Delhi District Court
State vs Naveen Kumar on 19 January, 2026
DLND010058722021 Page 1 of 88
SC 221/2021
STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR
FIR No. 128/2021
PS: SAROJINI NAGAR
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05
NEW DELHI DISTRICT : PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
SC 221/2021
STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR
FIR No. 128/2021
U/s 302 IPC
PS: SAROJINI NAGAR
In the matter of :-
State
...(through Sh. Mukul Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP)
Vs.
Naveen Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Ram Vilas
R/o Village Pojhain, Post Sarwar,
PUR PS Tariyari Chock, Distt. Sheohar Bihar,
Tariyani, Sheohar, Bihar.
....Accused
(Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ld. LAC for accused
along with Ms. Suman Kathuria,
Ms. Ruksana & Ms. Madhuri Aggarwal)
Date of institution : 08.09.2021
Date when Judgment reserved : 14.10.2025
Date of Judgment : 19.01.20261
Final decision : Convicted u/s 302 IPC
1
Presiding Officer was on leave for substantial period between 15.10.2025 and 05.12.2025 due to family
exigency. SAURABH Digitally signed
by SAURABH
PARTAP PARTAP SINGH
LALER
SINGH Date: 2026.01.19
LALER 17:22:39 +0530
DLND010058722021 Page 2 of 88
SC 221/2021
STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR
FIR No. 128/2021
PS: SAROJINI NAGAR
JUDGMENT
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. In the dim-lit labour camp of a construction site on Africa Avenue, Sarojini Nagar, Delhi, on the night of 06th June, 2021, a quarrel between two brothers -- Naveen Kumar and Praveen Kumar -- both migrant labourers sharing the same jhuggi and the same daily grind, turned irreversibly fatal. What began as yet another episode in a chain of recurring disputes ended with Praveen Kumar lying unconscious, struck repeatedly on the head and body with an iron rod, allegedly by the hands of his elder brother Naveen Kumar, who is said to have declared, " Tera roj roj ka jhanjhat hai, aaj tujhe khatam hi kar deta hoon ." Praveen Kumar was rushed to Safdarjung Hospital, where he was declared brought dead. 1.2. The prosecution charges Naveen Kumar with the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC, asserting that the assault was deliberate and executed with the intention to kill. The accused, however, pleads not guilty, denies the eyewitness accounts that place the iron rod in his hands, and contests the very narrative of fratricide. 1.3. This judgment examines whether the evidence tendered by the prosecution establishes beyond reasonable doubt that Naveen Kumar crossed the threshold from anger to murderous intent, thereby committing the gravest offence known to law -- the intentional taking of his own brother's life.
SAURABH Digitally signed
by SAURABH
PARTAP PARTAP SINGH
LALER
SINGH Date: 2026.01.19
LALER 17:22:51 +0530
DLND010058722021 Page 3 of 88
SC 221/2021
STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR
FIR No. 128/2021
PS: SAROJINI NAGAR
2. BRIEF FACTS
2.1. The present case arising out of FIR No. 128/2021, PS Sarojini Nagar, concerns the alleged murder of Parveen Kumar by his real brother Naveen Kumar at the labour camp of Ahluwalia Construction Company, Africa Avenue Road, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi, on 06.06.2021 at about 8:30- 8:45 P.M. The complainant Kaptan Singh was deployed as a security guard at the construction site, where both the accused Naveen Kumar and the deceased Parveen Kumar were working as labourers and residing in adjoining jhuggis in the labour camp. On the date and time of the incident, a quarrel broke out between the accused and the deceased in front of their jhuggi, during which the accused, while allegedly shouting "Tera roj roj ka jhagda hai, aaj tujhe khatam hi kar deta hoon", repeatedly assaulted Parveen Kumar with an iron rod used for molding work, causing multiple injuries on his head and body, as witnessed inter alia by Kaptan Singh and Rajesh Kumar, who rushed out on hearing the alarm of a fight. The deceased fell unconscious at the spot and was removed in a Bolero vehicle arranged by the site staff to Safdarjung Hospital, where he was declared "brought dead"; the accused also later inflicted an injury on his own head by banging it against a wall at the hospital, which was noted in his medico-legal examination.
2.2. On receipt of DD No. 3A regarding a quarrel at the construction site, the police reached Safdarjung Hospital, found that Parveen Kumar had been declared dead, preserved the body in the mortuary, and collected the MLC and the clothes of the deceased. The investigation was thereafter taken over by Inspector Devender Singh, who proceeded to the spot along SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:23:03 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 4 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR with staff, where eyewitness Kaptan Singh produced the iron rod which he had snatched from the hands of the accused during the assault; the said rod was seized, sealed, and later marked as the case property and weapon of offence. A mobile crime team visited the scene, prepared a scene of crime report, took photographs of the place of occurrence, and attempted to lift chance prints, though none could be retrieved due to the nature of the surface and the construction debris lying at the site. The IO prepared the rukka on the basis of the statement of Kaptan Singh, sent it to the police station, and FIR No. 128/2021 under Section 302 IPC was registered by the Duty Officer, who made the necessary endorsement and generated the computerised FIR along with a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
2.3. During the course of the investigation, the IO recorded the statements of material witnesses including Kaptan Singh (security guard), Rajesh Kumar (electrician), Ashok Kumar (driver), Sachidanand (security supervisor), Navleshwar Prasad (labour supervisor) and Ishaq (labourer) under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and subsequently produced Kaptan Singh, Rajesh Kumar and Ashok Kumar before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which were recorded and duly certified as voluntary. The site plan was first prepared in rough at the instance of the eyewitness and later a scaled site plan was drawn by the draftsman from the Crime Branch on the basis of measurements at the spot, depicting the jhuggi cluster and the exact point where the assault took place within the labour camp. The post-mortem on the body of Parveen Kumar was conducted at Safdarjung Hospital by the SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:23:14 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 5 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR autopsy surgeon, who found multiple external (eleven) and internal injuries caused by a blunt object; he opined that the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries sustained to abdomen produced by blunt force impact, which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. On being sent the seized iron rod for subsequent opinion, the doctor opined that the injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report were possible by the said iron rod or a similar blunt weapon.
2.4. The viscera and blood samples of the deceased were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, which reported the presence of ethyl alcohol in the exhibits, the blood sample containing 351.1 mg of ethyl alcohol per 100 ml, indicating that the deceased had consumed alcohol prior to his death. The IO ensured the maintenance of the chain of custody of all seized articles through proper entries in Register No. 19 and 21 by the MHC(M), who later deposed that the sealed parcels remained intact and untampered until they were dispatched to the FSL and produced before the Court. The accused Naveen Kumar was arrested after his medical examination, his personal search was conducted, his disclosure statement was recorded, and at his instance a pointing-out memo of the place of occurrence was prepared. The IO also collected documentary evidence such as the attendance register of security staff showing the duty of Kaptan Singh on the date of incident and the labour attendance register reflecting the presence of both the accused and the deceased at the site up to 06.06.2021, thereby corroborating their employment and stay at the construction site.
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:23:24 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 6 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR 2.5. Upon completion of the investigation, and after receipt of the post-mortem report, the subsequent medical opinion linking the injuries with the iron rod, the FSL report, and the statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the IO formed the opinion that Naveen Kumar had, with the intention to kill, repeatedly struck his brother Parveen Kumar with an iron rod, thereby causing his death and committing the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC.
2.6. A charge-sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was accordingly prepared and filed in the Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-05 on 24.08.2021 against accused Naveen Kumar for the offence under Section 302 IPC, setting out the allegations, the evidence collected and the list of witnesses and exhibits relied upon by the prosecution.
3. CHARGE 3.1. The case was committed to the Court of Session, and on 22.10.2021, charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused, alleging that on 06.06.2021 at about 8:30/8:45 P.M. at the labour camp of Ahluwalia Construction Company, Sarojini Nagar, he, while threatening "tera roj roj ka jhanjhat hai aaj tujhe khatam hi kar deta hu " and with the intention to kill, repeatedly hit the deceased Praveen Kumar with an iron rod causing his death, to which charge the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE In order to prove the charges the prosecution examined 22 witnesses. The details are mentioned in tabular form in the table below:
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:23:35 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 7 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR PW Name of Relevance of Documents Exhibited by No. Witness Witness Witness 1 Shri Kaptan Eye-witness to the Ex. PW1/A: Complaint; Ex.
Singh S/o incident; Security PW1/B: Seizure memo of iron Shri Ram Guard; First to rod; Ex. PW1/C: Statement at Singh reach the spot and mortuary; Ex. PW1/D: Seal intervene; handing over memo; Ex.
Snatched the iron PW1/E: Copy of s.164
rod from accused; statement; Ex. PW1/D1 to Ex.
Handed over PW1/D12: 12 photographs of
weapon to police incident site shown during
cross-examination; Ex. P1:
Iron rod.
2 Rajesh Kumar Eye-witness to the Ex. PW2/A: Statement u/s 164
S/o Munni incident; Labourer Cr.P.C. (08.06.2021); Ex.
Singh at construction PW2/DA: Statement u/s 161
site; Heard quarrel Cr.P.C. (Police statement)
and saw assault;
Helped transport
injured to hospital
3 Ashok Kumar Supporting Ex. PW3/A: Statement u/s 164
S/o Puran witness; Driver; Cr.P.C. (08.06.2021)
Singh Transported
injured to
hospital; Observed
accused's self-
inflicted head
injury at hospital
4 Shri Supervisor; Ex. PW4/A: Photocopy of
Sachidanand Received attendance and posting
Kumar S/o information about register (06.06.2021), duly
Shri Dina incident; Arranged attested
Digitally signed
SAURABH by SAURABH
PARTAP SINGH
PARTAP LALER
SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19
17:24:13 +0530
DLND010058722021 Page 8 of 88
SC 221/2021
STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR
FIR No. 128/2021
PS: SAROJINI NAGAR
PW Name of Relevance of Documents Exhibited by
No. Witness Witness Witness
Nath transport to
hospital; Produced
attendance register
5 Shri Supervisor; Ex. PW5/A: Photocopy of
Navleshwar Identified attendance register for April,
Prasad Singh deceased body at May, June 2021 (6 pages),
S/o Late Shri mortuary; duly attested
Kapil Dev Accompanied
Singh body to
cremation;
Produced
attendance
registers
6 Ct. Ramveer Procedural None (No exhibits produced)
No. 1404SW witness; Police
constable;
Delivered FIR
copy to IO at
crime scene
7 Ct. Arun Custodial witness; Ex. PW7/A: Road certificate
Kumar No. Collected exhibits (14.06.2021) for blood
2694 South from mortuary; sample/viscera handover; Ex.
West Transported PW7/B: Road certificate
sealed exhibits to 53/21/21 (29.06.2021) for
FSL; Maintained transport to FSL
chain of custody
8 SI Kamal Police officer on Ex. PW1/B: Seizure memo of
Singh No. duty; Received iron rod (signed at point B)
12/83D information about
SAURABH Digitally
by SAURABH
signed
PARTAP PARTAP SINGH
LALER
SINGH Date: 2026.01.19
LALER 17:24:25 +0530
DLND010058722021 Page 9 of 88
SC 221/2021
STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR
FIR No. 128/2021
PS: SAROJINI NAGAR
PW Name of Relevance of Documents Exhibited by
No. Witness Witness Witness
incident; Seized
iron rod and
prepared seizure
memo
9 Shri Ishaq S/o Supporting Ex. PW9/DX: Statement u/s
Shri witness; Labourer; 161 Cr.P.C.
Sahirruddin Heard shor-
sharaba; Reported
to gate guard
10 HC Yatish Forensic expert; Ex. PW10/A: Fingerprint
Yadav No. Finger Print report indicating no prints
5141 Proficient; available
Inspected crime
scene for
fingerprints
11 Ct. Narender Police officer; Ex. PW11/A: Arrest memo;
No. Arrested accused; Ex. PW11/B: Personal search
568/South- Conducted memo; Ex. PW1/C:
West District personal search; Disclosure statement (as per
Prepared arrest PW-11); Ex. PW11/D:
and pointing-out Pointing out memo
memos
12 ASI Bhagwan Crime Scene Ex. PW12/A: SOC report
Yadav Officer; Inspected number 303/2021
(Retired) spot; Prepared
SOC report
13 HC Mughal Custodial witness; RC No. 55/21/2021: Road
Ansari No. Transported certificate for FSL deposition
6608 exhibits to FSL
SAURABH Digitally
by SAURABH
signed
PARTAP PARTAP SINGH
LALER
SINGH Date: 2026.01.19
LALER 17:24:33 +0530
DLND010058722021 Page 10 of 88
SC 221/2021
STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR
FIR No. 128/2021
PS: SAROJINI NAGAR
PW Name of Relevance of Documents Exhibited by
No. Witness Witness Witness
Rohini
14 Shri Vinod Judicial officer; Ex. PW1/E: Copy of Kaptan
Kumar, Recorded Singh's s.164 statement; Ex.
MM-03, statements u/s 164 PW2/A: Copy of Rajesh
Central Cr.P.C. Kumar's s.164 statement; Ex.
PW3/A: Copy of Ashok
Kumar's s.164 statement
15 Ct. Vikas Crime Scene Ex. PW15/A: Certificate u/s
Kumar No. Photographer; 65-B IEA (Digital photograph
1466/SW Took photographs authentication); Ex. PW15/B:
of incident site Memo of receipt of CD by IO
16 Dr. Medical expert Ex. PW16/A: Postmortem
Abhimanyu (deposed on Report No. 1327/21
Khutell, behalf of original (14.06.2021); Ex. PW16/B:
Senior PM doctor Dr. Subsequent opinion on
Resident, Lakhan Lal weapon (iron rod); Ex.
Dept. of Navlani); PW16/C: Sketch of weapon
Forensic Testified
Medicine regarding
postmortem
findings and
weapon analysis
17 HC Umed Malkhana Ex. PW17/A: Entries in
Singh No. Incharge; registers 19 and 21 regarding
7197 Received and case property receipt and
maintained case deposit
property
18 SI Jai Mapping expert; Ex. PW18/A: Scaled site plan
Bhagwan No. Prepared scaled of crime scene (07.07.2021)
Digitally signed
SAURABH by SAURABH
PARTAP SINGH
PARTAP LALER
SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19
17:24:41 +0530
DLND010058722021 Page 11 of 88
SC 221/2021
STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR
FIR No. 128/2021
PS: SAROJINI NAGAR
PW Name of Relevance of Documents Exhibited by
No. Witness Witness Witness
1091/D site plan
19 SI Vijender Duty Officer; Ex. PW19/A: FIR No. 128/21
Singh No. Registered FIR u/s 302 IPC (computerized
5194D copy); Ex. PW19/B:
Endorsement on Rukka; Ex.
PW19/C: Certificate u/s 65-B
IEA; Ex. PW19/D: DD No.
3A (computerized copy)
20 Dr. Subhash Forensic science Ex. PW20/A: FSL report
Chandra, Sr. expert; Analyzed indicating ethyl alcohol in Ex.
Scientific blood and alcohol 1A, 1B, 1C (1C: 351.1
Officer samples mg/100 ml blood)
(Chemistry),
FSL Rohini
21 Dr. Tushar Medical officer Ex. PW21/A: Medical Legal
Sharma, (deposed on Certificate (MLC) No.
Senior behalf of Dr. 00150197 (declared brought
Medical Ashutosh Saini, dead at 9:40 P.M. on
Officer, JR on 06.06.2021)
Safdarjung 06.06.2021);
Hospital Testified
regarding MLC
Digitally signed
SAURABH by SAURABH
PARTAP SINGH
PARTAP LALER
SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19
17:24:49 +0530
DLND010058722021 Page 12 of 88
SC 221/2021
STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR
FIR No. 128/2021
PS: SAROJINI NAGAR
PW Name of Relevance of Documents Exhibited by
No. Witness Witness Witness
22 Inspector Investigating Ex. PW22/A: Rukka (basis of
Devender Officer (Primary FIR); Ex. PW22/B: Inquest
Singh No. investigator; papers; Ex. PW1/B: Seizure
D/429 coordinated all memo (co-signed); Ex.
investigation PW11/A & B: Arrest and
activities; personal search memos (co-
prepared rukka; signed)
seized exhibits;
arrested accused;
filed charge-sheet)
5. BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE DEPOSITION OF PROSECUTION
WITNESSES:
5.1. PW-1: SHRI KAPTAN SINGH S/O SHRI RAM SINGH2
a) PW-1 Kaptan Singh, the security guard deputed at Ahluwalia Construction Company's site, Africa Avenue Road, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi, was on duty with duty hours from 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM. He had been deployed at the aforesaid construction site just one and a half to two months prior to the incident. On 06.06.2021, at approximately 8:30- 8:45 PM, while performing his security duties at gate no. 2 on the construction site, he heard noises and alarm raised by one labourer 2 Designation: Security Guard, E-Need Security Pvt. Ltd. Age: 31 years (approximately) Dates of Examination Examination-in-Chief: 11.05.2022; Cross-Examination: 11.05.2022 Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (before Magistrate): 08.06.2021 SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:24:58 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 13 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR about a quarrel breaking out ("Jhagda ho rha hai, chalo chalo"). The witness immediately proceeded to the spot, which was approximately 60-70 paces away from gate no. 2. Upon reaching the place of incident, he witnessed the deceased Parveen Kumar lying in injured condition and observed the accused Naveen Kumar holding an iron rod in his hand. The accused was shouting that "Tera roj roj ka jhagda hai, aaj tujhe khatam hi kar deta hoon". A number of other labourers also gathered at the spot. The witness immediately made a call to his Supervisor, informing him about the assault committed by the accused upon the deceased. The Supervisor sent a Bolero jeep for transportation of the injured. The unconscious deceased was transported to Safdarjung Hospital by the jeep driver and two other persons, while the witness remained at the spot. During this entire process, the witness had snatched the iron rod from the hands of the accused Naveen and kept it with himself. Around 12:00-12:30 AM on 07.06.2021, police officials arrived at the spot. The witness produced the iron rod which was used by the accused Naveen for assaulting the deceased Parveen, and the same was seized vide seizure memo (Ex. PW1/B) bearing the witness's signatures. The witness had pointed out the spot where the accused had assaulted the deceased, and the Investigating Officer prepared a rough site plan at his instance. Later, the witness was called to the Police Station where he identified the accused Naveen present in police custody. The witness also visited the mortuary at Safdarjung Hospital where he identified the dead body of deceased Parveen, the brother of accused Naveen. When the IO seized the iron rod used by the accused, Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:25:14 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 14 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR the IO handed over his seal to the witness vide memo (Ex. PW1/D). On 08.06.2021, the witness was called to Patiala House Court where his statement (Ex. PW1/E) was recorded before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The witness had further stated that approximately one week or ten days after the postmortem, he was again called at the spot by the IO along with other officials, where he again pointed out the spot and measurements were taken at his instance, and his statement was recorded to this effect.
b) Documents Exhibited i. Ex. PW1/A: Complaint which forms the basis of FIR.
ii. Ex. PW1/B: Seizure memo of iron rod bearing witness's signatures (dated around 07.06.2021, early morning). iii. Ex. PW1/C: Statement recorded at mortuary, Safdarjung Hospital, bearing witness's signatures.
iv. Ex. PW1/D: Memo regarding handing over of seal by IO after using the same, bearing witness's signatures. v. Ex. PW1/E: Copy of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. bearing witness's signatures.
vi. Ex. PW1/D1 to Ex. PW1/D12: 12 photographs of the incident site, witnessed and identified by PW-1 (during cross-examination).
c) Exhibits Identified: Ex. P1: Iron rod used for moulding (molding rod), which the witness had snatched from the accused while assaulting the deceased. This rod was identified by the witness as the same weapon used in the assault.
SAURABH Digitally
by SAURABH
signed
PARTAP PARTAP SINGH
LALER
SINGH Date: 2026.01.19
LALER 17:25:22 +0530
DLND010058722021 Page 15 of 88
SC 221/2021
STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR
FIR No. 128/2021
PS: SAROJINI NAGAR
d) Cross-Examination:
During cross-examination, PW-1 Kaptan Singh was confronted regarding the details of his deposition and the investigation process. The witness confirmed that he had been deployed at the aforementioned site only one and a half to two months prior to the incident and had not seen or met with the accused and deceased prior to the incident, however, he knew that they were working there as labourers with other labourers. The witness deposed that he was not aware about them much. On the date of the incident, he was on duty at gate no. 2 for security of articles/goods lying inside the construction site. He did not remember the name of the person who had raised the alarm about the quarrel. The witness admitted that his statement was recorded in the present case four times by the IO--two statements were recorded on the date of incident and on the next day, one statement was recorded on 14.06.2021, and one statement was recorded on 14.07.2021. The witness confirmed that he had snatched the iron rod from the hands of the accused and produced the same when the IO reached at the spot. He was not wearing any gloves at that time. When he reached at the spot, the deceased Parveen was not saying any word. The witness had seen the accused and deceased quarreling and in this process, sometimes they were inside the jhuggi, sometimes out of the jhuggi. He had clearly observed that the accused Naveen was assaulting Parveen with the iron rod. Parveen was lying on the floor while the accused was assaulting with the iron rod. The witness firmly denied suggestions that the accused was not assaulting the deceased Parveen in his presence, that SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:25:30 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 16 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR he had not seen the accused assaulting the deceased, and that he was making false statements at the instance of the IO. The witness stated that it was wrong to suggest that the deceased had sustained injuries due to a fall. He viewed 12 photographs (Ex. PW1/D1 to Ex. PW1/D12) of the incident site, confirming that the accused was assaulting deceased Parveen at point A in the location marked in Ex. PW1/D12. The witness was emphatic that the deceased died due to the injuries inflicted by the accused.
5.2. PW-2: RAJESH KUMAR S/O MUNNI SINGH3
a) PW-2 Rajesh Kumar, an electrician working at Ahluwalia Construction Company site at Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi, deposed that he had been working at the aforementioned construction site for approximately 6-7 months before the incident. On 06.06.2021, at approximately 8:30-9:00 PM, the witness was present at his camp on the aforementioned construction site at Sarojini Nagar. The accused Naveen and his brother Parveen were residing in the camp in the witness's neighbourhood. At approximately 8:30 PM, the witness heard noises and came to know that a quarrel had taken place between the accused Naveen and his brother Parveen. He came out from his camp/jhuggi and witnessed that the accused Naveen and his brother Parveen were fighting with each other. Meanwhile, the accused Naveen struck the deceased on his chest with an iron pipe used for moulding iron rods ( sariya). Following the 3 Designation: Electrician / Labourer. Age: 32 years. Education: 4th Standard Dates of Examination: Examination-in-Chief: 19.07.2022; Cross-Examination: 19.07.2022 Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (before Magistrate): 08.06.2021 Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:25:39 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 17 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR iron rod blow given by the accused on the chest of Parveen, the latter fell down. The accused Naveen was shouting that he would kill Parveen and no one would intervene. The witness also observed that the accused Naveen then struck his own head against the wall and sustained an injury. The injured Parveen was taken to hospital by the witness with the help of another worker Ashok and guard/Kaptan. There were about 10-15 persons present at the scene, but no public person intervened in the fight between the accused and deceased as they were brothers. The injured deceased was taken to Safdarjung Hospital in a Bolero jeep driven by Ashok. The witness further deposed that the deceased was declared dead at the hospital. Two police officials met the witnesses and took them to the police station where the witness was inquired by the police and his statement was recorded. The accused who was also brought to the hospital, struck his head against the wall and sustained an injury. The police official made detailed enquiries from the witness. On 08.06.2021, the witness was called to Patiala House Court where his statement was recorded by the Learned Judge under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
b) Documents Exhibited i. Ex. PW2/A: Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded on 08.06.2021 before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, bearing witness's signature at point A ii. Ex. PW2/DA: Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded during police investigation Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:25:46 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 18 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR
c) Cross-Examination:
During cross-examination, PW-2 Rajesh Kumar was questioned regarding various aspects of his deposition. The witness confirmed that he had studied up to 4th standard and had been working at the aforementioned construction site for about 6-7 months before the incident. His statement was recorded 3-4 times in the present case, i.e., in hospital, police station, at the spot, and in court. The witness stated that he had made his statement to the IO that the accused Naveen was shouting while beating his brother Parveen that 'he would kill him and no one would intervene', although when confronted with the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex. PW2/DA), this particular phrase was found not recorded. However, the witness confirmed that he had stated in his statement before the Learned Magistrate that the accused was shouting in such manner, although when confronted with the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex. PW2/A), this detail was also found not recorded. The witness firmly denied suggestions that the accused was not shouting in the manner deposed. The accused and his brother deceased Parveen were residing just in front of the witness's jhuggi, and the witness heard the noise of the fight. Other witnesses including Rajbir and Parmod were also present there in addition to other witnesses, though the witness did not remember their names. The witness stated that it was wrong to suggest that the accused was not assaulting the deceased or that Parveen had caused injury on the head of the accused, although he acknowledged that the accused Naveen himself had struck his head against the wall and sustained a head injury, Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:25:52 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 19 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR which was also witnessed by driver Ashok. The witness categorically denied that he was deposing falsely at the instance of police officials. Regarding liquor consumption, the witness stated that he occasionally consumed liquor/alcohol with other co-workers/electricians, however, he had not consumed liquor on that day.
5.3. PW-3: ASHOK KUMAR S/O PURAN SINGH4
a) PW-3 Ashok Kumar, who was working as a driver in Ahluwalia Constructions Company for about seven years, deposed regarding the events of 06.06.2021. On that date, at about 9:00 PM (some sources indicate approximately 11:00 PM), he received a call from Supervisor Sachidanand informing that a quarrel had taken place in the labour camp at Sarojini Nagar construction site and requesting him to reach the spot. Upon arrival at the spot with the Bolero Camper, he found a security guard (Kaptan Singh) and other 8-10 persons present. He further observed that one worker was lying unconscious and the accused Naveen was standing near him. He requested Kaptan Singh to bring the injured Parveen in the Bolero, and thereafter took the injured Parveen along with Rajesh and the accused Naveen to Safdarjung Hospital emergency. He further deposed that at the hospital, the injured Parveen was medically examined where the doctor declared him brought dead.
Meanwhile, the accused Naveen came out from the emergency and struck his head against the wall, sustaining a head injury. The witness 4 Designation: Driver, Ahluwalia Constructions Company. Age: 36 years Dates of Examination: Examination-in-Chief: 19.07.2022; Cross-Examination: 19.07.2022 Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (before Magistrate): 08.06.2021 Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:25:59 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 20 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR observed hospital staff who also saw the accused while he struck his head against the wall. The accused Naveen was also taken to the emergency and medically treated. Police officials reached the hospital and made enquiries from the witness. The witness was taken to the police station where he remained until the next morning. The police officials took the witness to the spot and inspected the scene of crime. The police officials conducted detailed enquiries from the witness. On 08.06.2021, the witness was called to Patiala House Court and his statement was recorded by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
b) Documents Exhibited i. Ex. PW3/A: Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded on 08.06.2021 before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, bearing witness's signature at point A
c) Cross-Examination:
During cross-examination, PW-3 Ashok Kumar was questioned regarding his arrival at the spot and other relevant details. When he received the call about the incident, he was in the Bolero at gate no. 1 of the construction site. It took about five minutes to reach the spot. When he reached the spot, guard Kaptan and electrician Rajesh were also present there along with 8-10 other persons. The witness confirmed that the accused Naveen had accompanied them when they took the injured Parveen to Safdarjung Hospital. The accused Naveen had sustained injury in the hospital. Before the incident at the hospital, the accused Naveen was fit and fine. The witness deposed that they had Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:26:06 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 21 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR forcibly taken the accused with them as there was no other near relative of the accused and deceased, and it was a fight between the two. The witness firmly denied suggestions that the accused Naveen had sustained injury in the fight with the deceased Parveen, and that he was deposing falsely. He confirmed that hospital staff had told them that the accused Naveen had struck his head against the wall and sustained an injury at the time when they were with the injured Parveen inside the emergency. The witness noted that the police officials had not made any enquiry from the hospital staff regarding the striking of the head by the accused to the wall. The witness denied that he had given statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. at the instance of the IO. 5.4. PW-4: SHRI SACHIDANAND KUMAR S/O SHRI DINA NATH5
a) PW-4 Sachidanand Kumar, a Security Supervisor working for E-Need Security at Ahluwalia Construction Company, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi, deposed regarding his knowledge of the incident. On 06.06.2021, at approximately 9:00-9:15 PM, he received a telephone call from security guard Kaptan Singh. The call informed him that two brothers working as labourers were engaged in a fight, and one brother had assaulted the other with an iron rod, resulting in serious injuries to the latter, who had fallen down. Upon receiving this information, the witness immediately rushed to the spot. He observed that a boy was lying in an injured and unconscious condition. Through inquiry, the 5 Designation: Security Supervisor, E-Need Security. Age: 43 years Dates of Examination: Examination-in-Chief (First): 16.09.2022 ;(Recalled): 18.11.2022: Cross-
Examination: 18.11.2022 Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date:
2026.01.19 LALER 17:26:13 DLND010058722021 Page 22 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR witness came to know that the injured person's name was Parveen and the assailant's name was Naveen. The witness immediately made a call to driver Ashok to reach at the spot with the Bolero Camper. Driver Ashok reached the spot in the Bolero Camper, and they took the injured Parveen to Safdarjung Hospital. The accused Naveen also accompanied them, along with electrician Rajesh. The injured was taken inside the emergency by other persons. Later, the witness came to know that the injured Parveen had died. Police officials made enquiries from the witness, and his statement was recorded on 07.06.2021 at the Police Station. On 17.06.2021, police officials came to the witness requesting the attendance register. The witness produced a photocopy of the attendance and posting register wherein the attendance of Kaptan Singh (Security Guard) as well as the witness's own attendance was recorded under his supervision on 06.06.2021. The photocopy of the attendance register is Ex. PW4/A (OSR), duly attested by the Field Officer. The witness had joined his duty as a security supervisor on 06.06.2021 at 8:00 PM, with duty continuing until 8:00 AM on 07.06.2021. The witness later brought the original attendance register when recalled for further examination-in-chief on 18.11.2022, confirming the entries recorded therein. The attendance register in respect of 06.06.2021 was maintained under his supervision, and he himself had marked the attendance of workers of Ahluwalia Construction Company working at the construction site, Africa Avenue, New Delhi.Digitally signed
SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:26:20 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 23 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR
b) Documents Exhibited i. Ex. PW4/A: Photocopy of attendance and posting register dated 06.06.2021. Original register seen and returned.
c) Cross-Examination:
The witness was questioned regarding the authenticity of the attendance register. PW-4 Sachidanand Kumar confirmed that on 06.06.2021, the attendance register was under his supervision and he himself had marked the attendance of workers of Ahluwalia Construction Company working at the construction site, Africa Avenue, New Delhi. The witness firmly denied suggestions that the register was not of Ahluwalia Construction Company, that the attendance had been manipulated, or that any entry in the attendance register had been altered or made wrongly. He denied deposing falsely. The defence had challenged the register's authenticity, but the witness maintained its legitimacy and proper maintenance under his supervision. 5.5. PW-5: SHRI NAVLESHWAR PRASAD SINGH6
a) PW-5 Navleshwar Prasad Singh, a Supervisor responsible for supervising labourers at Ahluwalia Construction Company, Sarojini Nagar, Africa Avenue Road, New Delhi, deposed that there were a number of labourers working at the construction site, including Parveen and Naveen, who were brothers and resided in the jhuggi constructed for labour stay at the construction site. The witness used to mark the 6 Designation: Supervisor (for supervising labourers). Age: 53 years Education: Graduate from Ranchi University, Jharkhand Dates of Examination: Examination-in-Chief: 16.09.2022; Cross-Examination: 16.09.2022 Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:26:27 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 24 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR attendance of all labourers and maintain the attendance register, and therefore knew both brothers. The accused Naveen, present in the courtroom, was correctly identified by the witness. The witness had known the accused Naveen and his brother Parveen since April when they had joined the construction site. On 06.06.2021, the witness returned to his house after finishing his job, and in the night at approximately 10:00-10:30 PM, he received information that a quarrel had taken place between the two brothers, Parveen and Naveen. Information was received that Naveen had assaulted Parveen, who had been taken to Safdarjung Hospital by other workers/security guards. When the witness reached his office at the construction site on 07.06.2021, he came to know that the injured Parveen had died. On 14.06.2021, the witness was called by the police official at Safdarjung Hospital where he identified the dead body of the injured/deceased Parveen, and his statement was recorded. Thereafter, postmortem was conducted. The witness accompanied police officials with the dead body to the cremation ground at Sarai Kale Khan Electric Cremation House, and thereafter the last rites/cremation was performed. The witness's statement was recorded regarding his involvement in the cremation process. On 17.06.2021, the witness was called by the IO with the direction to produce the attendance register of labourers working at the construction site, Africa Avenue Road, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi. The witness produced the attendance register containing details of both brothers, Parveen and Naveen, and showed it to the IO.
Thereafter, the witness gave a photocopy of the attendance register for SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:26:35 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 25 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR the months of April, May, and June (Ex. PW5/A - containing 6 pages), duly attested by the witness and bearing his signature at point A. The original registers were seen and returned by the court. The witness's statement was also recorded by the IO regarding these registers.
b) Documents Exhibited i. Ex. PW5/A: Photocopy of attendance register for April, May, and June 2021 (containing 6 pages). Original registers seen and returned.
c) Cross-Examination:
During cross-examination, PW-5 Navleshwar Prasad Singh was questioned regarding various aspects of his deposition. The witness confirmed that he was a graduate from Ranchi University, Jharkhand, and had been working in the same company and at the site for 2-3 years. His duty hours were from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM. The witness knew the accused Naveen and his brother Parveen since April when they joined the construction site. The witness used to visit the labour hut at the construction site where the accused Naveen and his brother Parveen lived. The witness deposed that he used to visit their labour hut once in a day. When questioned regarding the physical condition of the accused, the witness stated that it was incorrect to suggest that the accused Naveen was not physically fit or suffering from any ailment. He had not seen the accused Naveen under any medical treatment or having a urinary pipe with him. The witness confirmed that the attendance register of the month of June 2021 was maintained by him, and he used to mark the presence of the accused and the deceased. Witness admitted SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:26:44 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 26 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR that the attendance register did not bear the signatures of the accused Naveen or the deceased Parveen. The witness firmly denied suggestions that he had not maintained the attendance register properly or that he was deposing falsely on the behest of the IO. 5.6. PW-6: CONSTABLE RAMVEER NO. 1404SW7
a) PW-6 Constable Ramveer, posted at the DCP Office, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, was on patrolling duty at PS Sarojini Nagar on 06-07.06.2021 from 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM (next day). On 07.06.2021, at approximately 4:15 AM, the Duty Officer handed over a copy of FIR No. 128/21 under Section 302 IPC with the direction to hand over the same to the IO / Inspector Devender Singh. Accordingly, the witness, with the copy of the FIR, reached at the spot (labour camp, Ahluwalia Construction Site, Africa Avenue, New Delhi) and handed over the copy of FIR to the IO.
Thereafter, the witness returned to the Police Station. The witness's statement was recorded by the IO regarding the delivery of the FIR copy.
b) Cross-Examination:
During cross-examination, PW-6 Constable Ramveer stated that he reached the spot within 5-10 minutes after receiving the copy of the FIR. The Duty Officer had called him for this purpose when he was on patrolling duty in the area of PS Sarojini Nagar. The witness clearly stated that he did not have any personal information about the incident 7 Designation: Constable, DCP Office, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Posting on Date of Incident: PS Sarojini Nagar on patrolling duty from 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM (next day) Dates of Examination: Examination-in-Chief: 18.11.2022; Cross-Examination: 18.11.2022 SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:26:51 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 27 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR of the present case. The witness firmly denied suggestions that he was deposing falsely.
5.7. PW-7: CONSTABLE ARUN KUMAR NO. 2694 SOUTH WEST8
a) PW-7 Constable Arun Kumar, posted at PS Sarojini Nagar, was involved in the investigative process at various stages. On 14.06.2021, the witness joined the investigation in the present case with IO/Inspector Devender Singh. The witness, along with the IO, reached the mortuary at Safdarjung Hospital, where the witnesses Navleshwar Singh and Kaptan Singh identified the dead body of the deceased Praveen Kumar. Thereafter, the postmortem was conducted by the doctor. After the postmortem examination, the doctor handed over to the witness the blood sample and viscera of the deceased Praveen in sealed condition, sealed with the seal of Safdarjung Hospital.
Thereafter, the witnesses and the witness took the dead body to the cremation ground at Sarai Kale Khan, where the dead body was cremated under the supervision of Kaptan Singh and Navleshwar Prasad. The IO obtained the slip/document regarding cremation, and thereafter, they returned to the police station. The witness had handed over the blood sample and viscera of the deceased to the IO, which were taken into the Police Station vide memo (Ex. PW7/A), bearing the witness's signatures at point A. The witness's statement was recorded by the IO. Statements of public witnesses Kaptan Singh and Navleshwar were also recorded. On 29.06.2021, the witness again joined the 8 Designation: Constable, PS Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi Dates of Examination: Examination-in-Chief: 18.11.2022; Cross-Examination: 18.11.2022 Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:26:59 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 28 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR investigation and, on the direction of the IO, the MHC(M) handed over to the witness one sealed pullanda, sealed with the seal of DSM, vide road certificate number 53/21/21, along with some documents consisting of the request for a subsequent opinion to the Department of Forensic Medicine, Safdarjung Hospital. The witness submitted the above sealed pullanda along with documents against acknowledgement and returned to the police station. The witness returned the road certificate to the MHC(M). The copy of the road certificate is Ex. PW7/B, bearing the witness's signatures at point A. Till the above exhibits remained in the witness's possession, the same was kept safe and intact. The witness's statement was also recorded. On 14.07.2021, the witness further joined the investigation and, on the direction of the IO, proceeded to the Department of Forensic Medicine, Safdarjung Hospital, for collecting the above exhibits and the opinion of the doctor. The concerned official handed over to the witness the above sealed pullanda, sealed with the seal of the Department of Forensic Medicine, Safdarjung Hospital, along with the opinion. The witness brought the same to the Police Station, where it was handed over to the IO. The witness's statement was recorded regarding this transaction.
b) Documents Exhibited i. Ex. PW7/A: Road certificate (dated 14.06.2021) regarding handover of blood sample and viscera of deceased to MHC(M), bearing witness's signatures at point A Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date:
2026.01.19 LALER 17:27:05 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 29 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR ii. Ex. PW7/B: Road certificate number 53/21/21 (dated 29.06.2021) regarding transportation of sealed pullanda to Department of Forensic Medicine, bearing witness's signatures at point A
c) Cross-Examination:
During cross-examination, PW-7 Constable Arun Kumar was questioned regarding the maintenance of exhibits and various procedural aspects. The witness's duty hours on 14 and 29/6/21 and on 14.07.2021 were from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM. On 14.06.2021, they reached the mortuary at Safdarjung Hospital at approximately 9-10 AM.
The witness confirmed that in his presence, Navleshwar and Kaptan Singh had identified the dead body, although he could not say if they had been previously acquainted with the deceased. The witness did not remember if he had stated in his statement dated 14.06.2021 that the blood sample and viscera was sealed with the seal of Safdarjung Hospital. When confronted, the witness firmly denied that the parcels were not sealed with the seal of Safdarjung Hospital. The cremation of deceased Praveen Kumar was done by the crematorium staff. The witness did not remember whether he had read Ex. PW7/A before signing the same. On 29.06.2021, the witness took the exhibits to the Department of Forensic Medicine at approximately 10-11 AM and submitted the same there. The journey, deposition, and return to the police station took about one hour. The exhibits/pullanda handed over for deposition in the Department of Forensic Medicine was sealed with the seal of the DSM, however, this sealing was not done in his presence. On 14.07.2021, the witness went to the Department of Forensic Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19
17:27:12 +0530
DLND010058722021 Page 30 of 88
SC 221/2021
STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR
FIR No. 128/2021
PS: SAROJINI NAGAR
Medicine at approximately 10-11 AM and returned after about one hour. The pullanda was sealed with the seal of the Department of Forensic Medicine, and the witness handed it over to the MHC(M). The witness did not remember if the MHC(M) had made any entry or not. The witness firmly denied suggestions that he had tampered with the pullanda or that he was deposing falsely. 5.8. PW-8: SUB-INSPECTOR KAMAL SINGH NO. 12/83D9
a) PW-8 Sub-Inspector Kamal Singh, posted as an ASI at PS Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi, was working as Incharge of the ERV Gypsy from 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM on the intervening night of 06-07.06.2021. At approximately 1:30 AM, the Duty Officer directed the witness to reach Ahluwalia Construction Company site, Africa Avenue, Labour Camp. Accordingly, the witness reached the labour camp at Ahluwalia Construction Company site. Upon arrival, he met Inspector Devender Kumar (IO), and one security guard Kaptan Singh was also present at the spot. Kaptan Singh produced an iron rod used for moulding iron sariya, stating that the accused Naveen Kumar had assaulted his brother Praveen with this iron rod. IO wrapped the iron rod into a cloth pullanda. It was sealed with the seal of DSM, and seized it vide memo (Ex. PW1/B), which bore the witness's signatures at point B. The IO handed over the sealed pullanda to the witness, and he left with the 9 Designation: Sub-Inspector, PS Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi Posting on Date of Incident: PS Sarojini Nagar on emergency duty in ERV Gypsy from 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM Dates of Examination: Examination-in-Chief: 19.11.2022; Cross-Examination (Deferred):
25.09.2023 (recalled) SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:27:19 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 31 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR direction to safeguard the scene of crime. The IO/Inspector Devender Singh, along with Kaptan Singh, returned to the spot. Kaptan Singh had pointed out the spot where the incident occurred. Meanwhile, the mobile crime team also reached the spot. The IO prepared a rough site plan of the crime scene, and the mobile crime team also inspected the spot. Thereafter, the witness and the team returned to the police station.
The witness's statement was recorded by the IO. The witness stated that he could identify the iron rod which had been produced by witness Kaptan Singh in his presence, if shown to him. The MHC(M) produced a cloth parcel bearing particulars of the present case in sealed condition. The pullanda was opened, which contained the iron rod (Ex. P1) used for moulding iron sariya, and was shown to the witness, who identified it as the same iron rod which was produced by Kaptan Singh and taken into the police station.
b) Documents Exhibited i. Ex. PW1/B: Seizure memo of iron rod, bearing witness's signatures at point B.
c) Exhibits Identified i. Ex. P1: Iron rod used for moulding iron sariya, identified by the witness as the same rod which was produced by Kaptan Singh seized vide Ex. PW1/B.
d) Cross-Examination:
Cross-examination was deferred on 19.11.2022 on the request of the proxy counsel, as the Ld. LAC was not available. The cross- examination was subsequently conducted on 25.09.2023. SAURABH The witness Digitally signed by SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:27:24 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 32 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR deposed that he reached the Labour Camp at approximately 01:30 AM. The fact that Naveen Kumar had assaulted Praveen with an iron rod was told to the witness by Inspector Devender Singh. The witness did not remember the exact time when the pullanda of the iron rod was prepared, however, the same was prepared after his reaching at the spot. The witness was at the spot till the time Inspector Devender Singh Malik came back, which was approximately two and two and a half hours. The witness and the team came back to the PS at approximately 04:00-04:15 AM, and till that time, the pullanda remained with the witness. The witness's statement was recorded by the IO on the same day after reaching the PS, and it was recorded only once. The witness had handed over the pullanda to Inspector Devender Singh Malik after reaching at the PS, and he did not know after that what happened to the pullanda. When confronted, the witness firmly denied suggestions that the pullanda was not prepared in his presence, that it had not been sealed with the seal of DSM, or that no rough site plan was prepared in his presence. The witness denied that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the IO.
5.9. PW-9: SHRI ISHAQ S/O SHRI SAHIRRUDDIN10
a) PW-9 Shri Ishaq, a construction labourer working with Ahluwalia Construction Company at Netaji Nagar, deposed that on 06.06.2021, he 10 Designation: Construction Labourer Employment Duration: Working with Ahluwalia Construction Company for approximately 2 years, but joined the Sarojini Nagar site approximately one to one and a half months before the incident Dates of Examination: Examination-in-Chief: 15.04.2023; Cross-Examination: 15.04.2023 Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:27:34 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 33 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR was working as a construction labourer, engaged in stone cutting (Patthar Katne ka Kaam). His duty was from 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM, and on that day, his duty was over at approximately 9:00-9:15 PM. Upon returning to his jhuggi after finishing his work, the witness saw two persons fighting with each other and raising a hue and cry (shor- sharaba). The witness immediately reported the matter to the Kaptan guard at gate no. 1 of the construction site. The guard accompanied the witness to the place where the shor-sharaba was taking place, and thereafter the witness went to his jhuggi. The witness did not provide extensive details regarding what he actually witnessed during the incident.
b) Documents Exhibited i. Ex. PW9/DX: Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded during police investigation (Put to him during cross-examination).
c) Cross-Examination:
During cross-examination, PW-9 Shri Ishaq was questioned regarding the extent of his knowledge of the incident. The witness confirmed that he was illiterate. He had been working with Ahluwalia Construction Company for approximately 2 years, but joined the Sarojini Nagar site approximately one to one and a half months before the incident. The witness clarified that he had only heard the shor-sharaba and had not actually seen the two persons fighting with each other. When confronted, the witness firmly denied suggestions that he was deposing falsely on the behest of the IO.Digitally signed
SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date:
2026.01.19 LALER 17:27:41 DLND010058722021 Page 34 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR 5.10. PW-10: HEAD CONSTABLE YATISH YADAV NO. 5141
a) PW-10 Head Constable Yatish Yadav, posted as a Finger Print Proficient with the Mobile Crime Team of South-West District, deposed regarding his examination of the crime scene. On 07.06.2021, upon receipt of information, the witness, along with ASI Bhagwan Singh (Incharge of the Mobile Crime Team) and Constable Vikas (Photographer), went to the place of occurrence at Ahluwalia Constructions, Sarojini Nagar. The crime team reached the spot at approximately 3:30 AM and inspected the spot from 03:45 AM to 04:30 AM. The witness attempted to find fingerprints at the spot but concluded that no fingerprints were available for lifting due to the surface conditions. The witness gave his report (Ex. PW10/A), signed by him at point A, to the IO. A lot of construction material and waste material was lying at the spot.
b) Documents Exhibited i. Ex. PW10/A: Fingerprint report, signed by witness at point A, indicating that no fingerprints were available for lifting at the crime scene
c) Cross-Examination:
During cross-examination, PW-10 Head Constable Yatish Yadav was questioned regarding his duty hours and the crime scene inspection. The witness's duty hours on 07.06.2021 were 24 hours (8:00 AM to 8:00 AM next day). The witness received information from the In-charge of the Crime Team, who had in turn received information from the control room. The witness could not say if the IO had collected proof of his being on duty at that time. The witness reiterated that a lot of SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:27:53 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 35 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR construction material and waste material was lying at the spot, which may have prevented fingerprint recovery. 5.11. PW-11: CONSTABLE NARENDER NO. 568/SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT11
a) PW-11 Constable Narender was on emergency duty at PS Sarojini Nagar on the intervening night of 06-07.06.2021. A call was received vide DD No. 3A. Upon receipt of this call, the witness, along with the IO, went to Safdarjung Hospital. Upon reaching the hospital, the witness and the IO came to know that one Praveen had been declared dead at the hospital, and it was also revealed that one Naveen, who had caused injuries to Praveen, had also suffered self-sustained injuries and had been admitted to the hospital. The witness also met two other persons, namely Rajesh and Ashok, who were identified as employees of Ahluwalia Construction. Since Naveen was already admitted to the hospital and had sustained head injury, he was left in the custody of the witness. In the early morning hours, the witness took Naveen, along with his MLC (Medical Legal Certificate), to the Police Station. The accused Naveen was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex. PW11/A), signed by the witness at point A. The accused was also personally searched vide personal search memo (Ex. PW11/B), signed by the witness at point A. The accused's disclosure statement was recorded, which is noted as Ex. PW1/C, signed by the witness at point A. A pointing out 11 Designation: Constable, CDR Cell, South-West District, Delhi Posting on Date of Incident: PS Sarojini Nagar on emergency duty Dates of Examination: Examination-in-Chief: 17.07.2023; Cross-Examination: 17.07.2023.
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:28:01 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 36 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR memo was prepared (Ex. PW11/D), signed by the witness at point A, wherein the accused Naveen pointed out the place of occurrence. Information of the arrest was conveyed to the family of the accused.
b) Documents Exhibited i. Ex. PW11/A: Arrest memo of accused Naveen Kumar, signed by witness at point A ii. Ex. PW11/B: Personal search memo of accused Naveen Kumar, signed by witness at point A iii. Ex. PW1/C (as per PW-11): Disclosure statement of accused, signed by witness at point A iv. Ex. PW11/D: Pointing out memo showing the place of occurrence, signed by witness at point A. This memo was prepared on the basis of accused Naveen's pointing out the spot.
c) Cross-Examination:
During cross-examination, PW-11 Constable Narender was questioned regarding arrest procedures and the custody of the accused. The witness was questioned about the timing of various procedures and the conveyal of arrest information. On 07.06.2021, at approximately 7:00 AM, the witness, along with the IO, brought the accused to the crime scene. The witness did not remember to whom the information regarding the arrest of the accused was conveyed in the family of the accused. The witness firmly denied suggestions that the arrest memo was not prepared in his presence or that the disclosure statement was not recorded in his presence. The witness did not remember the exact time of recording the disclosure statement of the accused. The witness confirmed that his first Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:28:08 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 37 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR visit at the crime spot with the accused was at approximately 7:00 AM. Information received from Rajesh and Ashok indicated that the accused had caused injuries to himself, but it was not specifically stated where he had received these injuries. The witness observed in the hospital that the accused was having a head bandage (Sar pe Patti Lagi Thi). The accused was brought to the PS by the witness at approximately 4:00 AM. The witness had collected the MLC of the accused. The witness did not remember if he had made an arrival DD entry at the PS. When confronted, the witness firmly denied suggestions that he was deposing falsely.
5.12. PW-12: RETIRED ASI BHAGWAN YADAV
a) PW-12 Bhagwan Yadav, who was working as an ASI and was Incharge of the Mobile Crime Team, District South West, Dhaula Kuan, deposed regarding the crime scene examination. On 07.06.2021, upon receipt of information from the concerned PS, the witness, along with Constable Vikas (Photographer) and Head Constable Yatish Yadav (Finger Print Proficient), went to the place of occurrence at the jhuggis where the labourers of Ahluwalia Contractors were staying. The witness inspected the spot from 03:45 AM to 04:30 AM. The Photographer took photographs of the scene. The witness prepared his Scene of Crime (SOC) report bearing number 303/2021, Ex. PW12/A, bearing the witness's signatures at point A. The Finger Print Report is already Ex.
PW10/A, signed by the witness at point B. SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:28:16 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 38 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR
b) Documents Exhibited i. Ex. PW12/A: Scene of Crime (SOC) report number 303/2021, bearing witness's signatures at point A ii. Ex. PW10/A (also signed by PW-12): Finger Print Report, signed by witness at point B
c) Cross-Examination:
During cross-examination, PW-12 Bhagwan Yadav (Retired) was questioned regarding the crime scene inspection and the SOC report. The witness's duty hours were 24 hours on 07.06.2021. The witness had reached the place of occurrence at approximately 3:45 AM. It had taken approximately half an hour to reach the place of occurrence, which was about 7-8 km away from their office. No chance prints (fingerprints) could be lifted from the spot, which was explained in the report. The SOC report was submitted to Inspector Devender Kumar Singh at the spot. The witness returned to his office at approximately 5:00 AM. When confronted, the witness firmly denied suggestions that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the IO.
5.13. PW-13: HEAD CONSTABLE MUGHAL ANSARI NO. 660812
a) PW-13 Head Constable Mughal Ansari, posted at Bapu Dham, E Block, New Delhi, deposed that on 01.07.2021, he was posted as a Constable at PS Sarojini Nagar. On the instructions of the IO, he took the exhibits in the present case from the MHC(M) vide Road Certificate (RC) 12 Designation: Head Constable Dates of Examination: Examination-in-Chief: 14.02.2024; Cross-Examination: 14.02.2024 SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:28:24 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 39 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR number 55/21/2021 and deposited the same in FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) Rohini. The case property was sealed with the seal of the hospital at the time of handing over. After the deposition of the case property in the FSL, the witness returned a duly acknowledged copy to the MHC(M). During the time the case property remained in the possession of the witness, it was not tampered with or mishandled. The IO recorded the witness's statement.
b) Documents Exhibited i. RC No. 55/21/2021: Road Certificate for transportation and deposition of case property in FSL Rohini, bearing witness's signatures.
c) Cross-Examination:
During cross-examination, PW-13 Head Constable Mughal Ansari was questioned regarding the condition of the case property and the deposition procedure. The witness firmly denied suggestions that the case property was already tampered with and further tampered by him before deposition in the FSL. The witness also denied that he had no instructions from the IO to deposit the case property. The witness confirmed that he had not signed on register no. 19 or register no. 21, which were registers maintained at the Police Station Malkhana for recording receipt and deposit of case property.
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:28:33 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 40 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR 5.14. PW-14: SHRI VINOD KUMAR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE.13
a) PW-14 Shri Vinod Kumar, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate before whom the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded, deposed regarding the procedural aspects of recording witnesses' statements. On 08.06.2021, an application was moved in the court by IO/SI Shikshit Kumar for recording statements of three witnesses, namely Kaptan Singh, Rajesh Kumar, and Ashok Kumar, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. All three witnesses were duly identified by the IO, SI Shikshit Kumar, before the Magistrate. The Magistrate proceeded to record the statement of witness Kaptan Singh, and the photocopy of this statement is already marked as Ex. PW1/E. The photocopy of the statement of witness Ashok Kumar is already marked as Ex. PW3/A. The photocopy of the statement of witness Rajesh Kumar is already marked as Ex. PW2/A. After recording the statements of all three witnesses, the Magistrate appended a certificate stating that the statements were true and correct accounts of the witnesses' statements and that nothing had been altered, subtracted, or added in the statements. Upon the request of the IO on application, the Magistrate directed that a copy of the statements of all three witnesses (Kaptan Singh, Rajesh Kumar, and Ashok Kumar) be supplied to him. The Magistrate also directed the Ahlmad (Court Staff) 13 Designation: Metropolitan Magistrate-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Status (on date of testimony): Reliever MM / NDD / PHC Dates of Examination: Examination-in-Chief: 14.02.2024; Cross-Examination: 14.02.2024 Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:28:39 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 41 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR to seal the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and to send the proceedings to the concerned court on 08.06.2021 itself.
b) Documents Exhibited i. Ex. PW1/E: Statement of witness Kaptan Singh under Section 164 Cr.P.C., recorded on 08.06.2021 ii. Ex. PW3/A: Statement of witness Ashok Kumar under Section 164 Cr.P.C., recorded on 08.06.2021 iii. Ex. PW2/A: Statement of witness Rajesh Kumar under Section 164 Cr.P.C., recorded on 08.06.2021
c) Cross-Examination:
The witness's testimony was limited to the procedural aspects of recording statements, which were uncontested. 5.15. PW-15: CONSTABLE VIKAS KUMAR NO. 1466/SW14
a) PW-15 Constable Vikas Kumar, working as a Photographer in the Mobile Crime Team Unit of South-West District, deposed regarding the photographic documentation of the crime scene. On 07.06.2021, the witness, along with ASI Bhagwan Singh (Incharge of the Mobile Crime Team Unit), went to the place of occurrence at the Labour Camp, Ahluwalia Construction Site, Africa Avenue Road, Netaji Nagar, Delhi.
The IO was also present at the spot. The witness inspected the spot and took photographs from different angles. At the stage of identification, 13 photographs were placed on record and shown to the witness, who confirmed that these were the same photographs which were taken by 14 Designation: Photographer, Mobile Crime Team Dates of Examination: Examination-in-Chief: 28.03.2024: Cross-Examination: 28.03.2024 SAURABH Digitally signed by SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:28:48 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 42 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR him at the spot. The photographs are already marked as Ex. PW1/D1 to Ex. PW1/D12 (12 photographs). On one photograph, the address of the site is recorded and is marked as Ex. PW15/MO-1. The witness gave a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act (Ex. PW15/A), signed by the witness at point A, confirming the authenticity of the photographs. The witness also prepared a CD of the photographs, which is marked as Ex. PW15/MO-2. The CD of the photographs was handed over to the IO and taken into possession vide memo (Ex. PW15/B), signed by the witness at point A. The IO recorded the witness's statement.
b) Documents Exhibited i. Ex. PW15/A: Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, signed by witness at point A, certifying the authenticity of the digital photographs ii. Ex. PW15/B: Memo of receipt of CD of photographs by the IO, signed by witness at point A
c) Exhibits Identified i. Ex. PW15/MO-1: Photograph with address of site recorded on it ii. Ex. PW15/MO-2: CD containing all photographs taken at the crime scene iii. Ex. PW1/D1 to Ex. PW1/D12: 12 photographs of the crime scene taken by the witness
d) Cross-Examination:
Defence counsel had no questions for this witness, as the authenticity of the photographs and the documentary evidence were not contested.
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:28:54 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 43 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR 5.16. PW-16: DR. ABHIMANYU KHUTELL15
a) PW-16 Dr. Abhimanyu Khutell was deputed by the Head of Department (HOD), Forensic Medicine, Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi, to appear and depose on behalf of Dr. Lakhan Lal Navlani. Dr. Khutell had worked together with Dr. Navlani for about three years and could identify his handwriting and signatures as he had seen him writing and signing during their official work. Dr. Navlani had since left the services of the hospital and his whereabouts were not known. The witness identified the Postmortem (PM) Report No. 1327/21 dated 14.06.2021, pertaining to deceased Praveen Kumar, male, aged approximately 26 years.
According to the opinion of Dr. Navlani (as evident from the PM report), the time since death was approximately seven and a half days, and the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries sustained to the abdomen, produced by blunt force impact. All injuries were noted to be ante-mortem in nature, and the internal injuries sustained to the abdomen were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. However, viscera was preserved to rule out any intoxication. The PM report is Ex. PW16/A, signed by Dr. Navlani at point A. The witness further deposed that he had also seen a report by Dr. Navlani relating to the articles sent for examination. According to the opinion of Dr. Navlani, the case property sent for examination consisted of a cylindrical mechanical rod (the iron rod used 15 Designation: Senior Resident, Department of Forensic Medicine, Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi Status: Deputed to depose on behalf of Dr. Lakhan Lal Navlani (the original postmortem conducting doctor who has since left the hospital) Dates of Examination: Examination-in-Chief: 31.05.2024; Cross-Examination: 31.05.2024 Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:29:02 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 44 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR in the assault), with description as mentioned in the subsequent opinion. According to the opinion of Dr. Navlani, after examination of the weapon, the doctor opined that the injuries mentioned in the PM report could have been caused by the weapon sent for examination (the iron rod). The subsequent opinion is Ex. PW16/B, signed by Dr. Navlani at point A. A sketch of the weapon was also prepared by Dr. Navlani, and the same is Ex. PW16/C, signed by Dr. Navlani at point A.
b) Documents Exhibited i. Ex. PW16/A: Postmortem (PM) Report No. 1327/21, dated
14.06.2021, signed by Dr. Lakhan Lal Navlani at point A ii. Ex. PW16/B: Subsequent opinion on the weapon (iron rod), signed by Dr. Navlani at point A, opining that the injuries could be caused by the examined rod or similar blunt object iii. Ex. PW16/C: Sketch of the weapon prepared by Dr. Navlani, signed by Dr. Navlani at point A.
c) Cross-Examination:
During cross-examination, PW-16 Dr. Abhimanyu Khutell was questioned regarding the postmortem findings and the weapon analysis. The witness had no conversation with Dr. Navlani prior to his deposition in court. He had only been deputed to identify the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Navlani. The opinion given by Dr. Navlani, according to the witness, was based on established scientific principles as each forensic doctor is taught. When questioned about specific injuries, the witness noted that the only external injury number 10 pertained to an abdominal injury. The sketch (Ex. PW16/C) was not Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:29:08 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 45 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR prepared in the witness's presence. When confronted regarding the possibility of the abdominal injury being caused by a fall over a blunt object, the witness agreed that it could be possible by falling over a blunt object, however, the same is dependent upon the velocity and height of the fall. The defence seemed to suggest the possibility of the injury being caused by an accidental fall, but the witness did not definitively exclude this possibility while maintaining that such a conclusion would depend on the circumstances of the fall. 5.17. PW-17: HEAD CONSTABLE UMED SINGH NO. 719716
a) PW-17 Head Constable Umed Singh, who was working as MHC (M) at PS Sarojini Nagar, Delhi, deposed regarding the receipt and custody of case property. On 07.06.2021, Inspector Devender Singh deposited with the witness one sealed pullanda (parcel), and the details thereof were entered by the witness at serial no. 1568 in register no. 19. On 14.06.2021, Inspector Devender Singh deposited with the witness three sealed pullandas and three sample seals, and the details thereof were entered by the witness at serial no. 1580 in register no. 19. On 29.06.2021, one sealed pullanda (duly sealed with the seal of the IO) was sent to Safdarjung Hospital through Constable Arun, vide Road Certificate (RC) no. 53/21/21. Constable Arun returned a duly acknowledged copy to the witness. On 01.07.2021, one wooden box containing viscera, along with a sample seal, was sent to FSL Rohini 16 Designation: (MHC-M) / Malkhana Incharge Current Posting: Supreme Court Security, Delhi Dates of Examination: Examination-in-Chief: 31.05.2024; Cross-Examination: 31.05.2024 Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:29:15 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 46 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR through Head Constable Mughal Ansari, vide RC no. 55/21/21. Head Constable Mughal Ansari returned a duly acknowledged copy to the witness. The case property, while in the custody of the witness (MHC- M), was not tampered with. The relevant entries in register nos. 19 and 21 are marked as Ex. PW17/A. The original register nos. 19 and 21 were seen and returned by the court. On 14.07.2021, Constable Arun returned a pullanda duly sealed with the seal of the hospital, along with the opinion result. The result was handed over to the IO, and the pullanda was retained by the witness in the malkhana.
b) Documents Exhibited i. Ex. PW17/A: Entries in register nos. 19 and 21 relating to receipt and deposit of case property, bearing witness's signatures
c) Cross-Examination:
Defence counsel raised no questions. The witness's testimony regarding the maintenance of exhibits and proper procedures of the malkhana was essentially uncontested.
5.18. PW-18: SUB-INSPECTOR JAI BHAGWAN17
a) PW-18 Sub-Inspector Jai Bhagwan, working as a Draftsman in the Mapping Section of South-West District, deposed regarding the preparation of the scaled site plan. On 06.07.2021 (though this appears to be 07.07.2021 based on context), the witness was working as a Draftsman in the Mapping Section South-West District. He was called by Inspector Devender Kumar to PS Sarojini Nagar, and from there, he 17 Date of examination 12.08.2024 Date of cross-examination: 12.08.2024 Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:29:23 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 47 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR accompanied the IO to the place of incident, i.e., under-construction building, D Block, Ahluwalia Construction Company, Africa Avenue Road, Sarojini Nagar, Delhi. The witness met the eye-witness Kaptan Singh at the spot, who was also involved in the investigation. At Kaptan Singh's instance, the witness took rough notes and measurements of the crime scene, inspected the spot, and returned to his office. On the next day (07.07.2021), the witness prepared the scaled site plan based on the measurements and rough notes. The scaled site plan is marked as Ex. PW18/A, signed by the witness at point A. The IO also recorded the witness's statement.
b) Documents Exhibited i. Ex. PW18/A: Scaled site plan of the crime scene, prepared by witness on 07.07.2021, signed by witness at point A.
c) Cross-Examination:
During cross-examination, PW-18 Sub-Inspector Jai Bhagwan was questioned regarding the preparation of the site plan and his visit to the crime scene. The witness reached the place of incident at approximately 12:30 PM. An arrival entry was made at 12:10 PM vide DD No. 28 at the PS. The IO would have made a departure entry, though the witness could not speak to this. The witness had destroyed the rough notes and measurements after preparation of the scaled site plan (which is standard practice). The IO had told the witness that Kaptan Singh was the eye-witness, and the site plan had been prepared at his instance. The witness had taken approximately 45 minutes for the measurements and inspection at the spot. When confronted, the witness firmly denied SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:29:37 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 48 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR suggestions that he had not prepared a rough site plan or taken measurements at the site, or that he had prepared the scaled site plan while sitting in the PS at the instance of the IO. The witness denied deposing falsely.
5.19. PW-19: SUB-INSPECTOR VIJENDER SINGH18
a) PW-19 Sub-Inspector Vijender Singh was working as the Duty Officer at PS Sarojini Nagar on 07.06.2021 from 12:00 midnight to 08:00 AM, deposed regarding the registration of the FIR. On 07.06.2021, the Rukka was handed over to the witness by Inspector Devender Singh.
Upon receipt of the Rukka, the witness registered FIR No. 128/21 under Section 302 IPC. The computerized copy of the FIR is marked as Ex. PW19/A, signed by the witness at point A and countersigned by the complainant at point B. The witness made an endorsement on the Rukka (Ex. PW19/B). The witness also gave a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act (Ex. PW19/C), signed by the witness at point A. The witness had handed over the copy of the FIR and Rukka to Constable Ramvir (Constable Ramveer) for further handing over to Inspector Devender Singh for investigation. The witness also made DD No. 3A, and the computerized copy of the same is marked as Ex. PW19/D. The FIR register was seen and returned.
18Date of examination: 05.03.2025 Cross examination: 05.03.2025 SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:29:45 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 49 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR
b) Documents Exhibited i. Ex. PW19/A: Computerized copy of FIR No. 128/21 registered under Section 302 IPC, signed by witness at point A and countersigned by complainant at point B. ii. Ex. PW19/B: Endorsement by witness on the Rukka.
iii. Ex. PW19/C: Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, signed by witness at point A. iv. Ex. PW19/D: Computerized copy of DD (Diary Entry) No. 3A.
c) Cross-Examination:
During cross-examination, PW-19 Sub-Inspector Vijender Singh was questioned regarding the FIR registration and timing. The witness firmly denied suggestions that the FIR was ante-dated or anti-timed. The witness also denied suggestions that he had not recorded the FIR properly.
5.20. PW-20: DR. SUBHASH CHANDRA19
a) PW-20 Dr. Subhash Chandra, Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry) at FSL Rohini, deposed regarding the forensic analysis of exhibits related to blood and alcohol content. On 01.07.2021, the witness was posted at FSL Rohini as Sr. Scientific Officer (Chemistry). On that day, one sealed parcel duly sealed was received in the laboratory for examination in the present case. The seals were intact and were tallied with the specimen seal of the forwarding authority. The witness examined the 19 Designation: Senior Scientific Officer (Chemisty), FSL, Rohini, Delhi Date of examination 28.04.2025 Date of cross-examination 28.04.2025 SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:29:52 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 50 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR exhibits found in the parcel. The witness identified exhibits as Ex. 1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D. Upon examination, exhibits Ex. 1A, 1B, and 1C were found to contain ethyl alcohol. Ex. 1C specifically contained ethyl alcohol in the quantity of 351.1 mg / 100 ml of blood. No metallic poison, ethyl, or methyl alcohol could be detected in Ex. 1D. After examination of the exhibits, the witness prepared a detailed report regarding the findings and forwarded the same with the seal of SCFSL DELHI to the police officials. The report is exhibited as Ex. PW20/A, bearing the witness's signatures at point A. The FSL report indicates high levels of alcohol in the blood sample.
b) Documents Exhibited i. Ex. PW20/A: FSL report of forensic examination, indicating the presence of ethyl alcohol in exhibits 1A, 1B, and 1C, with exhibit 1C containing 351.1 mg ethyl alcohol / 100 ml of blood, bearing witness's signatures at point A.
c) Cross-Examination:
During cross-examination, PW-20 Dr. Subhash Chandra was questioned regarding the interpretation of the alcohol levels. The witness confirmed that according to the quantity of ethyl alcohol (351.1 mg / 100 ml of blood), it could be stated that the person was heavily intoxicated or "heavily drunk".Digitally signed
SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:29:59 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 51 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR 5.21. PW-21: DR. TUSHAR SHARMA20
a) PW-21 Dr. Tushar Sharma, a Senior Medical Officer at Safdarjung Hospital, deposed on behalf of Dr. Ashutosh Saini, who was posted at the hospital as a Junior Resident on 06.06.2021. Dr. Saini has since left the hospital and his present address is not available. Dr. Sharma confirmed that he could identify Dr. Saini's signatures and handwriting as he had seen him writing and signing during their official work. On 06.06.2021, Dr. Sharma was posted at Safdarjung Hospital as a Casualty Medical Officer. Dr. Saini's MLC (Medical Legal Certificate) regarding the deceased Praveen Kumar contains the entries pertaining to Praveen's admission to the hospital, his condition upon arrival, and the medical findings. The MLC pertains to deceased Praveen Kumar, male, with MRN (Medical Record Number) 00150197. The MLC is written in Dr. Ashutosh Saini's handwriting from point A to A1 and bears his signatures at point B. The MLC is marked as Ex. PW21/A. According to the MLC, the casualty officer (Dr. Ashutosh Saini) declared the deceased Praveen as brought dead at 9:40 P.M. on 06.06.2021. This indicates that the deceased was already dead when brought to the hospital.
b) Documents Exhibited i. Ex. PW21/A: Medical Legal Certificate (MLC) No. 00150197, dated 06.06.2021, bearing Dr. Ashutosh Saini's handwriting and 20 Designation: Senior Medical Officer, Safdurjung Hospital [deputed to depose on behalf of Dr. Ashutosh Saini (Junior Resident on 06.06.2021), who has since left the hospital] Date of examination: 28.04.2025 SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:30:07 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 52 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR signatures, indicating that deceased Praveen was brought dead at 9:40 P.M.
c) Cross-Examination: No questions were raised by the defence counsel.
5.22. PW-22: INSPECTOR DEVENDER SINGH21
a) Inspector Devender Singh deposed that on 06.06.2021, he was posted at Police Station Sarojini Nagar as an Inspector. On the intervening night of 06th -07th June 2021, the Inspector was present in the Police Station when he received a DD (Daily Diary) No. 3A, which was subsequently exhibited as Exhibit 19/D. Upon receipt of the DD, the Inspector, in the company of Constable Narender, proceeded to Safdurjung Hospital where he learnt that one Praveen Kumar had been declared brought dead by the treating doctor, and his brother Naveen Kumar was also present in the hospital. The Inspector further deposed that Naveen Kumar had been admitted in the hospital as a result of striking his own head against a wall.
b) The Inspector, leaving Constable Narender at the hospital for further investigation, himself proceeded to the spot of the incident, which was located at Labour Camp, Ahluwalia Construction Company, Africa Avenue Road, Sarojini Nagar. At the scene of the incident, the Inspector met one Kaptan Singh, who was employed as a Security Guard at the construction site. Kaptan Singh represented himself to be an eyewitness to the incident and provided the Inspector with information regarding 21 Designation: Investigating Officer Date of examination: 30.07.2025 Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:30:14 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 53 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR the sequence of events that had transpired. Kaptan Singh further produced before the Inspector an iron rod that was allegedly used by Naveen Kumar to assault his brother Praveen Kumar. The Inspector took possession of the aforesaid iron rod and sealed it with the seal of the DSM. The sealed article was documented and taken into police possession by virtue of a seizure memorandum, which was subsequently exhibited as Exhibit PW1/B, bearing the signature of the Inspector at point 'C'.
c) Subsequently, the Inspector summoned the ERV officials to the spot and after their arrival and preliminary examination, he returned to the Police Station along with Kaptan Singh, the security guard and complainant. The Inspector recorded the statement of Kaptan Singh and on the basis of such statement, prepared a rukka, which was subsequently exhibited as Exhibit PW22/A, bearing the Inspector's signature at point 'A'. This rukka was thereafter processed and the FIR was formally registered at the Police Station.
d) Following the registration of the FIR, the Inspector called upon the Crime Team officials and directed them to visit the spot. The Inspector proceeded to the spot again along with Kaptan Singh, the complainant.
The Crime Team officials arrived at the scene in the presence of the Inspector and conducted a detailed inspection of the spot. The Crime Team photographed the scene of the incident. The Inspector recorded the statements of the Crime Team officials and received from them a report documenting their findings and observations at the scene. The Inspector further came to know from Kaptan Singh that the Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:30:22 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 54 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR injured/deceased Praveen Kumar had been transported to the hospital in a company vehicle by two individuals named Rajesh and Ashok. The Inspector then proceeded to the Police Station and, with the arrival of Constable Narender with the accused Naveen Kumar, who was identified in court, the Inspector recorded the statements of both Rajesh and Ashok. The Inspector also interrogated the accused Naveen Kumar.
e) The Inspector further stated that he arrested the accused Naveen Kumar by virtue of an Arrest Memo Exhibit PW11/A, bearing the Inspector's signature at point 'B'. Following the arrest, the Inspector conducted a personal search of the accused as per the prescribed procedures, and a Personal Search Memo was prepared, exhibited as Exhibit 11/B, bearing the Inspector's signature at point 'B'.
f)The Inspector recorded a disclosure statement from the accused, which was subsequently exhibited as Exhibit 11/C, bearing the Inspector's signature at point 'B'. Upon the disclosure made by the accused, the Inspector visited the place of the incident along with the accused, and the accused pointed out the location of the incident. A Pointing Out Memo was prepared documenting the said pointing out, which was subsequently exhibited as Exhibit 11/D, bearing the Inspector's signature at point 'B'.
g) The Inspector further deposed that he prepared a site plan of the spot at the instance of Kaptan Singh, the complainant, which is Exhibit PW22/B, bearing the Inspector's signature at point 'A'. The photographs of the place of the incident were taken by Constable Vikas, and the CD SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:30:29 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 55 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR containing these photographs was taken into police possession along with a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, as documented in a seizure memo exhibited as Exhibit PW15/B, bearing the Inspector's signature at point 'A'.
h) The Inspector recorded a supplementary statement from Kaptan Singh, the complainant. Information regarding the arrest of the accused was communicated to the sister of the accused. Information regarding the death of Praveen was also communicated to the sister of the accused, given that the accused and the deceased were real brothers. The Inspector recorded statements from all the witnesses in the case.
i) The accused was medically examined as per the prescribed procedures and was subsequently produced before the concerned court. The accused was thereafter sent to judicial custody. The body of the deceased was preserved in the mortuary and subsequently subjected to a post-mortem examination. The sister of the accused did not come to collect the deceased and instead sent a WhatsApp message indicating that she could not travel to Delhi due to financial constraints.
j) The deceased body was cremated at the Electric Crematory located at Sarai Kale Khan. The Inspector moved application for recording of statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Kaptan Singh (the complainant), Rajesh (PW), and Ashok (PW). The post-mortem report was subsequently collected from the hospital authorities. Following the post-mortem examination, the doctor handed over sealed exhibits related to the deceased to Constable Arun, who in turn handed them over to the Inspector. These sealed exhibits wereDigitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date:
2026.01.19 LALER 17:30:36 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 56 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR taken into police possession as documented in a seizure memo, subsequently exhibited as Exhibit 7/A, bearing the Inspector's signature at point 'B'.
k) Prior to the post-mortem examination, the body of the deceased was formally identified by two persons, namely Kaptan Singh and Naval Kishore. The statements of these two persons were recorded, which were are Exhibit PW1/C and Exhibit PW22/C. The sealed exhibits were subsequently transmitted to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).
The Inspector obtained a subsequent opinion from the doctor regarding the iron rod in question (Exhibit PW16/B).
l) The FSL result in the present case was subsequently collected which is Exhibit PW20/A. A scaled site plan was prepared by a draughtsman is Exhibit PW18/A. The Inspector had also prepared inquest papers, which are Exhibit PW22/B, bearing the Inspector's signature at point 'A'.
m) Cross-examination:
i. During the cross-examination, the learned defence counsel sought to challenge the veracity and completeness of the investigation conducted by the Inspector. The counsel commenced his cross- examination by questioning the timing of events and the promptness of the Inspector's response. The Inspector deposed that DD No. 3A was received at approximately 12:10 AM or 12:15 AM, and he reached the hospital within approximately 15-20 minutes of receiving the DD. The Inspector further conceded that upon arrival at the Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:30:43 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 57 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR hospital, he first met the duty constable, whose name he could not recollect.
ii. The Inspector confirmed that upon his arrival at the hospital, he observed that Naveen was admitted and the body of Praveen was lying in the emergency ward. The Inspector further conceded that Naveen appeared to be in a conscious state at the time of his observation. The Inspector acknowledged that he did not make any enquiry from Naveen at that particular point in time, as he left for the place of the incident. The Inspector deposed that he remained at the hospital for approximately 30 minutes during which he did not make any enquiry or conduct any investigation from any person, as he could not locate any person who could provide information regarding the circumstances of the deceased or the accused. iii. The counsel further challenged the Inspector's statement regarding Naveen striking his head against the wall. The counsel posed a specific question: "As per your deposition in the chief examination, you stated that 'himself struck his head against the wall', what is your source information?" To this query, the Inspector responded that the source of his information was the Duty Constable at the hospital. However, upon further questioning, the Inspector admitted that he had not made any further enquiry from the Duty Constable to ascertain whether the Duty Constable had personally witnessed Naveen striking his head against the wall or whether he had merely received such information from other sources.Digitally signed
SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:30:49 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 58 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR iv. The counsel proceeded to highlight the deficiencies in the investigation regarding the wall against which the accused allegedly struck his head. The Inspector was pressed on this issue and conceded that he did not make any investigation regarding the specific location where Naveen had allegedly struck his head against the wall. The Inspector further admitted that he did not examine the CCTV cameras installed in the emergency ward or outside the emergency ward to verify the version regarding Naveen striking his head, despite the existence of such surveillance equipment. v. The Inspector was then confronted with the fact that he relied upon the statements of Rajesh and Ashok as evidence that they had witnessed Naveen striking his head against the wall. However, the Inspector confessed that he did not verify their statements by examining the CCTV footage available at the hospital. Furthermore, he admitted that Rajesh and Ashok did not point out or show to him the specific wall against which the accused had allegedly struck his head, and he did not make any enquiry with them regarding such detail.
vi. When the counsel suggested that the Inspector had not verified the CCTV footage because the accused had never struck his head against the wall, the Inspector denied the suggestion but could not provide a satisfactory explanation for his failure to examine the available CCTV footage.
vii. The counsel further questioned the timeline of the Inspector's movements. The Inspector deposed that from the hospital, he SAURABH Digitally signed by SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:30:56 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 59 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR proceeded to the place of the incident and it took approximately 10- 12 minutes to reach there by his private vehicle. The Inspector conceded that upon first reaching the spot, he did not record any statement of Kaptan Singh or any other person at that juncture. At the time of taking possession of the iron rod, neither Kaptan Singh nor the Inspector were wearing gloves. At the time of the Inspector's first arrival at the spot, the Inspector was carrying his IO (Investigating Officer) bag with him. The Inspector deposed that at the time of his first arrival, two to four persons, including Kaptan Singh and Ishak, were present at the spot, while other persons were found sleeping.
viii. The Inspector clarified that he had made enquiries from Ishak at the spot and subsequently recorded his statement at the Police Station, as he had also brought Ishak to the Police Station. The Inspector remained at the spot for the first time for approximately 45 minutes to 1 hour. The Inspector conceded that he did not call any fingerprint expert for lifting chance prints from the iron rod, justifying his action on the ground that many persons had already touched the iron rod, including the complainant. ix. When the counsel pointed out that fingerprints can be extracted from the iron rod even if many people have touched it, albeit in mixed form, the Inspector acknowledged the theoretical possibility thereof. When the counsel suggested that the iron rod had been planted, the Inspector categorically denied the suggestion. x. The Inspector was further questioned regarding the ERV officials. He deposed that ERV officials, namely ASI Kamal and a driver whose SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:31:02 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 60 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR name he could not recall, reached the spot approximately 2-3 minutes after his arrival. The Inspector clarified that he recorded the statement of Kaptan Singh only at the Police Station and recorded the statement of Ishak after the FIR had been registered. The Inspector stated that at approximately 3:00 AM, he handed over the rukka to the Duty Officer for registration of the FIR.
xi. Upon being confronted with his own statement, the Inspector conceded that he had asked Ishak to remain present at the Police Station as he intended to record his statement after the registration of the FIR. The Inspector deposed that before recording the statement of Ishak at the Police Station, he visited the place of the incident again at approximately 3:30 AM along with Kaptan Singh, as he had called the Crime Team to the spot, and he remained there for approximately 40-45 minutes. The Crime Team consisted of 3-4 persons, including Vikas, but the Inspector could not recall the names of the other members of the Crime Team. The Inspector reiterated that he did not record any statement of witnesses at the spot. xii. The counsel then questioned the Inspector regarding the arrest of the accused. The Inspector deposed that he arrested the accused Naveen at the Police Station in the morning. Constable Narender brought the accused Naveen to the Police Station from the hospital at approximately 8:00 AM to 8:30 AM. The Inspector further mentioned that a urine bag might have been attached to the accused when he was brought to the Police Station from the hospital by Constable Narender.
SAURABH Digitally
by SAURABH
signed
PARTAP PARTAP SINGH
LALER
SINGH Date: 2026.01.19
LALER 17:31:08 +0530
DLND010058722021 Page 61 of 88
SC 221/2021
STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR
FIR No. 128/2021
PS: SAROJINI NAGAR
xiii. The counsel then sought to challenge the disclosure statement of the accused. The Inspector was pressed on this issue and was confronted with the defence version that the accused had informed the Inspector that his brother Parveen had tried to forcefully pull his urine pipe, and in the course of pushing Parveen away, the accused had suffered injuries. The defence further suggested that the deceased Parveen had also struck the accused on his head. However, the Inspector denied these suggestions and stated that it was wrong to suggest that the accused had provided such information or that the Inspector had deliberately omitted to record such statements. xiv. The counsel further suggested that the disclosure statement recorded by the Inspector was not a true and correct representation of what the accused had stated and that the Inspector had deliberately not written the true and correct statement of the accused. The Inspector denied these suggestions categorically. xv. The counsel then made broader allegations suggesting that the investigation conducted by the Inspector was not proper and fair and that he had falsely implicated the accused Naveen in the present case. The Inspector denied all such suggestions. When confronted with the suggestion that all the paperwork was not done in accordance with law and that the Inspector was deposing falsely, the Inspector categorically and vehemently denied the same.
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:31:16 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 62 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR
6. STATEMENT U/S 313 CRPC OF THE ACCUSED Statement u/s 313 CrPC of the accused was recorded on 30.07.2025 in which all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused. He denied the evidence produced by the prosecution against him and stated that he was falsely implicated in this case. He categorically stated that the deceased tried to remove his urine pipe on the date of incident as he was under the influence of liquor and the accused, just to save himself, pushed him as a result of which the deceased fell down and sustained injuries.
7. Accused, in defence evidence, summoned Dr. Sukriti Rastogi, who had medically examined him on 07.06.2021.
7.1. DW1: Dr. Sukriti Rastogi
a) DW1 deposed that the accused was brought to hospital by Ct. Arun and Daljeet with alleged histody of head injury, caused by self by banging his head on the wall. DW1 examined him vide MLC No. 150575 dated 07.06.2021 (Ex. DW1/A) and noted swelling on right wrist and wound on head. DW1 also found that the accused, at that time, was catheterized (urine bag was attached). The doctor further stated that if urine pipe is forcefully taken out, the patient might experience blood in urine, pain or urethral injury.
b) Cross-examination: Ld. Addl. PP did not put any question to DW1 in cross-examination.
7.2. Defence evidence was closed on 20.08.2025.
Digitally signedSAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:31:22 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 63 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR
8. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE BY LD. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 8.1. The prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that on 06.06.2021, between 8:30 and 8:45 PM, at the labour camp of Ahluwalia Construction Company, Africa Avenue Road, Sarojini Nagar, Delhi, the accused Naveen Kumar, with the intention of killing his real brother Praveen Kumar, repeatedly assaulted him with an iron rod on vital parts of the body after uttering the words "tera roj roj ka jhanjhat hai, aaj tujhe khatam hi kar deta hu". As a result of these injuries, the deceased succumbed, and the act clearly constitutes murder punishable under Section 302 IPC.
8.2. The testimony of PW-1 Kaptan Singh, the security guard on duty, is credible, natural and reliable. He reached the spot upon hearing noises of quarrel, witnessed the accused assaulting the deceased with the iron rod, intervened by snatching the rod from the accused's hand, and retained it until it was seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/B. He identified the iron rod (Ex.P-1) in court. His presence at the site was natural as he had been posted there only one and a half to two months earlier and was performing his duty at the material time. Any minor discrepancy regarding the exact sequence in which other labourers arrived does not detract from the core of his testimony that he personally saw the assault and immediately recovered the weapon.
8.3. The evidence of PW-1 is fully corroborated by PW-2 Rajesh Kumar, who reached the spot soon after and saw the deceased lying injured with the accused holding the rod; by the recovery of the weapon from the Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:31:29 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 64 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR conscious possession of PW-1; by the post-mortem report and forensic opinion confirming that the injuries were ante-mortem and caused by blunt force trauma consistent with the seized iron rod; and by the conduct of the accused, including the head injury which the prosecution contends was self-inflicted in the hospital to fabricate a defence. 8.4. The intention to kill is evident from the fact that the accused inflicted multiple blows with a deadly weapon on vital parts, coupled with his express threat to end the deceased's life, due to repeated quarrels. No Exception to Section 300 IPC is attracted. Suggestions that the incident was a sudden fight or that the deceased's intoxication mitigates the offence are without basis; the accused was the aggressor armed with a lethal weapon, and the deceased's intoxication does not reduce the accused's culpability. The alleged head injury of the accused was consistently described by PW-2 and PW-3 Ashok Kumar as self-inflicted by banging his head against the wall in the hospital, rendering unnecessary any further verification through CCTV footage.
8.5. Minor alleged lapses in investigation, such as not lifting fingerprints from the iron rod, are immaterial when the weapon was recovered immediately after the incident from PW-1 who had snatched it from the accused in the presence of others, and the chain of custody remains unbroken. The ocular evidence stands unshaken. 8.6. The prosecution has therefore proved the charge under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused is liable to be convicted and sentenced accordingly.
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:31:36 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 65 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR
9. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED (SH. MANOJ KUMAR, LD. LAC) Ld. LAC also filed written submissions. 9.1. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Material contradictions, improvements and critical gaps in the prosecution evidence entitle the accused to acquittal. In the alternative, even if any part of the prosecution version is accepted, the incident occurred in the course of a sudden quarrel without premeditation, in heat of passion, and the case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
9.2. PW-1 Kaptan Singh is wholly unreliable. PW-2 Rajesh Kumar, who reached the spot first, admitted in cross-examination that when he arrived the quarrel was already over and the blow to the deceased's chest had already been struck. PW-9 Ishaq informed PW-1 of the quarrel, and both reached together after PW-2. PW-1 therefore could not have seen the actual assault. His claim of witnessing repeated blows and snatching the rod during the ongoing quarrel is demonstrably false. PW-2 further admitted that no one intervened in the fight, directly contradicting PW-1's assertion that he snatched the rod from the accused. 9.3. The alleged weapon of offence appears planted. The Investigating Officer did not send the iron rod for forensic examination to lift fingerprints, admitted that neither he nor PW-1 wore gloves while handling it, and the expert conceded that fingerprints can be recovered even after multiple persons have touched an object. In the absence of any forensic SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:31:42 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 66 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR link connecting the rod to the accused and given the contradictory ocular evidence, the recovery is highly doubtful. 9.4. The incident was a sudden quarrel between two real brothers who were labourers living together, with no evidence of premeditation or motive for planned murder. PW-16, the forensic expert, admitted that the deceased was heavily intoxicated. PW-2's evidence indicates only a single blow delivered before anyone else arrived, which occurred in the course of a mutual sudden fight and does not establish murderous intent. 9.5. The head injury sustained by the accused was not self-inflicted. PW-2 claimed PW-3 Ashok Kumar also witnessed the accused banging his head, but PW-3 contradicted this, stating that hospital staff merely informed them of it while they were attending to the deceased. Both witnesses therefore appear to have deposed falsely at the instance of the Investigating Officer, who admitted not collecting CCTV footage of the emergency ward and not recording statements of any hospital staff. PW-16 further conceded that the only external injury corresponding to injury no. 10 on the deceased could be caused by falling on a blunt object, and the site photograph Ex.PW-1/D12 (Point A) depicts a slippery surface where slipping was highly probable.
9.6. Given that the accused and deceased were brothers with no apparent motive for premeditated murder, the incident was at worst a sudden quarrel between intoxicated siblings. The offence, if any, falls under Part I of Section 304 IPC or Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (reliance placed on Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) 2 SCC 333).
Digitally signedSAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:31:49 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 67 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR 9.7. The prosecution evidence is riddled with contradictions and improvements, rendering the chain of circumstances incomplete and the ocular account unreliable. The accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and honourable acquittal or, in the alternative, conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC rather than Section 302 IPC.
10. REASONS FOR CONVICTION 10.1. The accused Naveen Kumar is charged with the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of his brother Praveen Kumar on 06.06.2021 at around 8:30-8:45 PM at the labour camp, Ahluwalia Construction Site, Africa Avenue Road, Sarojini Nagar, Delhi.
10.2. Ingredients of Offence Under Section 302 IPC: For an offence to be established under Section 302 IPC, the prosecution must prove the following essential ingredients beyond reasonable doubt:
a) Death of a human being - There must be actual death of a person.
b) Causation - The death must be caused by the act of the accused.
c) Mens Rea (Culpable mental state) - The act must have been committed with:
i. Intention of causing death, or ii. Intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows is likely to cause death, or iii. With knowledge that the act is likely to cause death Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date:
2026.01.19 LALER 17:31:56 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 68 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR 10.3. Proof of Death and Causation
a) The death of Praveen Kumar aged 28 years is established beyond doubt through the post-mortem report No. 1327/21 dated 14.06.2021 (Ex.
PW16/A). The autopsy was conducted by Dr. Lakhan Lal Navlani at Safdarjung Hospital and revealed multiple ante-mortem injuries that directly caused the death of the deceased.
b) Nature and Extent of Injuries: The post-mortem examination revealed the following significant injuries:
c) External Injuries:
i. Multiple contusions on forehead, face, upper and lower lips ii. Abraded contusion of size 5.1cm x 2.7cm on front of abdomen iii. Abrasion surrounded by contusion on lateral chest wall iv. Contusions on lips and fingers v. Multiple contusions and abrasions on various body parts
d) Internal Injuries:
i. Extravasation of blood over right frontal, left parietal and left occipital regions of scalp ii. Brain softened and pale iii. Peritoneal cavity containing approximately 2.0 liters of blood and blood clots iv. Lacerated wound of size 4.5cm x 2cm on diaphragmatic surface of spleen v. Laceration of size 2.5cm x 1.2cm on anterior surface of right kidney near hilum vi. Contused omentum and mesentery with blood clots SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:32:04 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 69 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR vii. Contused intestines
e) Cause and Time of Death i. The post-mortem report conclusively opines: "Death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries sustained to abdomen produced by blunt force impact. All injuries are antemortem in nature and internal injuries sustained to abdomen are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature ". The time since death was determined to be approximately seven and a half days from the date of autopsy on 14.06.2021, consistent with the incident occurring on 06.06.2021.
ii. The medical evidence establishes that the deceased suffered massive internal bleeding due to rupture of vital organs including spleen and kidney, caused by repeated blunt force trauma with an iron rod, which proved fatal. PW-16 Dr. Abhimanyu Khutell, also proved subsequent opinion vide Ex.PW16/B confirming that the injuries could be caused by the iron rod (Ex.P1) or similar blunt object. 10.4. Eye-Witness Account - The prosecution's case is primarily supported by cogent and reliable eye-witness testimony from multiple independent witnesses who witnessed the occurrence.
a) PW-1 Kaptan Singh22 :
i. PW-1 Kaptan Singh, working as Security Guard at the construction site, has provided the most direct and compelling eye-witness account. His testimony establishes that on 06.06.2021 around 10:30- 22 Complainant and eye-witness Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:32:13 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 70 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR 11:00 PM, while on duty, he heard noises of quarrel from the labour jhuggis, proceeded to the spot, and witnessed the accused Naveen Kumar assaulting his brother Praveen Kumar with an iron rod on his head and body multiple times while shouting "Tera roj roj ka jhagda hai, aaj tujhe khatam hi kar deta hoon " (Your daily quarrel, today I will finish you).
ii. The defence has attempted to discredit PW-1's testimony by arguing that he arrived after PW-2 Rajesh Kumar and therefore could not have witnessed the assault. However, this argument fails on careful analysis of the evidence. Even if there is some minor variation in the exact sequence of arrival at the spot, it does not detract from the core testimony that PW-1 witnessed the accused assaulting the deceased with the iron rod. The incident was not instantaneous but continued for some time, and multiple witnesses arriving at different moments could have witnessed different phases of the same assault. iii. PW-1's account is corroborated by his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded on 08.06.2021 before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (Ex.PW1/E), which was made voluntarily and without coercion. The consistency between his Section 164 statement and court testimony reinforces his credibility. iv. The defence argument that PW-1 falsely deposed about snatching the iron rod from the accused is inconsequential to the main issue. What is crucial is that PW-1 witnessed the assault, and he produced the weapon (iron rod) to the police, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. The fact that he snatched the rod or picked it up Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:32:19 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 71 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR after the assault makes no material difference to the prosecution's case.
b) PW-2 Rajesh Kumar23 i. PW-2 Rajesh Kumar, a labourer at the construction site, corroborates the prosecution case. He testified that on 06.06.2021 around 10:30 PM, while in his jhuggi, he heard noises of a fight from the jhuggi occupied by the accused and deceased, reached the spot, and saw the accused assaulting the deceased with an iron rod on his head and body while shouting threats "Tera roj roj ka jhagda hai, aaj tujhe khatam hi kar deta hoon".
ii. The fact that PW-2 may have reached the spot slightly earlier than PW-1 does not invalidate either witness's testimony. Both witnesses independently corroborate the critical facts: that the accused was assaulting the deceased with an iron rod, that the assault was accompanied by threatening words showing intention to kill, and that the deceased fell unconscious as a result. iii. PW-2's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded on 08.06.2021 (Ex.PW2/A) is consistent with his court deposition, further establishing the reliability of his testimony.
c) PW-3 Ashok Kumar - Transporting the Deceased i. PW-3 Ashok Kumar, driver at Ahluwalia Constructions Company, though not a direct eye-witness to the assault, provides crucial corroborative evidence. He was called by Supervisor Sachidanand 23 Independent eye-witness Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:32:27 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 72 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR to the site on 06.06.2021 around 11:00 PM, learned from labourers including Rajesh that the accused had assaulted the deceased with an iron rod, and transported the unconscious deceased to Safdarjung Hospital where he was declared dead.
d) PW-4 Sachhidanand Kumar and PW-5 Navleshwar Prasad Singh i. PW-4 Sachhidanand Kumar, Security Supervisor, and PW-5 Navleshwar Prasad Singh, Labour Supervisor, provide further corroboration regarding the incident and subsequent events. Their testimonies establish the chain of events following the assault and confirm the employment of both accused and deceased at the site.
10.5. Relevancy of Post-Incident Evidence Under Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act
a) The defence has failed to appreciate that evidence of witnesses regarding events immediately following the offence is highly relevant under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which embodies the principle of res gestae.
b) Section 6 provides that facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places. The doctrine of res gestae includes not only the facts of the transaction itself but also statements and acts done contemporaneously or immediately before or after the act.
c) In the present case, the statements and observations made by witnesses who arrived immediately after hearing the quarrel, who witnessed the accused holding the weapon, who saw the deceased lying unconscious Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:32:35 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 73 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR with injuries, and who heard the accused's threatening words, all form part of the same transaction and are admissible under Section 6. The evidence of public witnesses (other than eye witnesses) regarding what they saw, heard, and did immediately upon reaching the spot is therefore relevant and admissible, even if they did not witness the very first blow.
10.6. Circumstantial Evidence Supporting Prosecution Case: Apart from direct eye-witness testimony, the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly supports the prosecution's case and forms an unbroken chain pointing to the guilt of the accused.
a) Recovery and Identification of Weapon i. The iron rod (Ex.P1) used as the murder weapon was recovered from the spot and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. PW-1 Kaptan Singh handed over the iron rod to the police, which he had taken from the accused. The weapon was identified by multiple witnesses as the rod used in the assault.
ii. The defence contention that the weapon was "planted" by police because fingerprints were not extracted is wholly misconceived. The failure to extract fingerprints does not render the weapon inadmissible or create reasonable doubt. PW-10 HC Yatish Yadav and PW-12 Ct. Bhagwan Yadav, both fingerprint experts, inspected the spot and reported that no chance fingerprints were available for lifting due to the nature of the surface and construction material lying at the spot. This is a reasonable explanation and does not suggest any planted evidence.
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:32:43 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 74 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR iii. Moreover, the weapon was seized immediately from the spot in presence of witnesses. Its identification by multiple witnesses and medical opinion confirming that the injuries could be caused by such weapon or similar blunt object (Ex.PW16/B) establishes its authenticity.
b) Medical Opinion Corroborating Assault i. PW-16 Dr. Abhimanyu Khutell, proved the post-mortem report, as well as subsequent opinion on the weapon vide Ex.PW16/A and Ex.PW16/B, in which the autopsy surgeon had opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased could be caused by the iron rod Ex.P1 or similar blunt object. This medical opinion directly corroborates the eye-witness accounts that the accused assaulted the deceased with an iron rod.
ii. The nature of injuries-multiple contusions, lacerations, and internal organ damage-is consistent with repeated blunt force trauma from a heavy object like an iron rod, as described by the witnesses and seen in the sketch Ex. PW16/C. The sketch shows that it was a long iron rod (about 70 cm) with a solid wrench at the top and about 5 cm in breath. The weapon used was such that it could cause serious external and internal injuries.
c) FSL Report i. PW-20 Dr. Subhash Chandra, Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry), prepared FSL report Ex.PW20/A, confirming that the blood sample of the deceased contained 351.1 mg Ethyl Alcohol per 100 ml of blood. While the deceased had consumed alcohol, this does not SAURABH by SAURABH Digitally signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:32:51 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 75 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR absolve the accused or reduce the gravity of the offence. The defence suggestion that the deceased was "heavily drunk" and the incident was merely a "sudden fight" is belied by the evidence discussed below.
ii. Merely because the deceased was heavily drunk, it cannot be presumed that a sudden quarrel took place. iii. The accused while replying to questions put during statement u/s 313 CrPC had the opportunity to explain how the quarrel started or why was there a sudden quarrel between the two, however, in absence of any explanation in this regard, it cannot be presumed that due to sudden quarrel, the incident took place leading to death of deceased.
d) Statements Under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
i. The statements of key witnesses PW-1 Kaptan Singh, PW-2 Rajesh Kumar, and PW-3 Ashok Kumar were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 08.06.2021 before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate Vinod Kumar (PW-14). PW-14 testified that he recorded these statements after verifying their voluntariness and certified them as true accounts without alterations.
ii. The fact that the Section 164 statements are consistent with the witnesses' court depositions is significant. It demonstrates that the witnesses have been truthful and consistent from the very beginning, and there has been no subsequent tutoring or fabrication of evidence.
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:32:59 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 76 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR 10.7. Proof of Mens Rea: The crucial ingredient of Section 302 IPC is the proof of mens rea-that the accused had the intention to cause death or knowledge that his act was likely to cause death. 10.8. Threatening Words Establishing Intention
a) The most compelling evidence of intention comes from the threatening words uttered by the accused during the assault: "Tera roj roj ka jhagda hai, aaj tujhe khatam hi kar deta hoon" (Your daily quarrel, today I will finish you). These words were heard by both PW-1 Kaptan Singh and PW-2 Rajesh Kumar independently, and form part of their testimonies.
b) These words unequivocally demonstrate that the accused had formed a clear intention to "finish" (kill) the deceased. The use of the word "khatam kar deta hoon" (will finish you) in Hindi clearly connotes an intention to cause death. This is not the language of someone acting in a fit of sudden passion but of someone making a deliberate threat to end the victim's life.
10.9. Nature and Severity of Assault
a) The number, nature, and severity of injuries inflicted on the deceased further demonstrate the accused's intention. The deceased sustained:
i. Multiple contusions on head and face ii. Injuries to internal organs including spleen and kidney iii. Massive internal bleeding of approximately 2.0 liters iv. Injuries sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature
b) The fact that the accused repeatedly struck the deceased on vital parts of the body-head, chest, and abdomen-with a heavy iron rod demonstrates clear knowledge that such blows were likely to cause SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:33:06 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 77 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR death. The injuries to internal organs like spleen and kidney could only have been caused by forceful blows to the abdomen, indicating a deliberate and violent assault.
c) A person of ordinary prudence knows that repeatedly hitting another person on the head and abdomen with an iron rod is likely to cause death. The accused, being an adult of sound mind, must have had knowledge of the natural consequence of his actions. 10.10. Absence of Sudden Provocation
a) The defence has attempted to characterize the incident as a "sudden fight" arising from the deceased's refusal to cook fish and subsequent slap to the accused. However, this defence is not borne out by the evidence.
b) Firstly, even according to the accused's own version in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., there is no clear reason for the sudden quarrel. As per disclosure statement Ex. PW11/C, the dispute was over cooking of fish, however, such a trivial dispute cannot constitute grave and sudden provocation justifying a violent assault with a deadly weapon.
c) Secondly, the manner and severity of the assault belie any claim of sudden provocation. The accused did not merely push or strike the deceased once in the heat of the moment. He repeatedly assaulted him with an iron rod while uttering threats to kill, causing multiple grievous injuries. This demonstrates a deliberate and sustained attack, not a momentary loss of control.
Digitally signedSAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:33:13 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 78 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR
d) Thirdly, the threatening words "aaj tujhe khatam hi kar deta hoon"
suggest a clear intention rather than sudden provocation. The use of "aaj" (today) implies that the accused had been contemplating such action.
10.11. Addressing Defence Arguments: Having established the prosecution's case, it is necessary to address the specific arguments raised by the learned defence counsel systematically.
a) Credibility of PW-1 Kaptan Singh i. Defence Argument: PW-1's testimony is not credible because he came after Rajesh Kumar and could not have seen the assault; he falsely deposed about snatching the rod.
ii. Court's Findings: This argument is rejected for the following reasons:
Even if PW-1 arrived moments after PW-2, the assault was ongoing and he witnessed it. The incident was not instantaneous but continued over a period, allowing multiple witnesses to observe it at different stages.
Minor variations in the exact sequence of arrival do not affect the core testimony that PW-1 witnessed the accused assaulting the deceased with the iron rod.
The statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded on 08.06.2021, within two days of the incident, corroborates PW-1's court testimony.Digitally signed
SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:33:21 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 79 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR Whether PW-1 snatched the rod during the assault or after it is immaterial. What is material is that he witnessed the assault and produced the weapon to police.
PW-1 had no motive to falsely implicate the accused, as discussed at later stage in this judgment.
b) Planted Weapon Theory i. Defence Argument: The murder weapon was planted by police because the IO did not send it for fingerprint analysis.
ii. Court's Findings: This argument is wholly unmeritorious:
The fingerprint experts PW-10 inspected the spot and reported that no chance fingerprints could be lifted due to the nature of the surface and construction material. This is a reasonable and acceptable explanation.
The weapon was seized immediately from the spot in presence of witnesses vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. The weapon was identified by multiple independent witnesses as the iron rod used in the assault.
Medical opinion Ex.PW16/B confirms that the injuries could be caused by such weapon.
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the police planted the weapon. This is mere speculation by the defence.Digitally signed
SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:33:30 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 80 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR
c) Sudden Fight and Intoxication i. Defence Argument: This was a sudden fight, the deceased was heavily drunk, and the accused had no intention to commit murder.
ii. Court's Findings: This argument is rejected:
While the FSL report shows the deceased had consumed alcohol (351.1 mg per 100 ml blood), this does not justify or excuse the accused's actions.
The intoxication of the victim does not negate the intention of the accused. The accused's threatening words and repeated violent assault with an iron rod clearly demonstrate intention to kill. The manner of assault-repeated blows with an iron rod on vital parts-demonstrates deliberate violence, not a momentary altercation.
A sudden fight does not justify murder. Even if there was provocation, it was not grave and sudden enough to reduce the offence.
There is no explanation by accused as to how the fight/quarrel started and whether it was so grave and sudden, as may reduce the severity of the act committed.
d) Self-Inflicted Head Injury of Accused i. Defence Argument: The head injury of the accused was not self-
inflicted but was caused by the deceased. ii. Court's Findings:
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:33:39 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 81 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR PW-2 Rajesh Kumar testified that after assaulting the deceased, the accused struck his own head against the wall, sustaining an injury.
PW-3 Ashok Kumar witnessed the accused striking his head against the wall at the hospital emergency. The defence witness DW-1 Dr. Sukriti Rastogi stated that at the time of examination, she noted wound on the head of the accused.
The MLC of the accused shows head injury with alleged history of "self by banging on the wall under the influence of alcohol". Even if the deceased caused some injury to the accused during the altercation, it does not justify the accused's disproportionate response of repeatedly beating the deceased with an iron rod causing fatal injuries.
e) Alleged Contradictions and Improvements i. Defence Argument: There are contradictions and improvements in the depositions of witnesses; witnesses are planted and testified at police instance.
ii. Court's Findings:
Minor contradictions in testimony are natural and expected when witnesses depose about events that occurred years ago. Absolute consistency in every minute detail would, in fact, suggest tutoring and fabrication.
SAURABH Digitally
by SAURABH
signed
PARTAP PARTAP SINGH
LALER
SINGH Date: 2026.01.19
LALER 17:33:46 +0530
DLND010058722021 Page 82 of 88
SC 221/2021
STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR
FIR No. 128/2021
PS: SAROJINI NAGAR
The core testimony of all witnesses is consistent: the accused assaulted the deceased with an iron rod, uttered threatening words, and caused fatal injuries.
The statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded within two days of the incident corroborate the court depositions, showing consistency from the beginning.
There is no evidence of any enmity between the witnesses and the accused. All witnesses were co-workers at the construction site with no motive to falsely implicate the accused. The suggestion that police falsely implicated the accused is baseless. The IO PW-22 Inspector Devender Singh conducted a fair investigation, recorded statements, seized evidence, and filed chargesheet based on evidence.
f) CCTV Footage and Hospital Staff i. Defence Argument: The IO did not collect CCTV footage of the emergency ward or record statements of hospital staff regarding the accused's self-inflicted injury.
ii. Court's Findings:
The failure to collect CCTV footage does not create reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case. The primary evidence is the eye-witness accounts and medical evidence regarding the deceased's death, not the manner in which the accused injured himself.Digitally signed
SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:33:53 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 83 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR Whether the accused's head injury was self-inflicted or caused during the altercation is not material to the charge of murder. Even if the deceased caused some injury to the accused, it does not justify the fatal assault by the accused. The prosecution's case does not rest on proving that the accused self-inflicted his injury. It rests on proving that the accused murdered the deceased, which is established by eye-witness testimony and medical evidence.
g) Absence of Motive to Falsely Implicate i. An important consideration is that none of the prosecution witnesses had any motive to falsely implicate the accused. PW-1 Kaptan Singh, PW-2 Rajesh Kumar, PW-3 Ashok Kumar, and others were all co-
workers at the construction site. There is no evidence of any prior enmity, dispute, or ill-will between them and the accused. ii. The accused and deceased were real brothers, living and working together. The witnesses had no reason to falsely testify that one brother killed the other unless it actually happened. In fact, given that both were their co-workers, the witnesses would have had sympathy for both and no reason to falsely implicate anyone. iii. The defence has failed to suggest any credible motive for the witnesses to depose falsely. In the absence of any motive to falsely implicate, the testimony of independent witnesses must be accepted as truthful.
h) Private Defence - Not Established Even Prima Facie SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:34:02 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 84 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR i. The accused has attempted to set up a plea of private defence, claiming that the deceased tried to remove his urinary catheter and he pushed the deceased in self-defence, causing him to fall and sustain injuries.
ii. Requirements for Private Defence The plea of right of private defence is governed by Sections 96-106 of the Indian Penal Code. For the plea of private defence to succeed, the following requirements must be established:
There must be a reasonable apprehension of danger to life or of grievous hurt from the victim's actions The danger must be imminent and immediate There must be no safe mode of escape available The force used must be proportionate to the danger apprehended The right cannot be exercised in excess of what is necessary for defence The burden of establishing the plea of private defence is on the accused, though this burden can be discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of the plea based on material on record.
iii. Failure to Establish Private Defence in Present Case: In the present case, the accused has failed to establish even prima facie that he acted in private defence:
No Imminent Danger to Life: According to the accused's own version, the deceased allegedly tried to remove his urinary catheter. Even accepting this version, such an act does notDigitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:34:09 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 85 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR constitute an imminent threat to life justifying the use of deadly force. The defence witness DW-1 Dr. Sukriti Rastogi testified that if a urinary catheter is forcefully removed, the patient might experience blood in urine, pain, or urethral injury. These are not life-threatening consequences that would justify killing in self- defence.
Disproportionate Force: Even if the deceased attempted to remove the accused's catheter, the accused's response of repeatedly beating him with an iron rod causing fatal injuries was grossly disproportionate to any threat posed. Private defence does not extend to causing death except when there is reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt. Removal of a catheter, even if painful, does not constitute such a threat. Contradicted by Eye-Witness Testimony: The accused's version is contradicted by multiple eye-witnesses who saw him assaulting the deceased with an iron rod while uttering threats to kill. There is no evidence of the deceased attacking the accused first or attempting to remove his catheter. The eye-witnesses saw only the accused attacking the deceased. Nature and Number of Injuries: The deceased sustained multiple injuries all over his body, including fatal internal injuries to spleen and kidney. These injuries are consistent with a violent assault, not with someone falling after being pushed in self- defence. If the accused merely pushed the deceased who then fell, the pattern of injuries would be different-likely a single impact Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.19 17:34:16 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 86 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR injury from falling. The multiple contusions and internal organ damage indicate repeated forceful blows. Threatening Words Negate Self-Defence: The accused's words "aaj tujhe khatam hi kar deta hoon" (today I will finish you) demonstrate an aggressive intention to kill, not a defensive action to protect himself. A person acting in self-defence does not utter threats to kill.
No Injuries on Accused Consistent with Defence Theory: The defence witness DW-1 Dr. Sukriti Rastogi stated that at the time of examination, she noted wound on head, but no damage to the catheter is reported in the MLC. If the deceased had attacked the accused first, one would expect to find defensive injuries or injuries consistent with being attacked. The absence of such injuries undermines the private defence plea. Moreover, while on the one hand the accused stated that the deceased tried to pull his urine pipe/catheter, on the other hand, he stated that deceased caused him head injury, without even disclosing as to what weapon was used by the deceased to cause the injury.
i) For all these reasons, the plea of private defence is rejected. The accused has failed to establish even a prima facie case that he acted in self-
defence. On the contrary, all evidence points to a deliberate and unprovoked assault by the accused on the deceased.
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:34:24 +0530 DLND010058722021 Page 87 of 88 SC 221/2021 STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR FIR No. 128/2021 PS: SAROJINI NAGAR
11. CONCLUSION 11.1.Having carefully considered all the evidence on record and the arguments of both sides, this Court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offence under Section 302 IPC:
a) Death: The death of Praveen Kumar is proved by post-mortem report
b) Causation: The death was caused by the accused's actions of repeatedly assaulting the deceased with an iron rod, as proved by eye-witness testimony and medical evidence
c) Mens Rea: The accused had clear intention to cause death, as evidenced by:
i. Threatening words "aaj tujhe khatam hi kar deta hoon" showing intention to kill ii. Nature and severity of assault with iron rod on vital parts of body iii. Multiple fatal injuries causing massive internal bleeding.
d) The eye-witness accounts of PW-1 Kaptan Singh and PW-2 Rajesh Kumar are credible, consistent, and corroborated by their Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements and other evidence. The circumstantial evidence including recovery of weapon, medical evidence, and FSL report all support the prosecution case and form an unbroken chain pointing to the guilt of the accused.
e) The evidence of witnesses regarding events immediately after the offence is relevant under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act as part of res gestae. The contradictions and improvements, if any, in the depositions are minor and natural, not affecting the core testimony.
SAURABH Digitally signed by
SAURABH
PARTAP PARTAP SINGH
LALER
SINGH Date: 2026.01.19
LALER 17:34:32 +0530
DLND010058722021 Page 88 of 88
SC 221/2021
STATE Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR
FIR No. 128/2021
PS: SAROJINI NAGAR
There is no reason why the witnesses would depose against the accused in the absence of any enmity, and no reason for the police to falsely implicate the accused.
f)The plea of private defence has not been established even prima facie and is rejected.
11.2.Accordingly, the accused Naveen Kumar is found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and is convicted for the same. 11.3. Be listed for submissions on sentence on 28.01.2026 at 02:00 PM. Announced in the open Court on 19th of January 2026 (Saurabh Partap Singh Laler) ASJ-05, New Delhi District Patiala House Courts, New Delhi 19.01.2026 SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.19 LALER 17:34:41 +0530