Delhi District Court
Ram Khiladi vs State on 22 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHISHEK GOYAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.: DLCT01-017187-2018
CRIMINAL REVISION No.: 903/2018
SHRI. RAM KHILADI,
S/o. Shri. Ganga Ram,
R/o. H. No. 40, Gali No. 3,
Lakhpat Colony, Part-II,
Meethapur, New Delhi-110044. ... REVISIONIST/
PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. STATE (NCT OF DELHI).
2. DEEPAK @ GUDDAN,
S/o. Shri. Roop Singh,
R/o. H. No. 44, Gali No. 2,
Lakhpat Colony, Part-II,
Meethapur, Delhi.
3. AMAN @ CHANDERPAL,
S/o. Shri. Rampal,
R/o. H. No. 363, Gali No. 3,
Lakhpat Colony, Part-II,
Meethapur, Delhi.
4. LAXMAN @ LACHU,
S/o. Shri. Lala Ram,
R/o. H. No. 390, Gali No. 3,
Lakhpat Colony, Part-II,
Meethapur, Delhi.
5. RAHUL,
S/o. Shri. Roop Lal,
R/o. H. No. 363/13, Gali No. 3,
Lakhpat Colony, Part-II,
Meethapur, Delhi.
6. SUMIT @ BABLOO,
S/o. Shri. Madan Chaudhary,
R/o. H. No. 158/7, Lakhpat Colony,
Meethapur Extn., Badarpur,
Delhi.
CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 1 of 37
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.22
15:50:38
+0530
7. AJAY,
S/o. Late Shri. Mard Muttu,
R/o. H. No. C-7, Tower-I,
New Moti Bagh, Delhi.
8. SUJEET,
S/o. Shri. Madan Chaudhary,
R/o. H. No. 158/7, Lakhpat Colony,
Meethapur Extn., Badarpur,
Delhi.
9. SONIA,
W/o. Shri. Aman @ Chanderpal,
R/o. H. No. 363, Gali No. 3,
Lakhpat Colony, Part-II,
Meethapur, Delhi. ... RESPONDENTS
Date of filing : 18.12.2018
Date of institution : 19.12.2018
Date when judgment was reserved : 20.05.2025
Date when judgment is pronounced : 22.05.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), seeking ascertainment of the correctness, legality and propriety as well as to consequently set aside/modify the order dated 25.09.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned order'), passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate-04/Ld. MM-04, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ld. MM/Ld. Trial Court'), in case bearing, 'State v. Deepak @ Guddan, Case No. 2255/2017' , arising out of FIR bearing No. 467/2015, PS. Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). Pertinently, by virtue of the impugned order the Ld. Trial Court accepted the closure report filed by the concerned IO, while dismissing the protest petition CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 2 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.22 15:50:42 +0530 filed by/on behalf of the revisionist/petitioner before the Ld. Trial Court.
2. Succinctly, the facts leading to the initiation of the present proceeding are that on 19.12.2015, on receipt of PCR Call vide DD No. 8A, the concerned police official(s)/SI Kushal Pal reached at the spot, i.e., KM pole nos. 1518/23 and 1528/24, near Tuglakabad Railway station/TKD Railway station and Sunday market Railway line, where one person was found dead between Railway lines. Markedly, the identity of the deceased was ascertained as; Bhupender, S/o. Ram Khiladi, R/o. H. No. 40, Gali No. 3, Lakhpat Colony Part-II, Meethapur New Delhi. Consequently, the photographs of the deceased/dead body are asserted to have been taken and the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C., ensued. Correspondingly, the concerned police officials got the postmortem of the deceased conducted and under the postmortem report (PM Report) no. 2211/15, the cause of deceased's demise was opined as; "...cranio-cerebral damage consequent upon the head which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The manner of death is subject matter of detailed & thorough investigation. Possibilities of homicide cannot be ruled out. All injuries are antemortem & fresh in duration..." Subsequently, on 31.12.2015, the instant case was got registered on the statement of Sh. Ram Khiladi, S/o. Shri Ganga Ram, R/o. H. No. 40 Gali No. 3, Lakhpat Colony Part-2, Meethapur Ext., Badarpur, New Delhi-44 (the 'revisionist/petitioner' herein). Markedly, in his statement, the revisionist inter alia proclaimed that he worked at Pusa Agricultral Department at relevant point in time and that on 18.12.2015, as per his routine, he/revisionist had gone to his work/duty at around CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 3 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.22 15:50:46 +0530 07:30 a.m. and returned at around 07:30 p.m., at his home. Upon reaching at his home, as per the revisionist, he was informed by his wife, Smt. Rajni that on the said day, their son, Bhupender (deceased) and Guddan/respondent no. 2, who resides at Lakhpat Colony, Gali No. 2, had entered into a scuffle (शाम को जब बाद Duty 7:30PM पर घर वापिस आया तो घरवाली मेरी रजनी ने मुझे बताया कि आज दिन में भुपेन्द्र (मेरा पुत्र) व गुड्डन जो लखपत कालोनी गली न० 2 में रहता है के साथ झगडा हु आ था). Correspondingly, as per the revisionist, he was informed by Smt. Rajni that Guddan's sister-in-law (Sonia/respondent no. 9), who used to reside in a rented accommodation near their home along with her husband and brother-in-law, Rahul (respondent no. 5), had taken Bhupender along with her/Sonia for some work (गुड्डन की भाभी (सोनिया) जो हमारे पड़ोस में किराये के मकान में अपने पति व देवर राहु ल के साथ रहती है जो सोनिया ने मेरे पुत्र भूपेन्द्र को किसी काम से बुलाया था अपने घर पर). Subsequently, when Smt. Rajni went to Sonia's house to call Bhupender, Sonia/respondent no. 9 is asserted to have denied presence or visit of Bhupender at her house (कु छ समय बाद भूपेन्द्र को देखने के लिये सोनिया के घर गयी तो सोनिया ने मना कर दिया कि आपका लडका यहा नहीं आया). After some time, when Smt. Rajni is avowed to have again visited Sonia's/respondent no. 9's house to find out the whereabouts of Bhupender, though, she did not find Bhupender there, however, the kitchen was found locked and thereafter, Smt. Rajni is proclaimed to have heard noise from the gali that Bhupender (deceased) and Guddan (respondent no. 2) were fighting with each other (इसके बाद कु छ देर बाद मेरी पत्नी दोबारा सोनिया के घर भूपेन्द्र को देखने गयी तो भूपेन्द्र नहीं मिला व रसोई मे ताला लगा था कु छ देर बाद जब गली में शोर मचा कि गुड्डन व भूपेन्द्र की लडाई हो रही है ). Upon this, Smt. Rajni is further asserted to have emerged out from her home and observed that Guddan/respondent no. 2 had grabbed hold of deceased's neck CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 4 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2025.05.22 15:50:50 +0530 and was shoving him towards septic/toilet tank ( तो मेरी पत्नी घर से बाहर निकली तो देखा कि गुड्डन भूपेन्द्र की गर्दन पकड कर लेट्रिंग के टैं क की तरफ ले जा रहा था). It is further asserted that at that point in time, respondent no. 2 was declaring that he would kill Bhupender by disposing him off in the said septic tank (बोल रहा था कि इसी टैं क में डालकर तुझे जान से मार दूंगा). Concomitantly, as per the revisionist, his family members were able to free Bhupender from Guddan's clutches, whereupon, Bhupender returned to his home and slept. 2.1. It was further asserted by the revisionist under his complaint/statement that around 04:00 p.m., Laxman @ Lachu/respondent no. 4 reached at their home and informed Bhupender that Sonia/respondent no. 9 and Guddan/respondent no. 2 had complaint against him and Lachu/respondent no. 4, instigated the deceased to, consequently, flee from his home (समय करीब 4.00 बजे दिन हमारे घर लक्षमण@ लच्छु आया व भूपेन्द्र से बोला कि तेरी गुड्डन व सोनिया ने Police Complaint कर दी है तु घर से भाग जा).
Consequently, Bhupender is avowed to have left his home along with Laxman @ Lachu/respondent no. 4, at which point in time, Babloo/respondent no. 6 is asserted to be waiting outside in the gali and thereafter, all three of them are proclaimed to have left from the spot (इतना सुनकर भूपेन्द्र लच्छु के साथ चला गया व बबलु बाहर गली में खड़ा था ये तीनों एक साथ घर से चले गये।). Afterwards, at around 07:30- 08:00 p.m., revisionist's brother, Manoj is asserted to have reached at his/revisionist's home, where Guddan and his family members were present (इसके बाद मेरा छोटा भाई मनोज समय करीब 7:30 व 8:00PM पर रात को मेरे घर आया जहा गली में गुड्डन व उसका पूरा परिवार मौजूद था). It is further the revisionist's assertion that when Manoj is asserted to have asked Guddan of what had transpired, upon which, Guddan responded that they would file a police complaint against CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 5 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.05.22 15:50:54 +0530 Bhupender, after getting Sonia/respondent no. 9, medically examined (मनोज ने गुड्डन से पुछा कि भाई क्या बात हो गयी थी तो गुड्डन ने मनोज से कहा कि हम सोनिया का मेडिकल कराकर भूपेन्द्र के खिलाफ Police report करें गे ). The revisionist further avowed that at around 09:30 p.m., a compromise was entered between their as well as Guddan's family. Correspondingly, as per the revisionist, at around 07:45 p.m., Lachu/respondent no. 4 made a call from his mobile phone to Bhupender's mobile phone, whereupon Manoj conversed with Bhupender (समय करीब 9.30 PM बजे रात हमारा व गुड्डन के परिवार का समझोता हो गया था व लच्छु ने अपने Phone से भूपेन्द्र के फोन पर समय करीब 7.45 बजे रात मेरे भाई मनोज की बात करायी थी). At that point in time, as per the revisionist, Bhupender is proclaimed to have informed Manoj that he was leaving whereupon, Lachu made Manoj talk to Bhupender, who/deceased informed Manoj that he was leaving from there (कु छ देर बात होने के बाद उस वक्त वह बोल रहा था कि चाचा में जा रहा हूं ). Concomitantly, as per the revisionist, the deceased's mobile phone was subsequently determined to be switched off and thereafter on 19.12.2015 at around 09:00/10:00 a.m., dead body of Bhupender was found at Parhladpur, near Railway Line. Significantly, under his complaint, the revisionist explicitly expressed his apprehension that Lachu/respondent no. 4 and Babloo/respondent no. 6, while acting in criminal conspiracy with other accused persons, namely, Guddan/respondent no. 2, Rahul/respondent no. 5, Aman/respondent no. 3, Sujeet/respondent no. 8 and Sonia's brothers, took the deceased from his home, subsequently, killed him and disposed of his body at railway tracks. 2.2. Relevantly, upon the registration of FIR in the instant case, same was marked to Insp. Pradeep Kumar, who inter alia prepared site plan of the alleged placed of incident as well as CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 6 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.22 15:50:58 +0530 recorded the statements of various witnesses. Correspondingly, mobile details of the deceased as well as of the accused persons is asserted to have been examined and the viscera of the deceased and exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini for examination. Simultaneously, the concerned IO is avowed to have collected the particulars of trains/goods trains that passed through pole KM no. 1518/23 & 24, w.e.f, 18.12.2015 (20:00 hrs.) to 19.12.2015 (09:45 a.m.), besides the coordinates/presence of accused persons, namely, Sumit, Sujeet, Ajay, Deepak Kumar @ Guddan for 18.12.2015 were collected. Concomitantly, the concerned police official(s) is/are asserted to have collected the CDRs/Call Detail Records of the accused persons, whereupon it is asserted that the location of the deceased and accused persons/suspects/respondent nos. 2-9 were determined to be quite different and the accused persons/suspects/respondent nos. 2-9 were further proclaimed to have never been found together as per the analysis of CDR.
Consequently, the concerned IO filed a closure report before the Ld. MM/Ld. Trial Court inter alia noting that from the investigation conducted, no evidence was found against the suspected persons/accused persons/respondent nos. 2-9. Apposite at this stage, to reproduce the relevant extracts from the closure report, as under;
"...On investigation, the following points are emerged;
1. On 18/12/15, there was some quarrel and heated arguments between deceased Bhupender and Guddan but the matter was amicably settled between both and their families.
2. On 18/12/15, the deceased Bhupender escaped from his house in the apprehension that the matter was reported to the Police. One Manoj (uncle of deceased) stated that he talked with Bhupender on 18/12/15 at 8 PM, Bhupinder told him that he was going from CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 7 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.05.22 15:51:02 +0530 home. Thereafter, the mobile of deceased was found switch off.
3. According to the call details of deceased Bhupender, Ms. Kiran is the last caller who was having communication with Bhupender. Ms. Kiran has been interrogated in this regard. She told that she is studying in 12th class. Bhupender was in her family relation and was nice friend of her. On dated 18.12.15 at about 8.30 PM. Bhupender called on her telephone No. 7503701726. He asked about her health and when she asked about him, then Bhupender told that he is going to Punjab for the sake of respect of his parents. She could not understand what he was saying. Thereafter, phone was disconnected and was found switch off.
4. The interrogation has been conducted with one Vicky @ Vikas s/o Sh. Jayvardhan R/o. H. No. 124, Gali No. 4, Harijan Basti, Meetha Pur Extension, Delhi. Vicky told that he is studying in class 11th and was friend of deceased Bhupender. On dated 18.12.15, he was present in his tuition classes from 5.30 PM to 8.00 PM. He received a call from Bhupender's Phone at about 7.15 PM. He told Bhupender that he is in tution classes and will talk later. At about 8 PM, he again received call from Bhupender. Bhupender asked him to come. He asked where he is. Bhupender told that he is at Nizamuddin. Then he denied to come. There was heavy traffic type voice coming from phone of Bhupender.
5. Mrs. Satyawati (Land lady of alleged Guddan @ Deepak) was examined and she stated that Guddan came back to home at 9 PM on 18.12.15 and told that there was some quarrel and now compromised. Guddan had slept in his room and did not leave the house in the night. On next day i.e on 19.12.15, she woke up Guddan.
6. Sumit @ Babloo s/o Madan Chaudhary (suspect) has been interrogated who stated that he is studying in 12th class in Govt. Sr. Sec. School No. 1, Molar Band, Meetha Pur. On dated 18.12.15 he was present in his School for his Geography examination from 2.30 PM to 5.30 PM. He was unaware about the day time quarrel between Bhupender and Guddan @ Deepak. The fact has been verified from Govt. Sr. Sec. School No. 1, Molar Band, Meetha Pur and as per the Principal of the School, Sumit came to write his Mock-Test on 18.12.15 between 2 to 5 PM.
7. Interrogation has been conducted with one Shri Subhash Chand s/o Shri Anokhe Lal R/O 9A/79 Pul CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 8 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2025.05.22 15:51:06 +0530 Prahladpur, New Delhi, who is having a tea shop near Railway line Pul Prahladpur. His shop is near to the place where dead body of Bhupender was found. He stated that he had closed his shop at 10 AM on 18/12/15. He did not find any noise and quarrel till he closed his shop.
8. Sujeet s/o Shri Madan Choudhary (suspect) has been interrogated who stated that he is graduate and doing his MCA. Earlier he was doing job as Data Entry operator in Unify Business Solution. C-88, Part- II, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi. On 18.12.15, he was present at his duty from 9.30 AM to 5.30 PM and reached home at 6.30 PM. He was unaware about the day time quarrel between Bhupender and Deepak @ Guddan. The fact has been verified from Unity Business Solution Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and as per attendance record, Sujeet was present in this office on dated 18.12.15 from 9.30 AM to 5.30 PM.
9. Laxman @ Lachu (suspect) has been interrogated who stated that on dated 18.12.15, he was at his home and heard some noise outside in the street. He saw that Deepak @ Guddan and Bhupender were scuffling with each other. He reached there and tried to separate them. After some time the matter was settled in compromise amicably. At about 8 PM he contacted with Bhupender on his mobile. Manoj (uncle of Bhupender) talked with Bhupender and Bhupender told that "Chacha Main Bahut dur Ja Chuka Hun ab wapis nahin aaunga".
10. Ajay s/o Late Mard Muttu R/o C-7, Tower 1, New Moti Bagh Delhi (suspect) has been interrogated. He told that he is working as security guard in Shanti Niketan and his wife Gudia is domestic servant of Sh. T. Murti in the above address. He is only one son of his parent and Sonia is his younger sister. On 18.12.15, he alongwith his wife, mother and child went to Lakhpat Colony, Meethapur to meet his sister Sonia. When he reached there, he saw Aman and some people gathered outside the house. Later, he came to know the whole incident. The matter ended with compromise. After taking meal, they proceeded to their house at about 12 night. They hired a cab which dropped them at Defence Colony. Thereafter, they hired an auto and reached at Moti Bagh and about 1.20 AM. The security guard there made an entry in the register in name of his wife Gudia along with Auto Number. In the course of interrogation security guard Vishal Vishkarma has been examined. The visitor's entry register has been checked. In the register, an CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 9 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date:
GOYAL 2025.05.22
15:51:10
+0530
entry was made in the name of Gudia at 1.20 night. CCTV footage has also been checked. In the footage, one male, two female and on child were seen coming out from the exit gate of Tower I, Moti Bagh at 4.30 PM. In the other CCTV footage, at 1.20 AM on 19.12.15, it was very clearly seen that an auto bearing No. DL1R Q2595 entered inside the gate and security guard had made entry in the register.
During the course of investigation, locations of towers of call details of deceased Bhupender and suspects have been taken and analysed.
As per CDR (Mobile No. 7210819240) of deceased Bhupender, his location on 18.12.15 from 10.55 hrs. to 19.14 hrs has been located in Meethapur, at 19.58 hrs. location found at Pul Prahladpur and his last location from 20.00 hrs. to 20.24 hrs. has been found at Badarpur Metro station Tower.
As per CDR (Mobile No. 9910686198) of suspect Aman, his location on 18.12.15 from 16.02hrs. to 17.56 hrs. has been found at Gandhi Nagar, Shakar pur, pandav Nagar Ext. and last location was at Meethapur. On 19.12.15 from 8.25 hrs. to 10.26 hrs. has also been found at Meethapur.
As per CDR (Mobile No. 9999777242) of suspect Deepak Guddan, his location on 18.12.15 from 17.38 hrs. to 20.47 hrs. was found at Gurgaon, Faridabad, South Ext. Andheria Moar, lado Sarai and Pul Prahlad pur and from 20.58 hrs. to 23.56 hrs. has also been found at Meethapur.
As per CDR (Mobile No. 7532966096) of Sumit @ Babloo, his location on 18.12.15 from 01.40 hrs. to 20.50 hrs. has been found at Meethapur. On 19.12.15 from 08.01 hrs. to 10.33 hrs. the same has also been found at Meethapur.
As pe CDR (Mobile No. 8826654659) of suspect Ajay, his location on 18.12.15 from 16.38 hrs. to 20.21 hrs. has been found at Moti Bagh, Satya Niketan, MBTS Rose Garden, Panch Sheel park, paras Cinema, Okhla Metro Station, Jasola, Mohan Co-operative Industrial area, Om Nagar Badarpur and Meethapur. On 19.12.15 from 08.29 hrs. to 09.34 hrs. has been found at Shanti Niketan, Delhi As per CDR (Mobile No. 8802472563) of suspect Laxman Lachu, his location dated 18.12.15 from 15.34 hrs. to 22.50 hrs. has been found at Meethapur. On dated 19.12.15 from 07.37 hrs. to 10.41 hrs. has also been found at Meethapur.
CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 10 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2025.05.22 15:51:14 +0530
As per the above analysis, the locations of deceased and suspect were quite different. All suspected persons have never been found together as per the analysis of CDR and also not with the deceased.
12. During the course of investigation, the viscera of the deceased was sent to FSL Rohini and result has been received. According to report (1) Exhibits 1A, 1B & 2 were found to contain Ethyl Alcohol.
(ii) Exhibit 2 was found to contain Ethyl Alcohol 27.5 mg/100 ml of blood.
13. During the course of investigation, the exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini and result has been received. According to report;
1. Blood was detected on exhibit '1', '3', '4a', '4b', '4c' & '4e'.
2. Blood could not be detected on exhibits '2' & '4d'.
3. Report of serological analysis in original is attached herewith..."
(Emphasis supplied) 2.3. Germanely, as aforenoted, the revisionist preferred a protest petition against the closure report filed by the concerned IO inter alia asserting that the investigation in the instant case was not fairly and properly conducted by the IO, besides there was deliberate delay on the part of the IO in conclusion and filing of his report before the Ld. Trial Court. The said protest petition was duly replied by/on behalf of the IO on 06.07.2017. Subsequently, on the Ld. Trial Court's hearing arguments on the said protest petition, as well as upon appreciation of material brought forth, vide its order dated 25.09.2018/impugned order, while accepting the closure report, dismissed the revisionist's protest petition inter alia under the following observations;
"...I have counsel for the complainant, perused the record and also gone through the reply filed by the IO to the protest petition.
CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 11 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date:
GOYAL 2025.05.22
15:51:18
+0530
Although, it has come in investigation that on 18.12.2015, there was some quarrel and arguments between Bhupender and Guddan but as per the IO the same was amicably settled between both the families. Further, IO has also obtained the call details of Bhupender and one Kiran who was the last caller. She was also interrogated. As per her statement, on 18.12.2015 at 08:30 pm, Bhupender called her and told her that he was going to Punjab for the sake of respect of his parents. Similarly, one Vicky was also interrogated to whom Bhupender told that he had gone to Nizamuddin. Further as per the CDRs of the suspects, their location were quite different and all the suspects have not been found together. Finally, as per the viscera report alcohol was found in the body of deceased. This court is of the opinion that nothing on record has come in the investigation to connect the suspects with the crime. Further, counsel for the complainant has failed to point out as to on what point the investigation was lacking. To conclude there is nothing on record to compel this court either to order further investigation or not to agree with the conclusion of the IO.
Accordingly, the present final report is accepted and protest petition stands dismissed..."
(Emphasis supplied)
3. Learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court on mere conjunctures, surmises and in contravention of the settled cannons of law, deserving the same to be set aside at the outset, as suffering with gross illegality. In this regard, Ld. Counsel further submitted that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court on mere assumptions and no sound and/or cogent reasons have been portrayed under the said order. Ld. Counsel further submitted that while passing the impugned order, the Ld. Trial Court further failed to appreciate the complete and correct facts of the case, rather, passed the impugned order, whimsically and imaginatively, ignoring the material facts. Correspondingly, as per the Ld. Counsel, the Ld. Trial Court grossly erred in not appreciating that CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 12 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2025.05.22 15:51:22 +0530 the IO did not conduct the investigation in a fair, right and properly manner. In this regard, Ld. Counsel averred that not only do the records of the police officials demonstrate that the investigation was conducted by the concerned IO under the presumption of same being a train accident, in contrast to the same being a murder, as otherwise notable from the postmortem report of the deceased. Correspondingly, as per the Ld. Counsel, it is quite explicit from the record that the IO made no endeavor to carry out any investigation in the instant case, subsequent to 31.12.2015 by recording statement of any of the witnesses or by collection of any evidence/documents. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, the MLC as well as the postmortem report of the deceased would demonstrate that the deceased was subjected to merciless beating prior to his demise, besides, there was admittedly no signs of any dragging or blood trail near the deceased's body, belying the cause of deceased's death as train accident. Correspondingly, as per the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, despite specific assertion of the deceased's mother that the deceased had left his home along with Lachu and Babloo, no inquiry/investigation was made by the IO from the said persons/accused persons regarding their presence at the deceased's home at around 06:00 p.m. Ld. Counsel further argued that the Ld. Trial Court ignored that fact that IO made no investigation from Lachhu and Babloo that where they had taken the deceased with them from his house.
3.1. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate that though Lachu made a call to the deceased from his mobile phone, however, he/Lachu was not interrogated as to where they had taken the deceased from his home, the deceased being last seen with Lachu and Babloo by CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 13 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2025.05.22 15:51:27 +0530 his/deceased's mother. Correspondingly, it was argued that the IO made no investigation regarding the contradictions/variance in the statements of various accused persons/respondent nos. 2-9 in respect of material aspects of the present case. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the IO grossly erred in not recording the statement of the person, who saw the deceased's body, incipiently, at/between the Railway Track as well as of the person who is proclaimed to have given the said information to the police. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the IO of the case, made no investigation from Aman/respondent no. 3 or Sonia/respondent no. 9 for the reason of calling Aman's brother-in-law's family to his home on 18.12.2015 in such a haste, besides, as per the Ld. Counsel, even the whereabouts of respondent no. 3 or that of respondent no. 9 from 09:00 p.m. till morning of 19.12.2015 were not determined/ascertained. Correspondingly, as per the Ld. Counsel neither any inquiry/investigation was conducted from the other respondents or their statements were recorded or placed on record by the IO, demonstrating the utter lackadaisical manner in which the IO had conducted the investigation in the instant case. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that the IO had made no investigation from auto driver of vehicle no. DL-1RQ-2595 and from the guard, who is proclaimed to have entered the entry of said auto. Correspondingly, it was argued that the said guard was also not inquired/investigated as to the identities of the said male, two females and one child, asserted to be seen coming out from the exit gate of Tower-I, Moti Bagh at 04:30 p.m. Even otherwise, no CCTV footage was ever placed on record by the concerned IO along with his closure report. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, not only did the IO fail to file any document CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 14 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2025.05.22 15:51:30 +0530 other than the FSL report before the Ld. Trial Court, rather, under the closure report, the IO did not even record whether the cause of death of the deceased was murder or accident, clearly, indicating the utter casual manner in which the investigation of the present case was conducted by the IO. In fact, as per the Ld. Counsel, under such circumstances where weak investigation or no investigation was conducted by the IO, Ld. Trial Court erred in approving the closure report filed by the IO. In fact, as per the Ld. Counsel, the Ld. Trial Court did not even appreciate/consider the daily diary report/case diary of the present case before passing the impugned order, to the prejudice of the revisionist and deceased's other family members. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, through the IO, recorded the statements of the revisionist, his wife and other family members of the deceased, which were sufficient to book the accused persons/respondent nos. 2-9 for the offences alleged against them, however, the IO, while acting in connivance/collusion with the accused persons, investigated the case in a wrong, unfair and biased manner, solely to favour the accused persons/respondent nos. 2-9.
3.2. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court further erred in not appreciating the fact that the revisionist and his wife specifically asserted in their respective statements that there was a quarrel between Bhupender/deceased and Guddan/respondent no. 2 in the afternoon because of Sonia/respondent no. 2 and due to this, Guddan/respondent no. 2, Sonia/respondent no. 9, Rahul/respondent no. 5, Aman/respondent no. 3, and Sonia's/respondent no. 9's two brothers had motive and intention to kill the deceased and that they consequently murdered him, while acting in connivance and under conspiracy with CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 15 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.22 15:51:34 +0530 Lachu/respondent no. 4 and Babloo/respondent no. 6, who helped them by calling the deceased/Bhupender from his home and taking him to the place where the accused persons could easily eliminate him. Subsequently, the said accused persons, while acting in furtherance of their conspiracy, also threw the dead body of the deceased between the railway lines to dislodge the police investigation. However, as per the Ld. Counsel, despite such apparent facts, no steps were taken by the IO to properly investigate the case or collect all the material on record, rather, the closure report was filed before the Ld. Trial Court, bereft of proper investigation. It was further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court erred in not appreciating the fact that the CDRs collected by the IO were false and concocted, besides the same do not demonstrate the proper location of the accused persons. Ld. Counsel further submitted in this regard that the IO did not collect the location/CDRs of the accused persons from the respectively Telecom companies, rather, the IO himself mentioned the places/locations, as per his whims and desire, solely to favour the accused persons/respondent nos. 2-9. Even otherwise, as per the Ld. Counsel, the CDRs could not have formed the basis to purge the accused persons as the deceased's body was found in the vicinity, covered within 800 (eight hundred) mts.-1,200 (one thousand two hundred) mts., geographically and by route of road/way 2-3 km. Correspondingly, the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Evidence Act') was not collected from the respective Telecom company(ies) and filed along with the closure report. Ld. Counsel further submitted that there are also material contradictions in the letter dated 29.12.2015, collected from the CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 16 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2025.05.22 15:51:38 +0530 company of accused Deepak @ Guddan/respondent no. 2 as well as his/respondent no. 2's statement before the concerned IO, which were not considered by the Ld. Trial Court, while passing the impugned order. Further, as per Ld. Counsel, Ld. Trial Court ought to have appreciated the it is a settled procedure/principle of law that firstly, FIR has to be registered and thereafter, investigation is to be conducted by the concerned police official(s) in a fair and unbiased manner. Correspondingly, as per the Ld. Counsel, Ld. Trial Court erred in not appreciating that it was not bound to accept the closure/final report filed by the IO as the police had not investigated the instant case in fair, right and proper manner. On the contrary, as per the Ld. Counsel, Ld. MM ought to have passed direction for re-investigation/further investigation of the facts brought forth from Crime Branch, as the local police had taken the instant case in a casual manner. It was further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the revisionist had taken various grounds/arguments/points on which further investigation/re- investigation was necessitated in the instant case, despite which, it was asserted that the Ld. Trial Court erroneously reached a conclusion that no grounds/reasons for investigation were brought forth by the revisionist before the Ld. Trial Court. Accordingly, Ld. Counsel vehemently iterated that in the instant case, sufficient grounds for re-investigation/further investigation are made out and further prayed that this Court, while setting aside the impugned order, direct further/proper investigation in the instant case.
4. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent no. 1 submitted that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court after due appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the present case and, as such, deserves no interference by this Court. It CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 17 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.05.22 15:51:43 +0530 was further submitted that no irregularity, impropriety, or incorrectness can be attributed to the impugned order, which was passed by the Ld. Trial Court, cognizant of the principles of law, as well as wary of the facts and circumstances brought forth. 4.1. Ld. Counsel for respondent nos. 2-9, while supplementing the arguments of Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent no. 1, submitted that the order/impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court, wary of the facts of the present case as well as in consonance with the settled judicial precedents. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, proper, thorough and detailed investigation has been conducted by the police officials, wherein no evidence was found against the suspected persons/respondent nos. 2-9. Even otherwise, Ld. Counsel submitted that the said respondents had thoroughly cooperated in the investigation as well as duly joined the investigation, as and when summoned, besides the witnesses also cooperated in the gathering of material/evidence by the IO in the instant case. Ergo, it was submitted that the report filed by the IO is correct and justified and that no case is made out against the accused persons/respondent nos. 2-9. On the contrary, as per the Ld. Counsel, the accused persons/respondent no2. 2-9 have been wrongly dragged into litigation with a sole endeavor to harass them and to preserve to face the rigors of litigation. Accordingly, while submitting that no illegality/impropriety is attributed to the impugned order, entreated that the present revision may be dismissed outrightly as gross abuse of the process of law.
5. The arguments of Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent no. 1 and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons/respondent nos. 2-9, heard as well as the records, CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 18 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.22 15:51:48 +0530 including the Ld. Trial Court records as well as the case laws/written submissions/written notes, placed on record have been thoroughly perused.
6. Before proceeding with the determination of the merits of the present case, this Court deems it apposite to outrightly make a reference to the relevant provisions under law, in particular that under Section 397 Cr.P.C.1, as under;
"397. Calling for records to exercise of powers of revision - (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record Explanation - All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of Section 398.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-
section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding..."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. Pertinently, from a perusal of the aforesaid, it is quite evident that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court can be agitated 1 Pari materia to Section 438 BNSS, which provides; "438. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision- (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling, for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement that he be released on his own bond or bail bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation--All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of Section 439.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding...."
CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 19 of 37
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.22
15:51:52
+0530
either suo motu or an application of parties, that too in a case(s) where there is a palpable error, non-compliance of the provision of law, decision of Trial Court being completely erroneous or where the judicial decision is exercised arbitrarily. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kumar v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 , wherein the Hon'ble Court while explicating the various contours of the provision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. observed as under:
"12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits..."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. Correspondingly, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in V.K. Verma v. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1192 , in a similar context noted as under;
"67. The revisional jurisdiction is not meant to test the waters of what might happen in the trial. The Revisional Court has to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of the court below. While doing so, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case, rather it considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 20 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.22 15:51:57 +0530 sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence. In the instant case, the Petitioner has failed to make out a case for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction since there is no patent error in the impugned order on the face of record."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. Quite evidently, it may be noted from above that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is quite limited and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. In fact, as aforenoted, the revisional Court can interfere only in the instances where an order of trial court was passed, unjustly and unfairly. Further, it is a settled law2 that trite law that in a case where the order of subordinate Court does not suffer from any illegality, "merely because of equitable considerations, the revisional Court has no jurisdiction to re-consider the matter and pass a different order in a routine manner." Reference in this regard is made to the decision in Taron Mohan v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 312, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi expounded as under;
"9. The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 CrPC gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. Notably in the context of the foregoing, it is further 2 Juned v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine MP 4458; and Dilip Damor v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 958.
CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 21 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2025.05.22 15:52:01 +0530
apposite to observe that it is settled law that once the police report concludes that no offence appears to have been committed, the Magistrate has three options3, "(i) he may accept the report and drop the proceedings; or (ii) he may disagree with the report and taking the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further, take cognizance of the offence and issue process; or (iii) he may direct further investigation to be made by the police under sub-section (3) of Section 156..." Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors., MANU/SC/0063/1985 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an akin situation held as under;
"...4. Now, when the report forwarded by the officer-in charge of a police station to the Magistrate under Sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173 comes up for consideration by the Magistrate, one of two different situation may arise, The report may conclude that an offence appears to have been committed by a particular person or persons and in such a case, the Magistrate may do one of three things : (1) he may accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process or (2) he may disagree with the report and drop the proceeding or (3) he may direct further investigation under Sub-section (3) of Section 156 and require the police to make a further report. The report may on the other hand state that, in the opinion of the police, no offence appears to have been committed and where such a report has been made, the Magistrate again has an option to adopt one of three courses : (1) he may accept the report and drop the proceeding or (2) he may disagree with the report and taking the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further, take cognizance of the offence and issue process or (3) he may direct further investigation to be made by the police under Sub-section (3) of Section 156..."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Here, this Court deems it further apposite to make a 3 Dablu Kujur v. State of Jharkhand, Criminal Appeal No. 1511/2024, dated 12.03.2024 (Hon'ble SC).
CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 22 of 37
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.22
15:52:05
+0530
reference to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Sathyavani Ponrani v. Samuel Raj, 2010 (4) CTC 833: Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 5474/2010, dated 07.07.2010, wherein the Hon'ble High Court, while accentuating the importance of fair and free investigation, as also equally available to an accused as well as a victim, in a given case, noted as under;
"66. Free and Fair Investigation and Trial is enshrined in Article 14, 21 and 39-A of the Constitution of India. It is the duty of the state to ensure that every citizen of the country should have the free and fair investigation and trial. The preamble and the constitution are compulsive and not facultative, in that free access to the form of justice is integral to the core right to equality, regarded as a basic feature of our Constitution. Therefore, such a right is a constitutional right as well as a fundamental right. Such a right cannot be confined only to the accused but also to the victim depending upon the facts of the case. Therefore such a right is not only a constitutional right but also a human right. Any procedure which comes in a way of a party in getting a fair trial would in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution..."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. Correspondingly, this Court deems it apposite to further refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab, (2009) 1 SCC 441 , wherein the Hon'ble Court unambiguously observed right to fair investigation and trial is applicable to the accused as well as the victim and such a right to a victim is provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reference in this regard is made to the relevant extract(s) of the said decision as under;
"28. An accused is entitled to a fair investigation. Fair investigation and fair trial are concomitant to preservation of fundamental right of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. But the State has a larger obligation i.e. to maintain law and order, public order and preservation of peace and harmony in the society. A victim of a crime, thus, is equally CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 23 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2025.05.22 15:52:10 +0530 entitled to a fair investigation. When serious allegations were made against a former Minister of the State, save and except the cases of political revenge amounting to malice, it is for the State to entrust one or the other agency for the purpose of investigating into the matter. The State for achieving the said object at any point of time may consider handing over of investigation to any other agency including a Central agency which has acquired specialisation in such cases..."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. Synchronously, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI & Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 682, noted in akin terms that criminal justice system mandates that any investigation into the crime should be fair, in accordance with law and should not be tainted. Correspondingly, the Hon'ble Court remarked in clear terms that interested or influential persons should not be in a position and/or permitted to misdirect or hijack the investigation so as to throttle its fairness, resulting in the offenders escaping the punitive course of law. In fact, the said facets of rule of law were termed by the Hon'ble Court to be quite integral, breach of would were held to amount to a negation of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. Ergo, it is quite comprehensible that the superior courts have obligated all courts to record any4, "deliberate dereliction of duty, designedly defective investigation, intentional acts of omission and commission prejudicial to the case of the prosecution, in breach of professional standards and investigative requirements of law, during the course of the investigation by the investigating agency, expert witnesses and even the witnesses cited by the prosecution. Further, the Courts would be fully justified in directing the disciplinary authorities to take appropriate disciplinary or other action in 4 Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 8 SCC 263.
CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 24 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2025.05.22 15:52:15 +0530
accordance with law, whether such officer, expert or employee witness, is in service or has since retired."
14. Consequently, in conspectus of above, further being wary of the aforenoted judicial principles, in light of the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons/respondent nos. 2-9 as well as by Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent no. 1, seen in conjunction with the facts and circumstances of the case, material and the documents placed on record of the Ld. Trial Court, including inter alia the contents of the closure report as well as the case diary entries/police file, as well as other documents placed on record, this Court is in concurrence with arguments of Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the investigation in the present case has not been properly conducted by the concerned IO and the closure report, in the considered opinion of this Court, appears to have been filed in extreme haste by the concerned IO. In fact, one of the most startling features of the instant case, as aforenoted, is that the postmortem report of the deceased inter alia specifically records that the manner of death of deceased, "... is subject matter of detailed & thorough investigation. Possibilities of homicide cannot be ruled out. All injuries are antemortem & fresh in duration..." Quite evidently, despite a possibility of homicide of the deceased having not been ruled out in the instant case, no genuine endeavor appears to have been made by the IO to determine the exact cause of death of the deceased or to attribute a specific reason/cause behind the same. In fact, from a conscientious perusal of the closure report and documents annexed therewith, it is noted that at certain places there is a reference of train accident, possibility for the reason that the deceased's body CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 25 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2025.05.22 15:52:19 +0530 was found at railway track. However, the closure report, as noted herein, is completely silent as to the reason the led to the demise of the revisionist's son. In fact, the situation becomes quite melancholy, as from a perusal of the records of the IO/case diary/police records, it is noted that a letter addressed to the concerned CMO, Mortuary, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, regarding opinion of postmortem report no. 2211/15, dated 20.12.2015 of the deceased, appears to be a part of said record (forwarded by the concerned SHO on 01.06.2016), however, no subsequent follow up or any update regarding the same is even noted under the said police file/case diary. Pertinently, under the said letter there is a specific reference/query inter alia seeking an opinion on, "... it is requested that please opine, "Which of these injuries are Homicidal in nature mentioned in the postmortem report." It may please also be opined that whether these injuries are possible due to train accident...", however, despite same, reasons/cause of actual demise of the deceased is grossly wanting under the closure report of the IO. Correspondingly, this Court further concedes with the submission of Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the CDRs/CAF record, heavily relied upon by the IO under his closure report do not find corroboration for a certified copies of said records from the respective nodal agencies/telecom companies, in so far as the particulars/coordinates of the places of the accused persons/respondent nos. 2-9 is concerned, rather, the coordinates have been enumerated/enlisted under the closure report, based on the personal knowledge of the concerned IO, who filed the said report. Needless to mention that even in this regard, it is noted under the case diary/police file that the letters were issued to the concerned telecom companies/nodal agencies to furnish the CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 26 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.22 15:52:24 +0530 particulars of the said coordinates of the accused persons/respondent nos. 2-9, however, certified copies of CDRs or any documents issued by the concerned telecom companies have not been placed on record by the concerned IO, to corroborate the coordinates of alleged places of presence/whereabouts of the accused persons/respondent nos. 2-9 on the alleged date of occurrence and thereafter, i.e., on 18.12.2015-19.12.2015.
15. Quite ominously, there are also significant contradictions in the documents placed on record by the concerned IO as well as the statements of various witnesses, accused persons/suspects, etc., filed along with the closure report. In this regard, it is outrightly noted that along with the closure report, the concerned IO has filed letter dated 29.12.2015, issued by one Rakesh Kumar, Authorized Signatory of Super Fashion, asserting that Deepak Kumar/respondent no. 2, S/o. Roop Singh, Employee Card N. 13051, was designated as field work boy in the said organization, besides the gate pass details were furnished by said Rakesh Kumar, as under;
Gate Pass details of dated 18/12/2015
Factory In Time : 09:33 am
Gate Pass Out Time : 10:00 am went to Sarai,
Factory Faridabad
In time : 10:20 am
Gate Pass Out Time : 11:15 am went to
Factory AIR, Okhla, New Delhi
In Time : 14:15 pm
Gate Pass Out Time : 17:00 pm went to
Impulse, Next, BIPL,
KSP & SGS, Gugaon
(Emphasis supplied)
16. Notably, when the aforesaid particulars along with the copies of gate pass, placed on record of the Ld. Trial Court are CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 27 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.22 15:52:32 +0530 seen in conjunction with the statements of other witnesses/suspects, it is noted that though, accused/suspect/Deepak @ Guddan/respondent no. 2 is asserted to be present at his home at around 03:00-04:00 p.m. on 18.12.2015, when a scuffle ensued between him/Guddan @ Deepak/respondent no. 2 in the said declarations/statements of witnesses/suspects, in variance, the said accused/respondent no. 2 is proclaimed to be present in the aforesaid factory from 14:15 hrs. (02:15 pm) to 17:00 hrs. (05:00 p.m.) on 18.12.2015. Clearly, there is material variance on which, no further investigation has been carried out by the concerned IO. In fact, the statement of said Rakesh Kumar has not even been placed on record of the Ld. Trial Court. Correspondingly, though, under the closure report, IO has avowed that suspect/accused, namely, Sumit @ Babloo/respondent no. 6 was determined to be present in his School for Geography examination from 02:30 p.m. to 05:30 p.m. and a corresponding, letter dated 11.01.2016, issued by the Principal, Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya (said School) has been filed along with the closure report. However, the IO has further made no endeavor to record the statement of said Principal or the person, responsible for taking/keeping such attendance records or to even collect the admit card/examination roll number of respondent no. 6 in this regard, along with the closure report. Needless to mention that the same is notwithstanding the fact that both the revisionist and his wife/Smt. Rajni specifically proclaimed that on 18.12.2015, the deceased had left along with Lachu@ Laxman/respondent no. 4 as well as Babloo/respondent no. 6 at around 04:00 p.m. from his/deceased's home, when Lachu@ Laxman/respondent no. 4 reached at deceased's home to inform CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 28 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.05.22 15:52:38 +0530 him that Sonia/respondent no. 9 and Guddan/respondent no. 2 had complaint against him/the deceased as well as, instigated the deceased to, consequently, flee from his home. In fact, as aforenoted, it was specifically proclaimed by Smt. Rajni that at that point in time, Sumit @ Babloo/respondent no. 6 was waiting outside in the gali and thereafter, all three of them (deceased as well as respondent nos. 4 and 6), left together from the spot.
Analogously, no proper investigation in respect of the whereabouts of suspect/accused/Sujeet/respondent no. 8 is noticed from the record. In this regard, it is noted that though, it has been avowed by the IO that Sujeet was present at his duty, i.e., at Unity Business Solution, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi on 18.12.2015 from 09:30 a.m. to 05:30 p.m. and had reached home at 06:30 p.m. In this regard, the IO has further made a reference to the attendance records of Sujeet to corroborate his presence in the said office in the aforesaid time. However, despite the same, no statement of any person from Unity Business Solution has placed on record along with the closure report. Here, it is pertinent to note that from a perusal of the police record/case diary, it is nevertheless noted that the concerned IO has made a reference of having contacted and recorded statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of one Harmeet, S/o. Sardar Kulveer Singh, R/o. C-64, 1st Floor, Jangpura-B, Delhi (which has not been filed with the closure report, as aforenoted), who proclaimed himself as the in-charge of Unity Business Solution and affirmed that Sujeet/respondent no. 8 was working in his office as Data Operator and worked there for around 7-8 months then. Correspondingly, Harmeet produced the aforesaid attendance sheet of respondent no. 8, besides proclaiming that respondent no. 8 was in office on 18.12.2015 from 09:30 a.m. to CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 29 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2025.05.22 15:52:41 +0530 05:30 p.m. However, it is not clear/decipherable from the statement of Harmeet that whether the said information of respondent no. 8's presence in office is based on his personal knowledge or that on the basis of the said attendance register. Even otherwise, it is nowhere forthcoming from the said statement of Harmeet that whether or not he was the progenitor of the said attendance register. Quite glumly, no investigation on said aspects appears to have been conducted by the IO.
17. Similarly, as far as the factum of accused Ajay/respondent no. 7's reaching at his house at Tower-I, Moti Bagh at around 01:20 a.m. on 19.12.2015, having left from his sister's/respondent no. 9's home on 18/19.12.2015 at around 12 midnight, as recorded under the closure report of the IO, is concerned, in the considered opinion of this Court, the investigation is utterly deficit even in this respect. As aforenoted, the closure report explicitly records in this regard that on 18.12.2015, respondent no. 7 along with his wife, mother and child went to Lakhpat Colony, Meethapur to visit respondent no. 7's sister, Sonia/respondent no. 9 and subsequent, they proceeded back to their home at around 12:00 midnight. Notably, the closure report further records that the said persons hired a cab, which dropped them at Defence Colony and thereafter, they reached at Moti Bagh at around 01:20 a.m., where the security guard made an entry in the name of respondent no. 7's wife, Gudia along with auto number. Correspondingly, it is proclaimed under the closure report that during the course of investigation, security guard Vishal Vishkarma was examined, and the visitor's entry register was checked, wherein entry in the name of Gudia was made at 01:20 am. Concomitantly, it is the assertion of the IO that CCTV footage CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 30 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.22 15:52:45 +0530 was checked where one make, two females and one child were observed emerging out from the exit gate of Tower No. 1, Moti Bagh at around 04:30 p.m. and in the CCTV footage of 19.12.2015 at around 01:20 a.m., auto bearing no. DL-1RQ-2595 is asserted to be seen entering the gate. However, despite such assertion/proclamation by the IO, it is quite unusual that neither any CCTV footage has been placed on record of the Ld. Trial Court nor the same observable from a perusal of the case diary/police record. On the contrary, it is noted from a conscientious perusal of the case diary, the concerned IO is asserted to have collected the said CCTV footage on his mobile phone as the means for transfer of the said CCTV footage on pendrive are asserted to be not available with the said security guard. Nonetheless, even such mobile recording of the CCTV footage has not been placed on record, either of the Ld. Trial Court or in the records maintained by the police/case diary/police file. Correspondingly, though, it is observable from the case diary that the IO had recorded the statement of one Vishal Vishkarma, (alleged) security guard at SIS Security Company and deputed at Tower-1, Moti Bagh, New Delhi, however, no endeavor appears to have been made by the IO to seek identification by Sh. Vishal Vishkarma of either of the driver of the autorickshaw bearing no. DL-1RQ-2595 or of respondent no. 7 or any of his family members, including Gudia/respondent no. 7's wife, who is stated to have made entry in the visitor's entry register on 18/19.12.2015. Apropos the foregoing, it is quite concerning that though it is noted from the perusal of the case diary that, though, the IO is declared to have traced the driver of the said autorickshaw as one Kalika Shah, who is avowed to have inter alia proclaimed that he remembered of CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 31 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.22 15:52:49 +0530 picking up four passengers (one made, two females and a child) from South Extension to Moti Bagh, Tower-I, between 12:30 to 01:00 (at night) on 18/19.12.2015 and having dropped them inside the tower from Hotel Leela side gate at around 01:30 at night, however, no attempt is seen to have been by the concerned IO to seek identification of the said persons, in order to ascertain that whether the male, pointed out by Kalika Shah was in fact, respondent no. 7, as otherwise recorded under the closure report. Needless to reiterate that the identification of said autorickshaw driver Sh. Vishal Vishkarma, security guard is also wanting.
18. Conspicuously, another disconcerting feature in the instant case is that under the closure report, the IO has recorded about the CDRs particulars of Aman/respondent no. 3 (Mobile No. 9910686198); Deepak @ Guddan/respondent no. 2 (Mobile No. 9999777242); Sumit @ Babloo/respondent no. 6 (Mobile No. 7532966096); Ajay/respondent no. 7 (Mobile No. 8826654659);
Laxman @ Lachu/respondent no. 4 (Mobile No. 8802472563) and of the deceased/Bhupender (Mobile No. 7210819240) to assert that, "... the location of deceased and suspect were quite different. All the suspected persons have never been found together as per the analysis of CDR and also not with the deceased..." However, woefully, such observations were reached by the IO despite the fact that the CDRs/particulars of call of all the suspects, in particular, that of Rahul/respondent no. 5, Sujeet/respondent no. 8 and Sonia/respondent no. 9 do not appear to have been endeavored to be obtained by the IO. Needless to reiterate that the IO made no attempt to obtain certified copies of the CDRs or the particulars of coordinates from the concerned telecom companies/nodal agencies to ascertain the exact whereabouts of the suspect persons, CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 32 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2025.05.22 15:52:53 +0530 particulars of whom, have been mentioned under the closure report. Correspondingly, it is quite unnerving that the IO made no attempt to determine the whereabouts of the suspects/accused persons/respondent nos. 2-9 during the entire intervening night of 18.12.2015-19.12.2015, except to the extent of Deepak @ Guddan/respondent no. 2, where the statement of one Satyawati, landlady of respondent no. 2, was recorded inter alia asserting that Deepak @ Guddan/respondent no. 2 had returned to his home on 18.12.2015 at around 09:00 pm and had remained there till the following morning, i.e., on 19.12.2015 at around 08:45 a.m. Markedly, such ascertainment of the whereabouts of the accused persons/respondent nos. 3-9 was necessitated for the reason that even as per the closure report the CDRs/particulars of Aman/respondent no. 3; Sumit @ Babloo/respondent no. 6; Ajay/respondent no. 7; Laxman @ Lachu/respondent no. 4 were last observable for around 17:56 hrs., 20:50 hrs.; 20:21 hrs.; and 22:50 hrs., respectively, last on 18.12.2015 and at around 08:25 hrs.-10:26 hrs.; 08:01 hrs.-10:33 hrs.; 08:29 hrs.-09:34 hrs.; and 07:37 hrs.-10:41 hrs. on 19.12.2015, respectively. Quite evidently, in the absence of such particulars having been ascertained and even the CDRs of Rahul/respondent no. 5, Sujeet/respondent no. 8 and Sonia/respondent no. 9 having been even obtained by the IO in the instant case, the observations of the IO that the suspects and deceased were never together, does not appeal to the senses of this Court.
19. Ergo, in light of the foregoing, unmistakably reaches a conclusion that there are serious lacunae, omissions, deficiencies and oversight on the part of the concerned IO, while filing his closure report before the Ld. MM/Ld. Trial Court. In fact, from the CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 33 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.22 15:52:56 +0530 aforesaid, it is quite apparent that the concerned IO had acted in an extreme haste, reasons for which are not comprehensible to this Court. In fact, despite the allegations in the instant case being quite serious necessitating on the aspect of even determination of the cause of death of the deceased as well as various aforenoted facts and circumstances, the reasons for thoughtless and injudicious filing of closure report, contrary to even the records/material placed in the police records/case diary undeniably puts this Court in quite skepticism of the conduct demonstrated by the concerned IO of the present case. In fact, such blatant oversight on the part of the IO necessitated that a thorough and proper investigation was sought for, while considering the closure report filed by the IO as well as the revisionist's protest petition, which has regretfully not been directed/carried out. Correspondingly, this Court does not concede with the finding of the Ld. Trial Court under the impugned order that the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist failed to point out the points on which investigation was lack. On the contrary, the revisionist's protest petition, clearly, enlists various aspects on which shoddy and substandard investigation was conducted by the concerned IO, necessitating further evaluation/scrutiny. In contrast, despite such lacunae having been pointed out by the revisionist before the Ld. Trial Court, the concerned IO under his reply gave a perfunctory rebuttal, merely reiterating the contents of his closure report, without application of mind. Apposite in this regard to reproduce the relevant extracts from the revisionist's protest petition before the Ld. Trial Court as under;
"12. That on 19/12/2015 when the dead body of the deceased Bhupinder was found between the Railway track/ line, the I.O./police official had CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 34 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.05.22 15:53:00 +0530 prepared a document "Death Report Un-natural Death by Violence" and in which the police bluntly without making any investigation has stated that the death occurred due to Train Accident but during the course of investigation in the above-noted case, I.O. has not investigated that if the death of Bhupinder is caused by/from Train than which Train had hit the deceased. Moreover, no witness or eye-witness or statement of any person in this regard has been recorded by the I.O. It is not out of place to mention that the injuries mentioned in post-mortem report do not indicate/reflect that the injury would have cause due to train accident. It is submitted that if the death of deceased Bhupinder would have caused due to Train accident than his head or body parts would have crushed due to heavy force and there must be more brutal/ major injuries on the head and other body parts but in the present case, there is an injury on the head (Cranio Cerebral damage) and the same does not indicate that the same would have been caused due to train accident.
*** *** ***
14. That the I.O. has also ignored the fact and has not investigated and arrested the accused persons even when in the afternoon of 18/12/2015 Guddan has tried to kill Bhupinder but due to intervention of Complainant's Wife Rajni and his family members, Bhupinder was rescued from the clutches of Guddan. It is submitted that Guddan and all the above-named persons have motive and also intention to kill Bhupinder and therefore, they took help of Lacho and Babloo in the said crime.
15. That the I.O. has not appreciated the fact while preparing the Final Report that lastly Bhupinder went from his home on the call of Lachho and he went with Lachho and Babloo and thereafter, he never returned back and on the next day, his body was found at the Railway Track which is only about 2-3 Κ.Μ. (10 minutes distance) from the residences of the Complainant.
16. That the CDR collected by the I.O. of the case is false, wrong and frivolous documents and they do not show the correct location. It is submitted that L.O. of the case has not collected the location/CDR of the accused persons from the respectively telecom companies and the I.O. has himself has mentioned the place/ location as per his wish and choice in order to favour the accused persons.
*** *** ***
CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 35 of 37
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.22
15:53:04
+0530
18. That the statements of the accused persons and the alleged CDR are not matching and there are many contradictions.
19. That the L.O. of the case has collected the Letter dated 29/12/2015 from the company that 19/12/2015 Deepak @ Guddan was on duty and his timing for entering into factory and out time from the factory. It is submitted that there are contradiction in the Statement of Deepak @ Guddan by perusing the said document which clearly proves that either the document is false or Guddan is saying lie..."
(Emphasis supplied)
20. Accordingly, in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court unswervingly records and reiterates that impugned order/order dated 25.09.2018 passed by Ld. MM-04, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in case bearing, 'State v. Deepak @ Guddan, Case No. 2255/2017', arising out of FIR bearing No. 467/2015, PS. Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station under Sections 302/34 IPC deserves to be set aside in light of the aforesaid observations and the same is consequently set aside. As a corollary, the present revision petition is allowed. Ld. Trial Court/Ld. MM is directed to hear the protest petition afresh and reconsider the closure report filed by the concerned IO in the instant case, as per law as well as in light of the observations made herein.
21. Trial Court Record along with a copy of this order/judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court concerned with directions to proceed as per law and the observations made herein. Further, the case diary be sent back to PS Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station, with a copy of this order/judgment and with directions to the concerned DCP/SHO to look into the conduct of the concerned IO in the instant case and to take necessary steps against erring officer, in view of the aforesaid observation and the judicial dictates mentioned herein.
CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 36 of 37 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.22 15:53:10 +0530
22. Revision file be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.22 15:53:18 +0530 Announced in the open Court (Abhishek Goyal) on 22.05.2025 ASJ-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CR. No. 903/2018 Ram Khiladi v. State & Ors. Page No. 37 of 37