said articles were sealed with the seal of AKV. On the basis of statement of Sunita, rukka was prepared by the IO/Inspt. Rajinder the then SHO. The above said sealed articles were sealed in this case in the presence of witnesses. They had sent the dead body to the mortuary of AIIMS for postmortem of the dead body with the police officials. Complainant Sunita deposed against accused Ramu and her brother-in-law (saala) Tillu @ Ramdas that both accused persons committed the murder of her husband their house. He was enquired by the IO and his statement was recorded by the IO. Case property already exhibited in the testimony of other witness.
During cross examination on behalf of accused PW-6 deposed that he had received the information of the incident on 04.07.1997. He did not remember at what time, he had received the said information. At the time of receiving the information he was present at police station. He had reached the spot upon receiving the information but he did not remember the exact time of reaching the same. He did not remember the exact time of leaving the police station to the spot due to lapse of time. He could not tell that the houses in the area were at a distance and some of the plots were lying vacant. He did not remember if adjacent to the house where the incident occurred there were any constructed houses or vacant land. Dead body of the deceased was found inside the room and the same was seen by FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 23 of 43 the police team who visited the spot. The case property mentioned by him above is stated in the seizure memo. The crime team had reached the spot in his presence. The crime team had conducted the investigation qua evidence collected in his presence. He did not remember if any finger prints were lifted by the crime team on the spot. No foot prints were taken by the crime team in his presence. He did not know what was the distance of the house of complainant Sunita and the place where the dead body of her husband was found. He voluntarily deposed that they had met the complainant on the spot. He did not know whether any specific information regarding the presence of accused at the spot was previously available at police station before the incident occurred.
10.After examining aforesaid witnesses prosecution closed its evidence and matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused.
11.After examination of aforesaid witnesses prosecution closed its evidence and matter was fixed for recording of statement of Accused Under Section 313 Cr.P.C, and all the incriminating evidence was put to accused which he denied. He claimed that he had not committed any offence. He had been falsely implicated in the present matter. Deceased Kishan Lal was the cousin brother of his brother-in-law namely Ramu (since expired) had a quarrel with the deceased. At the time of incident, he was in Kanpur and was not even present in Delhi. He had been falsely named by the wife of the deceased. He was not aware about the pendency of proceeding of present matter and therefore, he could not appear before the court. He had FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 24 of 43 been living with his family at Kanpur and none of his family members were aware about the present matter against him.
12.After hearing final arguments, matter was listed for judgment.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED.
13.It is argued that no independent public witness have been brought forth despite the chargesheet mentioning that a large crowd had gathered at the spot when the Police Officials came. It is further submitted the place of occurrence is situated in a densely populated locality. The failure to produce even a single independent witness, either at the time of filing of the chargesheet or at the stage of trial, fatally undermines the credibility of the prosecution's case. It is also significant that this is not a situation where the prosecution can plead belated difficulties-Section 299 CrPC statements were recorded as far back as in 2004, and even then, no independent witness was brought forth.
14.It is further argued that it is no more res integra that where independent witnesses are available and yet the prosecution relies solely upon official witnesses, the evidence must be scrutinized with greater caution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo & Ors., v. State of Punjab, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2622; State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram, (1999) 3 SCC 507, has held that although conviction may not automatically fail for want of independent witnesses, the prosecution is expected to produce them where available, particularly in cases occurring in public or crowded places. It has further been argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 25 of 43 has in a catena of judgments, held that the non-examination of independent witnesses, without proper explanation, casts serious doubt on the prosecution's version. [Ref:- Parminder Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2020) 8 SCC 811; Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansingh, (2001) 6 SCC 145.
15.It is further argued that the frailty in the prosecution's case does not arise merely from the fact that only the complainant's testimony has been adduced, but from the quality and reliability of that testimony itself. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that conviction may rest on the sole testimony of a complainant or interested witness only if such testimony is of sterling quality-free from contradictions, embellishments, and material improvements and the testimony of a solitary witness is permissible only when such a testimony inspires confidence of the Court. [Ref: Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21; Lallu Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand, (2003) 2 SCC 401] [401]
16.It has further been argued that applying the above settled principles, it is evident that in the present case the testimony of PW-1, far from being of sterling quality, suffers from improvements and inconsistencies, and hence cannot form the sole basis for conviction. It has further been argued that contradictions and improvements are also evident from the Testimony of PW-1 regarding the location of Ramu's house/room. In her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she merely stated that Ramu lived in the same neighbourhood/locality as her house. In her examination-in-chief, she went FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 26 of 43 a step further and specified the exact location by deposing that Ramu's house was "2-3 lanes away" from her own residence. However, in cross- examination, she completely departed from this version by stating that she did not even know where Ramu's house was situated in the locality and that it was only at 4 a.m.. when a person from the locality showed them Ramu's house, that she came to know of its whereabouts. This inconsistency goes to the root of the prosecution case, because if the complainant herself was not aware of where Ramu resided, her claim of having seen the deceased leave with Ramu or having gone the next morning to his house becomes wholly doubtful.
17.It has further been argued that the contradictions in PW-1's testimony are further seen when her deposition under Section 299 Cr.P.C. is compared with her later examination. In her statement under Section 299, PW-1 categorically stated that on 04.02.1997, when her husband did not return home, she called her brother Sarvesh to her house, and thereafter both of them reached the house of Ramu at about 7:30 a.m. However, in her subsequent testimony, she introduced completely different versions of the events first claiming in examination-in-chief that she woke up at 3:00 a.m. and went to Sarvesh's house, and later in cross-examination altering her story again to say that she awoke around 11:00 p.m., went to Sarvesh's house that night, searched for her husband with him, and that around 4:00 a.m. an unidentified person showed them the house of Ramu. Such shifting stands, not on peripheral details but on the core timeline of events, destroy the consistency and reliability of PW-1's version. She further on hand states FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 27 of 43 that there was enmity between Ramu and her husband on account of sale of house on the other hand in cross examination she states that Ramu and her husband were good friends. When the complainant herself has placed contradictory versions of when and how she approached her brother and when they allegedly reached Ramu's house, her testimony ceases to inspire confidence.
18.It has further been argued that the Complainant on whose testimony the case of the prosecution rests, has further failed to establish a consistent motive for the alleged offence. PW-1, the complainant, has given different and mutually contradictory explanations at different stages of the proceedings. In her initial statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she alleged that Ramu and Tillu killed her husband because her husband was not allowing Ramu to sell his house. However, in her deposition under Section 299 Cr.P.C., she modified this version by stating more generally that there was "enmity" between her husband and Ramu on account of the house sale. Still later, in her examination-in-chief, she introduced an altogether new story by asserting that her husband had taken out committee money, that he and Ramu had purchased liquor, and that this financial transaction "may have been" the reason for his murder. Pertinently, the prosecution has not placed any evidence to corroborate any of the motive imputed by PW-1.
19.It has further been argued that without prejudice to the foregoing submissions, it is further submitted that even if the multiple versions of motive given by PW-1 are taken at their highest prejudice against the FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 28 of 43 Accused, neither one of them attributes any role or culpability to the Accused. In her statement under Section 161 CrPC, she alleged that the murder was committed because her husband was not permitting Ramu to sell his house, i.e. a dispute purely between the deceased and Ramu. In her deposition under Section 299 CrPC, she stated more generally that there was enmity between her husband and Ramu on account of the house sale. In her examination-in-chief, she shifted yet again to suggest that the murder may have been connected with committee money taken by her husband. In all of these versions, the alleged motive is directed only towards Ramu; none of them suggest that Accused No. 2 had any personal grievance, animosity, or benefit to derive from the death of the deceased. Thus, even accepting, arguendo, the complainant's testimony at face value, the alleged motives do not incriminate the Accused. That the only reason that PW-1 attributes to Accused No. 2 in the entire narrative is that he was living with Ramu, and therefore, along with Ramu, must have killed her husband. No act of participation, no overt act of assault, no recovery, and no circumstance linking Accused No. 2 to the commission of the offence has been alleged or proved. The prosecution has thus sought to implicate Accused No. 2 solely on the basis of residence or proximity, which is wholly impermissible in law. Mere cohabitation with another accused does not establish common intention/motive under Section 34 IPC unless there is clear evidence of prior meeting of minds or active participation in the act. [Ref: Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anwar Ali & Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 166, has held that Section 34 cannot be invoked in the absence of FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 29 of 43 evidence of common intention and participation, and mere presence or association with the main accused is insufficient. [Ref: -Nagaraj v. State, (2015) 4 SCC 739.
20.It has further been argued that the Post Mortem Report records as many as 19 antemortem injuries on the person of the deceased. The cause of death has been opined as shock consequent upon multiple injuries caused by a sharp cutting weapon, except for Injury Nos. 18 and 19 which are attributed to a blunt force. It is further recorded that Injury Nos. 1, 2 and 15. individually as well as collectively, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The viscera was also preserved to rule out common poisoning. That notably, despite the medical opinion attributing the majority of injuries to a sharp cutting weapon, no such weapon has ever been recovered during the investigation. The only article recovered by the police is a danda, which, by the prosecution's own case, could at best correspond to blunt force injuries (Injury Nos. 18 and 19). The complete absence of recovery of any sharp-edged weapon renders the prosecution theory inherently improbable and inconsistent with the medical evidence.
21.It has been further argued that the present matter is a case of no investigation at all. The lapses in the investigation are not minor irregularities but fundamental omissions which go to the root of the case of the prosecution. The very purpose of investigation is to discover the truth and to bring before the Court the real facts pertaining to the offence. It is, therefore, expected of the investigating agency to at least conduct a fair and FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 30 of 43 basic investigation by collecting material evidence, examining available witnesses, and following elementary scientific procedures. Where such investigation has not been carried out, or where vital leads are ignored, the inevitable consequence in law is that the benefit must endure to the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808, and Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1998) 4 SCC 517, has held that serious lapses in investigation, especially when they go to the root of the case, create doubt as to the credibility of the prosecution's version and must result in acquittal. In the present case, the glaring omissions in the investigation failure to recover the weapon of offence, non-examination of independent witnesses (despite the place of incidence being in crowded area and presence of public in large numbers), non-matching of fingerprints, and unexplained contradictions demonstrate that the prosecution has not discharged its duty of fair investigation, and the benefit thereof must necessarily go to the accused.
22.It has further been argued that these admitted lapses multiple contradictory versions as to who filed the chargesheet, the unexplained five-year delay in placing the chargesheet before the Court, and the loss of key material evidence-establish beyond doubt that the investigation was conducted in a casual and irresponsible manner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1998) 4 SCC 517. held that when the investigation is so tainted and casual that it creates doubt about the fairness of the prosecution, the benefit must go to the accused. In the present case, the manner in which the chargesheet was mishandled and crucial material FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 31 of 43 lost demonstrates a complete dereliction of duty by the investigating agency, and this must enure to the benefit of the accused. Despite the postmortem opining that death was caused by multiple injuries from a sharp cutting weapon, the police made no effort to trace, recover, or even identify such a weapon. The only article recovered was a danda, which by the prosecution's own showing could at best, explain only two of the nineteen injuries. No investigation was undertaken to ascertain whether Accused No. 2 was even present in Delhi at the relevant time. There is no witness to depose that they had seen the Accused in or around the place of incidence on 03.02.1997. Furthermore, five fingerprints were lifted from the scene of crime, yet the prosecution has failed to have them matched with either of the accused or any other suspect. This omission is fatal because fingerprint comparison could have been the most direct scientific evidence to link an accused with the crime scene. Instead, no such effort was made, depriving the Court of critical forensic corroboration.
23.It has further been argued that another grave lapse in the investigation pertains to the handling of the viscera. The post-mortem report records that the viscera of the deceased was preserved for chemical analysis in order to rule out poisoning. However, no viscera report has been placed on record by the prosecution. The non-production of this vital report, despite the fact that the viscera was admittedly preserved, creates a serious gap in the chain of evidence and raises an adverse inference against the prosecution. It is settled law that where material evidence is withheld by the prosecution without explanation, the Court is entitled to draw an inference under FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 32 of 43 Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act that had such evidence been produced, it would have been unfavourable to the prosecution.
24.It has further been argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808, has held that lapses in investigation, when they go to the root of the prosecution story, necessarily endure to the benefit of the accused. In Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353, the Court emphasised that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, failure to collect or examine available forensic and scientific material renders the chain of circumstances incomplete. Similarly, in Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1998) 4 SCC 517, it was held that suppression of material evidence and perfunctory investigation seriously impair the prosecution's case.
25.It has further been argued that in the present matter, the absence of any independent witness, the failure to recover the alleged weapon, the unexplained forensic omissions, and the lack of corroborative material, all taken cumulatively, demonstrate that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The investigation being tainted and incomplete, the prosecution has failed beyond reasonable doubt to prove that the Accused was involved in the commission of murder of Kishan Lal
26.It has further been argued that at the outset, disclosure statements made by an accused to the police are inadmissible in evidence, except to the limited extent permitted under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Sections 25 FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 33 of 43 and 26 of the Act render confessions made to a police officer, or while in police custody, inadmissible. Section 27 carves out a narrow exception, permitting only that portion of a statement which distinctly relates to the discovery of a new fact. The "fact discovered" must be a fresh fact, unknown to the police till then, and its admissibility is confined strictly to the extent of such discovery. The Hon'ble Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.N. Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, (2005) 7 SCC 714, have authoritatively held that disclosure statements cannot be used to corroborate the prosecution case or to prove facts already within the knowledge of the investigating agency.
27.It has further been argued that reliance sought to be placed by the prosecution on the alleged pointing out memo dated 29.04.2024 [Ex PW 4/D] whereby Accused is stated to have identified the house of Ramu does not in any manner incriminate him. At best the said statement can be relied upon by the prosecution to contend that the accused identified the house/ room of Ramu and nothing more. However, it is relevant that the house of Ramu being identified is not a discovery of a new fact and was already well-known to the complainant and the investigating agency from the very inception of the case; the FIR itself and subsequent proceedings clearly referred to it. Identification of a location already known to the police does not amount to discovery of a new fact under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and hence holds no evidentiary value.
FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 34 of 4328.It has further been argued that accordingly, the Disclosure statements are wholly irrelevant to the guilt of the accused, and when read together with the categorical denial in the Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement, lead to the inevitable conclusion that no case under Section 302 IPC is made out against Accused. It has further been argued that the present case being one of circumstantial evidence, it is settled law that the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing only to the guilt of the accused and ruling out every possible hypothesis of innocence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, authoritatively laid down the five golden principles governing circumstantial evidence, namely: (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn must be fully established, (ii) the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature, (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (v) there must be a complete chain of evidence so as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.
29.It has further been argued that it is sttled law that last seen theory is weak piece of evidence, and would require corroboration by other evidence such as circumstantial evidence or scientific evidence to entail conviction [Ref - Hansraj v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2025) 3 SCC 350; Digambar Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2019 SC 1367; State of Goa v. Pandurang Mohite, (2008) 16 SCC 714]. It has further been argued that in the present FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 35 of 43 case, the prosecution has failed to lead any credible evidence to prove the presence or participation of Accused No. 2 in the alleged incident. Consequently, the inability of the accused to produce supporting material after such an inordinate delay cannot be used to fill the fundamental gaps in the prosecution's case.
30.It has further been argued that the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is wholly misconceived and not borne out from the evidence on record. The invocation of Section 34 IPC requires the prosecution to prove that the criminal act was done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention. The essential ingredients, as repeatedly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, are: (i) the existence of a common intention, (ii) participation of the accused in the commission of the act in furtherance of such intention, and (iii) proof of some overt act, however minimal, manifesting such intention. Mere presence at or association with the scene of occurrence is not sufficient. In Mahbub Shah v. Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 118, the Privy Council explained that "common intention" implies a pre-arranged plan and requires prior concert, and that the act must be the result of a meeting of minds. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ezajhussain Sabdarhussain & Anr. v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 14 SCC 339, reiterated that common intention cannot be inferred solely on the basis of presence, and the prosecution must establish by clear evidence that the accused had shared the intention to commit the particular crime. [Ref: -
Gadadhar Chandra v. State of West Bengal, (2022) 6 SCC 576; Constable 907 331 Surendra Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand, (2025) 5 SCC FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 36 of 43 433]
31.It has further been argued that no witness has deposed to having seen Accused No. 2 either in the company of the deceased on the relevant evening or committing any overt act of assault.
32.It has further been argued that the shifting versions of motive alleged by the complainant are inconsistent and, in any case, do not incriminate Accused No. 2. Whether it is the obstruction to the sale of Ramu's house, the alleged enmity between Ramu and the deceased, or the later version of a dispute regarding committee money and liquor, all motives are confined to Ramu. At no stage has it been alleged that Accused No. 2 had any personal grievance, animosity, or benefit to derive from the death of the deceased. The only ground on which his involvement is suggested is his residence with Ramu, which in law cannot establish either intention or knowledge to commit murder. [Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465].
33.It has further been argued that Section 294 CrPC contemplates admission of documents whose genuineness is not disputed, thereby enabling such documents to be read in evidence without formal proof of signature. Sub- section (3) expressly permits the Court to dispense with the proof of signature when the genuineness of a document is admitted, though the proviso reserves the Court's discretion to still require formal proof in the interests of justice. Thus, the legislative, object of Section 294 is confined only to documents properly so called. It has been further argued that FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 37 of 43 further, Section 294 CrPC itself preserves the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court to require the author of a document to be summoned and examined in order to prove its authenticity. Thus, even where the genuineness of a document is ostensibly admitted, the Court retains discretion to call the author, particularly where the interests of justice so demand. Reliance in this regard is placed on Naveen Panchal vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7006.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE.
34.Ld. Addl. PP for State has argued that in the present matter the alleged offence was committed by the accused Tillu @ Ramdas and another accused Ramu (since expired on the intervening night of 03/04 February, 1997, both the accused persons had committed murder of deceased Kishan Lal and soon thereafter, absconded from Delhi and despite efforts did not join the investigation in the present matter. It has been argued that the accused Tillu @ Ramdas having common intention with other co-accused committed the murder of deceased Kishan Lal. It has further been argued that the FIR In the present matter was registered upon the complaint of the wife of deceased i.e. PW1 Sunita and that the complainant had categorically mentioned the manner in which accused Ramu had taken the deceased from her house and thereafter, deceased Kishan Lal did not return back and therefore, as per the last seen theory, it was the accused persons who had taken the deceased with him and therefore, the accused is liable to be convicted. It has also been argued that in the present matter the complainant has corroborated the story of prosecution, and therefore, the FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 38 of 43 accused is liable to be convicted.
35.Before appreciating the evidence, brought on record by the prosecution, I must mention here the law of appreciating evidence of the witnesses. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Satish Bombaiya Vs. State, 1991 JCC 6147, had observed:-
"While appreciating the evidence of a witness, approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed then undoubtedly it is necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether earlier evaluation of evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of behalf. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. The main thing to be seen is, whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertained FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 39 of 43 to the insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the inconsistencies in the evidence. In the latter, however no such benefit may be available to it. That is a salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases."
36.Keeping in mind aforesaid tenet, I am proceeding further and appreciating the evidence, brought on record by the prosecution.
37.In order to appreciate and decide, as to whether prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, I have to appreciate the evidence brought on record by the prosecution. Since, prosecution had examined 10 witnesses, inclusive of public witnesses, doctors and police officials, I will be appreciating the veracity of testimonies of those witnesses, separately, in my subsequent paragraphs.
Appreciation Of Testimonies Of Public Witnesses
38.PW1- complainant Sunita Devi is the star witness of the prosecution as she was the informant and complainant who informed regarding death of deceased Kishan Lal in the present matter. In her statement Ex.PW1/A witness Sunita Devi. The aforesaid witness is the only independent witness and a public witness examined by the prosecution. The aforesaid witness in her etstimony has stated that on 03.02.1997 she came back home from work and after 10-15 minutes her deceased husband was taken by accused Ramu (since deceased, proceeding abated), and thereafter, her deceased husband did not return back home and when in the early morning she tried to look for her husband alongwith her brother Sarvesh, she could not find FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 40 of 43 him and at that time some person informed him that her husband had gone to the house of accused Ramu and when she reached the accused of Ramu, the house was found locked and when she looked from the window, she found her husband inside the house and meanwhile, some person informed the police and police official reached the spot and broke open the window and entered the house and found the dead body of the deceased inside. Subsequently, on the complaint of PW1, the FIR was registered. The aforesaid witness in her testimony has clearly stated that her deceased husband had gone alongwith accused Ramu but she herself did not know if her husband was taken by accused Ramu to his house or whether accused Tillu @ Ramdas was also present with accused Ramu and deceased Kishan. Her knowledge regarding presence of accused persons with the deceased could not be established as the same was of hear say nature and the complainant / PW1 did not disclose the name of any person or witness who had seen the deceased last in the company of the accused persons. Further, PW-1 has also stated that her deceased husband used to put money in a committee and had received the money on the same day and may be due to the same, he was killed by the accused persons. However, the aforesaid fact has not been narrated by the complainant in her complainant or her statement recorded by police or her statement recorded U/s 299 Cr.P.C. There are several contradictions in the testimony of PW1 as compared to her statement recorded by the police or with the statement of other public witness examined by the prosecution U/s 299 Cr.P.C. Further, the prosecution failed to examine PW Sarvesh as a witness in the present matter as he was not traceable and therefore there was no corroboration in FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 41 of 43 the testimony of PW1 with any other witness. Further, PW Raju Shah who was cited as a witness by the prosecution also remained unserved and was dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses. Remaining all witnesses examined by the prosecution were police official who had conducted the investigation in the present matter. The alleged weapon of offence were never recovered. No opinion on the postmortem report regarding nature of injuries and kind of weapon used were sought by the investigating agency and the same remained doubtful. The FSL report Ex.A2 showed that blood was detected on the exhibits, the same did not verify if the blood detected was of any other person apart from that of the deceased. No independent witness or eye witness of the alleged offence was examined by the prosecution and therefore, the case of the prosecution remained doubtful. Further, in the present matter, the prosecution had based its investigation on circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances remained not proved. Therefore, the testimony of PW1 was not believable and I discard the testimony of aforesaid witness. The other witnesses examined by prosecution being formal witnesses did not prove the offence against accused. Further, prosecution has examined PW2 to PW6 being the police officials who had conducted the investigation and being formal in nature did not strengthen the case of the prosecution and their testimony was only qua the investigation conducted by them upon registration of FIR.
39.So, in the wake of above mentioned law, evidence brought on record, has to be read as a whole and has to be appreciated as a whole. Minor discrepancies over trivial matters and hyper technical approach while appreciating evidence, has to be avoided. It has to be seen whether FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 42 of 43 shortcomings highlighted by accused, go to the root of the matter and if it so goes, then in that eventuality only evidence has to be discarded.
40.Reverting back to the evidence brought on record by prosecution, in this case, I find that neither eye-witnesses nor any other witness being the family member of the deceased Kishan Lal deposed that the accused persons in connivance with each other had caused the death of deceased Kishan Lal.
41.Once testimonies of PW1 did not implicate accused with any offences, including the offences with which accused were charged, testimonies of the above police witnesses was inconsequential. In the given facts and circumstances of this case, testimonies of the above witnesses being contradictory in nature with regard to offence punishable U/s 302/34 IPC, the aforesaid offences have not been proved by the prosecution.
42.The net result is that, prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt through the evidence, it had led during trial for the offence punishable U/s 302/34 IPC. Accused Tillu @ Ramdas was able to raise probable defence of he being falsely implicated. Accordingly, accused Tillu @ Ramdas is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section U/s 302/34 IPC. Digitally signed by SHEETAL CHAUDHARY SHEETAL CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.09.23 16:31:24 Announced in Open Court +0530 On 23.09.2025 [Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan] Additional Session Judge-02 South-East, Saket Courts, Delhi FIR No.79/1997 State Vs. Tillu @ Ramdas PS OIA Page 43 of 43