Delhi District Court
State vs Bijender Singh on 23 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF Ms. VANDANA JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03 & SPECIAL JUDGE
(COMPANIES ACT) SOUTH WEST: DWARKA COURTS:
NEW DELHI
(MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD)
CNR No. DLSW01-014596-2019
SC No. : 947/2019
State Vs. : Bijender Singh
FIR No. : 358/2019
U/s. : 302/201/506 Part I IPC
P.S. : Najafgarh
1. Date of commission of offence : 06.12.2018
2. Date of institution of the case : 13.12.2019
3. Date of committal to Sessions Court : 23.12.2019
4. Name of the complainant : Sh. Gyan Singh
5. Name of accused, parentage &
address : Bijender Singh
S/o Sh. Sukhbir Singh
R/o H. No. 47, Rajiv Nagar,
New Anaz Mandi, Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
8. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
9. Date on which order was reserved : 20.12.2024
10. Final order : Acquittal
11. Date of final order : 23.12.2024
SC No. 947/2019
State Vs. Bijender Singh
FIR No. 358/2019, PS Najafgarh Page 1 of 21
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.12.2018, one
Kulwinder Kaur reported about the missing of her husband Rajesh
Tehlan since 06.12.2018. The missing report was lodged at PS
Najafgarh vide DD No. 21A dated 17.12.2019 which was marked to
ASI Rambir Singh. Efforts were made to find the missing person but
no clue could be find. Therefore, on 07.08.2018, an FIR No. 358/2019
under Section 365 IPC PS Najafgarh was registered on the statement
of one Gyan Singh, brother of Rajesh Tehlan (deceased in the present
case). He stated that his elder brother Rajesh Tehlan was a bus driver
and he was informed by his sister-in-law ( bhabhi) Kulwinder Kaur
that his brother Rajesh was missing since second week of December
2018. He was also informed that his brother was alcoholic and had
some arguments with his wife Kulwinder Kaur. He suspected that his
brother was kidnapped by some unknown person. The investigation of
the case was marked to SI Raghubir Singh. IO/SI Raghubir Singh
recorded the statement of Kulwinder Kaur (wife).
2. In her statement, Kulwinder Kaur stated that one Ajit @ Sonu
and Bijender Singh (accused herein) were the friends of her husband.
Her husband was alcoholic and she used to share her problems with
accused Bijender Singh. Gradually, he started helping her and they
came close. She further stated that they developed physical relations.
She was harassed by her husband due to which she asked the accused
either to get her husband admitted in rehabilitation centre or to get her
SC No. 947/2019
State Vs. Bijender Singh
FIR No. 358/2019, PS Najafgarh Page 2 of 21
arrested in a case wherein he was declared PO. She further stated that
accused used to get angry when her husband used to misbehave with
her.
3. On 06.12.2018, at around 8:00 to 9:00 am, her husband came
to the house and he was beaten up by some relative on the issue of
some money. She called his friend Ajit @ Sonu at his instance, who
took him to the doctor but her husband did not return back. She called
Ajit @ Sonu (interchangeably used as Anil @ Sonu in the entire case)
in order to check the whereabouts of her husband to which he stated
that he had taken her husband (Rajesh Tehlan) to the Government
Dispensary at Najafgarh and he was asked by the doctor to get him
admitted to which he refused. He took Rs. 20/- to purchase cigarette
from Ajit @ Sonu and after which he did not come back. A missing
report in this regard was got registered by her. She also stated that
when her husband did not return back, she confronted accused
Bijender Singh on which he told her that since her husband used to
harass her, he had killed him (Rajesh) by giving him sleeping pills and
thereafter strangulating him. He (accused) had also stated that he had
thrown the body of her husband (Rajesh) in a Canal in UP.
4. Further investigation was carried out wherein the statement of
Ajit @ Sonu was recorded and thereafter the accused was arrested and
a white colour Maruti car bearing registration No. HR 26 BX 2770
was recovered from his possession which was used in the commission
of the offence in the present case. The disclosure statement of the
accused was recorded as per which the deceased was the company of
one Anil @ Kale, Girish Chand and accused Bijender Singh. As per
SC No. 947/2019
State Vs. Bijender Singh
FIR No. 358/2019, PS Najafgarh Page 3 of 21
the disclosure statement of accused Bijender Singh, on the date of
incident, he had found Rajesh Tehlan in an inebriated state at Tuda
Mandi, Najafgarh and then sedated him by alcohol mixed with
sleeping pills and when he became unconscious, he strangulated him
and threw his dead body in the canal at UP.
5. The statement of Anil @ Kale and Girish Chand were
recorded wherein they stated that they met accused Bijender Singh
under the Palam Flyover for drinking liquor in his car and they found
one person sitting on a non-driver seat. He was unconscious and
accused told them that the person was heavily drunk due to which he
had slept. He kept his phone and that of Anil @ Kale at one juice shop
at Palam but Girish refused to give his phone. While drinking liquor,
they went to UP and accused Bijender Singh stopped his car and threw
that person sitting on the non-driver seat in the canal, UP. He
threatened both of them to not to disclose anything to anyone. The
statements of both these persons were got recorded by IO under
Section 164 Cr.PC.
6. The accused led the police party to the spot i.e. on a bridge
over Banjharpur Nahar, District Gautambudh Nagar, UP and pointed
towards the canal and stated that on 06.12.2018, he had thrown dead
body of Rajesh Tehlan in this canal from the bridge after sedating him
alcohol mixed with sleeping pills but dead body could not be found.
CDR were analyzed and it was found that mobile phone of Girish was
moving continuously upto Noida till 10:00 pm on the date of incident.
7. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed
SC No. 947/2019
State Vs. Bijender Singh
FIR No. 358/2019, PS Najafgarh Page 4 of 21
against the accused in the present case. Cognizance of offence was
taken under Section 365/302/201/506 IPC. After compliance of
Section 207/208 Cr.PC, the file was committed to Sessions Courts.
Thereafter, the matter was listed for framing of charge. The charge
under Section 302/201/506 Part I IPC was framed against the accused
on 10.02.2020 and matter was listed for PE.
8. Prosecution cited 15 witnesses, out of which 12 witnesses
were examined. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 294 Cr.P.C.,
wherein he admitted documents i.e. FIR No. 358/2019, Certificate U/s
65 of Indian Evidence Act and statement under Section 164 Cr.PC
dated 22.11.2019 of Anil as Ex.PX1 to Ex. PX3.
9. PE was thereafter closed vide order dated 31.05.2024.
Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC
wherein all incriminating evidence against him was put to him but
accused denied all the allegations levelled against him and also
submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He
did not opt for DE and thereafter matter was listed for final arguments.
10. Before discussing the rival submissions made on behalf of
both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss, in brief, the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses which have come on record. The
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are detailed as under:-
11. PW-1 Sh. Anil Jha @ Kale : He deposed that :
“I am the resident of above mentioned address. I am
driver by profession. I do not know anything about the
case. I do not know against whom the case is pending trialSC No. 947/2019
State Vs. Bijender Singh
FIR No. 358/2019, PS Najafgarh Page 5 of 21
in this court. Police had met me during the pendency of
investigation of this case. The police had taken me to Ld.
MM at Dwarka court. Prior to taking me to the court of
Ld.MM, the police had also beaten me. The police had
also told me to narrate the incident before the Ld. MM as
per their narration and story. I had narrated the same story
to Ld.MM as told to me by the police.”
He admitted his signatures at point A on his statement under Section
164 Cr.PC Ex.PW1/A.
12. Since PW-1 Anil Jha @ Kale did not disclose the facts truly,
he was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. He has denid all
the suggestions given to him by Ld. Addl.PP. He has only admitted
that he was having mobile number i.e. 9250624313 and also admitted
that Girish Chand, who is his friend, was having mobile number i.e.
9250855450. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
13. PW-2 Smt. Kulwinder Kaur : She deposed that:
“I am the resident of above mentioned address. I was
married to Rajesh Tehlan in year 2004. I am having two
children namely Parveen Tehlan (daughter), aged about 15
years and Aditya Tehlan (son), aged about 9 years. I am
running a Beauty Parlour at Indra Park, Nangli Sakrawati,
Najafgarh, New Delhi. My husband was a driver by
profession. My husband used to go in morning and come
home in the evening. My husband had taken loan on a
vehicle, probably on R-TV, the installment of which he
could not pay and the cheque got dishonoured. Thereafter,
the case of dishonour of cheque got initiated against him
by the other party and my husband got arrested in the said
case. Thereafter, a compromise was effected between my
husband and that party and some monthly installment was
to be paid by my husband to other party. I cannot tell the
exact due amount. The bail bond of my husband was
given by my Devar brother-in-law. The name of my devar
is Gyan Singh and the name of the brother-in-law of my
devar is Sonu. My husband probably had given 3-4SC No. 947/2019
State Vs. Bijender Singh
FIR No. 358/2019, PS Najafgarh Page 6 of 21
installments to the said person and thereafter he stopped
giving any further installment due to which the court
again declared him Proclaimed Offender. My husband
used to live at some other place other than our home for
continuously 1-2 months and some time he used to come
after 10 days. My husband was having a good nature.
My husband was having friends and amongst them Ajit
@Sonu and Bijender Singh also used to come at our
home. Accused Bijender Singh is present in the court
today (correctly identified by the witness).
Probably on 10/11.12.2018, my husband did not come to
home. I called here and there i.e. my family members,
relatives, Bijender, Anil @ Sonu. Gyan Singh, Sonu
(brother-in-law of Gyan Singh), but they told that they did
not meet my husband. Thereafter, after waiting for few
days, on 17.12.2018, 1 lodged the missing report of my
husband at PS Najafgarh.
Thereafter, after some time, probably in the month of
August, 2019 the police arrested accused Bijender and
told us that Bijender had killed my husband. I did not met
Bijender during the period of missing of my husband.
I cannot tell anything else. I do not know anything about
the case.”
14. Since PW-2 Smt. Kulwinder Kaur did not disclose the facts
truly, she was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. She has
admitted that her husband was an alcoholic. She has stated that the
relationship between her and Bijender are cordial one as a normal
family friend. She has admitted that she is also having another number
i.e. 8860514836. She has also stated that she does not know number of
Anil @ Sonu. She has denid rest all the suggestions given to her by
Ld. Addl.PP. She was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
15. PW-3 Sh. Ajit @ Sonu : He has deposed that :
“I am a farmer by profession. I knew Rajesh Tehlan
@Raju for many years. His sister married in my village. I
also knew Bijender Singh who is friend of Rajesh Tehlan
@ Raju for about 2-3 years prior to incident. RajeshSC No. 947/2019
State Vs. Bijender Singh
FIR No. 358/2019, PS Najafgarh Page 7 of 21
Tehlan @ Raju had got me met with Bijender Singh.
Accused Bijender is present in Court today (correctly
identified) as he is my friend. I became acquainted with
him through Rajesh Tehlan @ Raju.
In the present case, I had only received one call from wife
of Rajesh. She had called me to take him to the hospital
and he had received minor injuries. Accordingly, I had
reached at the house of Rajesh and taken him to the
Najafgarh Health Centre on my scooty. After initial
treatment, I left him at Tuda Mandi Chowk. He used to
drink alcohol a lot and was also absconding in some
cheque bouncing cases. At Tuda Mandi Chowk, in order
to purchase liquor, he was continuously asking money
from me. I gave him Rs.20/- and went away from there.
Besides this, nothing had happened and nor I want to say
anything else.”
16. Since PW-3 Ajit @ Sonu did not disclose the facts truly, he
was cross examined by learned Addl. PP for the State. During his
cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he denied all the
suggestions given to him.
17. PW-4 Sh. Girish Chand : He has deposed that :
“I am driver by profession. I do not know anything in the
present case. However, I was called by police officials in
present case. They have made inquiries from me and I had
told them that I do not know anything. Besides this I do
not want to say anything else nor I know anything else.”
18. Since PW-4 Sh. Girish Chand did not disclose the facts truly,
she was cross examined by learned Addl. PP for the State. During her
cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, she denied all the
suggestions given to her.
19. PW-5 Sh. Ghyan Singh : He has deposed that
“I am complainant in present case. I am a farmer by
SC No. 947/2019
State Vs. Bijender Singh
FIR No. 358/2019, PS Najafgarh Page 8 of 21
profession. Rajesh Tehlan is my brother and he was
working as a conductor in RTV Bus and used to reside
with his family at village Nangli Sakrawati, Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
On 05.12.2018, my brother had sustained injuries. My
brother was alcoholic. My sister-in-law (Bhabhi) namely
Kulwinder Kaur made a call to Ajit @ Sonu S/o Sh.
Mahabir Singh, R/o Village Mundhela for seeking his help
in medical treatment of her husband. On 06.12.2018, Ajit
came to my brother’s house and took my brother to the
hospital. Thereafter, Ajit took my brother to Bijender.
Thereafter, my brother is missing since that day. We
waited for my brother for about 6-12 months as my
brother was facing trial in a case u/s 138 N.I. Act. On
06.12.2018, I along with my brother-in-law was called by
crime branch and they informed me that my brother was
with accused Bijender Singh and he was thrown in the
drain by accused Bijender Singh.
On 07.12.2018, I went to PS Najafgarh, where, my
statement was recorded by police and I gave name of
Sonu, Bijender and my Bhabhi namely Mrs. Kulwinder to
the police and told that they might be involved in the
missing of my brother.
On 17.12.2018, my Bhabhi Kulwinder Kaur made a
missing report. I was called by the police many times and
they informed me that they are trying to search my brother
Rajesh Tehlan. I had last seen my brother on 06.12.2018.
On 07.08.2019, police called me at PS Najafgarh, where
my statement was recorded, same is Ex.PW5/A bears my
signature at point A. My supplementary statement was also
recorded by police on same day. I told to the police that on
06.12.2018, my brother-in-law Ved Prakash told me that
Ajit @ Sonu had told him that on 06.12.2018 my brother
Rajesh Tehlan was with him and he was in injured
condition and my Bhabhi had also clicked the photographs
of my brother Rajesh. My supplementary statement was
also recorded by police. Accused Bijender and Ajit are
known to me through my brother Rajesh Tehlan.
Accused Bijender is present in the Court today (correctly
identified). ”
He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
SC No. 947/2019
State Vs. Bijender Singh
FIR No. 358/2019, PS Najafgarh Page 9 of 21
20. PW-6 ASI Rambir : He has deposed that :
“On 17.12.2018, I was posted at PS Najafgarh as ASI. On
that day, DO handed over me a DD No.21A. I obtained the
photographs of the missing husband of complainant
Smt.Kulwinder Kaur and searched for the missing person
but he was not traceable. I even tried to contact the
complainant to know the whereabouts of her husband and
also as to whether he had reached at home. I handed over
the photographs of missing person to the IO. IO recorded
my statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.”
He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
21. PW-7 ASI Randhawa : He has deposed that :
“On 06.08.2019, I was posted at Anti Snatching Team,
Dwarka, PS Dwarka Sector-23. On that day, I along with
SI Vivek Mandola, ASI Mahesh Tyagi and HC Subhash
and we were doing patrolling duty in private car vide DD
No.43B. I met a secret informer who revealed that accused
will come in his car no. HR-26-BX-2770. I prepared a
raiding team after sharing the information with my senior
officials. We reached at Red Light, Kargil Chowk, Near
Akshardham Apartment, Sector-19 Dwarka, New Delhi.
We stopped the car and apprehended the accused who
revealed his name as Bijender Singh. Accused was found
in possession of one countrymade pistol and two live
cartridges. Made in Japan was written on one side of
countrymade pistol. On the other side, it was written auto
pistol. I prepared the sketch of pistol and seized the same
vide seizure memo. I prepared a Rukka and sent HC
Subhash to PS for registration of FIR. After sometime, SI
Shiv Kumar reached at spot and further investigation of
case was handed over to SI Shiv Kumar. SI Shiv Kumar
arrested accused Bijender and recorded his disclosure
statement.
Accused Bijender is present in the Court today (Correctly
identified by witness).
Accused disclosed that he is living with Seema and her
childrens and he knew Rajesh @ Raju since last 7-8 years.
He slowly fell in love with Smt. Kulwinder who was wifeSC No. 947/2019
State Vs. Bijender Singh
FIR No. 358/2019, PS Najafgarh Page 10 of 21
of Rajesh. Rajesh was a habitual drinker and used to gave
beatings to his wife and I do not like his behavior towards
his wife. On 05.12.2018, Rajesh was beaten by brother-in-
laws of his real brother and he sustained injuries. The said
fact was told to him by Smt. Kulwinder on next day
morning and further she told that Rajesh @ Raju was taken
for medical treatment by Sonu to the hospital. Accused
further disclosed that he called Sonu Mundhela and further
asked his location to which he replied that he is at
Najafgarh. Bijender went to Najafgarh and shifted Rajesh
in his ritz car and drove the car to Palam and picked Girish
and Kale in his car and they all started drinking alcohol and
reached Kasna River, Noida and pushed Rajesh in the
Kasna River from the road. The missing report of Rajesh
already lodged at PS Najafgarh and SI Shiv Kumar gave
the information to the PS with regard to arrest and
disclosure of Bijender vide DD No. 29B.”
He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
22. PW-8 Retd. SI Shiv Kumar : He has deposed that
“On 06.08.2019, I was posted at PS Dwarka Sector-23. On
that day, DO informed me that an FIR No. 311/2019 under
Section 25 Arms Act was registered and the investigation
of same was marked to me by SHO. I along with HC
Harimal Meena went to Kargil Chowk near Akshardham
Appartment, Dwarka Sector-19, where I met ASI
Randhawa, ASI Mahesh Tyagi, SI Vivek, they have already
apprehended one person whose name I came to know as
Bijender. I arrested him vide arrest memo Mark-X in FIR
No. 311/2019, PS Dwarka Sector-23. I seized Ritz car no.
HR-26-BX-2770 of accused vide memo Mark-Y. I
recorded disclosure statement of accused Mark Z.
Accused present in the Court today (Correctly identified).
Accused disclosed that he is living with Seema and her
childrens and he knew Rajesh @ Raju since last 7-8 years.
He slowly fell in love with Smt. Kulwinder who was wife
of Rajesh. Rajesh was a habitual drinker and used to gave
beatings to his wife and I do not like his behavior towards
his wife. On 05.12.2018, Rajesh was beaten by brother-in-
laws of his real brother and he sustained injuries. The said
fact was told to him by Smt. Kulwinder on next day
morning and further she told that Rajesh @ Raju was taken
SC No. 947/2019
State Vs. Bijender Singh
FIR No. 358/2019, PS Najafgarh Page 11 of 21
for medical treatment by Sonu to the hospital. Accused
further disclosed that he called Sonu Mundhela and further
asked his location to which he replied that he is at
Najafgarh. Bijender went to Najafgarh and shifted Rajesh
in his ritz car and drove the car to Palam and picked Girish
and Kale in his car and they all started drinking alcohol and
reached Kasna River, Noida and pushed Rajesh in the
Kasna River from the road.
I verified from PS Najafgarh that any person with the name
of Rajesh is missing or not and came to know that he is
missing since 17.12.2018. Thereafter, I gave the
information to the PS Najafgarh with regard to arrest and
disclosure of Bijender vide DD No. 29B.”
He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
23. PW-9 HC Suresh : He has deposed that :
“On 16.09.2019, I was posted at PS Najafgarh as constable.
On that day, I joined the investigation of present case along
with IO/SI Raghuvir Singh. Thereafter, I along with SI
Raghuvir reached at Dwarka Court and after taking
permission from Court, IO formally arrested accused
Bijender vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/A bearing my
signature at point A.
Accused Bijender is present in the Court today (Correctly
identified).
IO recorded disclosure statement of accused, same is now
Ex.PW9/B bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter, IO
took 2 days PC Remand of accused Bijender and we came
back to PS.”
He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
24. PW-10 HC Jitender : He has deposed that :
“On 17.09.2019, I was posted at PS Najafgarh as constable.
On that day, I joined the investigation of present case along
with IO/SI Raghuvir Singh. Thereafter, we along with
accused Bijender reached under the Palam flyover, where,
at the instance of accused, we tried to trace out one Biri –
Cigarette Khokha, however, same was not found there.
Thereafter, we took the accused to Banjarpur Village,SC No. 947/2019
State Vs. Bijender Singh
FIR No. 358/2019, PS Najafgarh Page 12 of 21
Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., where accused pointed out the
drain, where, he thrown the dead body of Rajesh Tehlan.
Thereafter, IO prepared pointing out memo at the instance
of accused, same is now Ex.PW10/A bearing my signature
at point A. IO also prepared the pointing out memo of the
spot at the instance of accused, same is Ex.PW10/B
bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter, we tried to
search dead body of Rajesh Tehlan, however, dead body
was not recovered. IO also inquired from the police
officials of PS Kakkor, PS Dhankor and PS Raghukra,
however, no clue was found about the dead body of victim
Rajesh Tehlan @ Raju. Prior proceedings to Delhi to
Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., IO recorded disclosure
statement of accused, same is Ex.PW10/C bearing my
signature at point A. Accused present in the Court today
(Correctly identified by witness).
Thereafter, we returned to PS and IO recorded my
statement.”
He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
25. PW-11 Insp. R. L. Meena : He has deposed that :
“On 25.11.2019, I was posted at PS Najafgarh as Inspector
(Investigation). On that day, investigation of present case
was marked to me. Thereafter on 09.12.2019, I got
prepared scaled site plan with the help of draftsman HC
Hardeep Singh. Thereafter, I prepared charge-sheet and
sent to Court.”
He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
26. PW-12 Insp. Raghuveer : He has deposed that :
“On 07.08.2019, I was posted at PS Najafgarh as SI. On
that day, complainant Gyan Singh came to the PS and gave
a written complaint of missing of his brother Rajesh Tehlan
@ Raju. I prepared rukka, same is Ex.PW12/A bearing my
signature at point A. The same was handed over to DO for
registration of FIR. Thereafter, the DO handed over to me
copy of FIR and original rukka.
I came to know that the wife of Rajesh Tehlan has already
lodged a missing report qua her husband on 17.12.2018.
SC No. 947/2019
State Vs. Bijender Singh
FIR No. 358/2019, PS Najafgarh Page 13 of 21
The same was taken by me from ASI Rambir. The missing
report and the photograph of the missing person were taken
by me, same are Ex.PW12/B (colly).
On 07.08.2019, an information was received at the PS that
accused Bijender has been apprehended in a case at PS
Dwarka Sector 23 and he had disclosed his involvement in
the present case. The said information was reduced into
writing via DD no. 29B Ex.PW12/C. The same was
marked to me by Insp. R. L. Meena. Thereafter, I went to
PS Dwarka Sector 23 and collected the documents of FIR
No. 311/2019. Same are Ex.PW12/D (colly).
I recorded statement of the wife of the deceased, Ajit @
Sonu and the police officials of FIR No. 311/2019. After
going through the disclosure statement of accused Bijender
Singh, I came to know that one Anil @ Kale and Girish
were present with the accused at the time when he was
disposing off the body of deceased. I recorded the
statement of Anil @ Kale and Girish.
I took Anil @ Kale to a river situated near Village
Baanjarpur. I inquired from the nearby villages and the
public persons available nearby the spot with regard to the
recovery of body of any person. I also inquired from the
local PS but I came to know that nothing was recovered
from the said river.
On 13.09.2019, I moved an application for production
warrants of accused Bijender. Accused Bijender was
formally arrested on 16.09.2019 in the present case vide
arrest memo already Ex.PW9/A bearing my signature at
point B. PC remand of the accused was taken. Disclosure
statement of the accused was recorded. Thereafter, accused
took us to the spot near Baanjarpur river, District Gautam
Budh Nagar, UP where pointing out memo was prepared at
the instance of accused. Same is already Ex.PW10/B
bearing my signature at point B. The site-plan was
prepared at the instance of the accused, same is already
Ex.PW10/A bearing my signature at point B.
Thereafter, I got recorded statement of witnesses namely
Girish and Anil Jha @ Kale under Section 164 Cr.PC
before the concerned Ld. Magistrate. During investigation,
I showed the photographs of the deceased Ex.PW12/B
(colly) and both the witnesses stated that he was the same
person who was sitting at the non-driver seat of the car
while they both were accompanying the accused in the car
and the said person in the photograph was thrown in theSC No. 947/2019
State Vs. Bijender Singh
FIR No. 358/2019, PS Najafgarh Page 14 of 21
Baanjarpur river by the accused Bijender Singh. Thereafter
section 302/201 IPC was added in the present case.
The body of the deceased was not traceable as the river
flow was very high during that time. Thereafter, the file
was marked to Insp. R. L. Meena for further investigation.
Accused Bijender Singh is present in the court and
correctly identified by the witness.”
He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
27. I have heard Sh. Vijender Singh Kharb, Ld. Addl. PP for the
State and Sh. Dinesh Mudgil, Ld. counsel for accused.
28. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that there is nothing
incriminating which has come on record in order to connect the
accused with the crime. Therefore, accused be acquitted in the present
case.
29. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State submits that
PW-3 and PW-5 have duly proved the prosecution case beyond
reasonable doubt, hence, accused be convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 302/201/506 Part I IPC.
30. I have heard the arguments and have perused the record
carefully.
31. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the
prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Prosecution is under legal obligation to prove each and every
ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Reliance in this
regard is placed on Nasir Sikander Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra
SC No. 947/2019
State Vs. Bijender Singh
FIR No. 358/2019, PS Najafgarh Page 15 of 21
(SC) 2005 Crl.L.J. 2621 and Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab (SC)
1996 (1) RCR 465 .
32. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence as there
is no direct evidence to connect accused with crime. Before
proceeding to the merits of the case, let us dwell on the law pertaining
to the circumstantial evidence. In Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State
of Maharashtra 1984 AIR 1622 / 1985 SCR (1) 88 , it was held that :
“3:3. Before a case against an accused vesting on
circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established the
following conditions must be fulfilled as laid down in
Hanumat’s v. State of M.P. [1953] SCR 1091. [163C]
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to
be drawn should be fully established; [163D]
2. The facts so established should be consistent with the
hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they should
not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the
accused is guilty; [163G]
3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency; [163G]
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the
one to be proved; and [163H]
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all
human probability the act must have been done by the
accused. [164B]
These five golden principles constitute the panchsheel of the
proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence and in the
absence of a corpus deliciti. [164B].
It was further held in aforesaid case :
3:4. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that a
case can be said to be proved only when there is certain and
explicit evidence and no pure moral conviction. [164F]”
33. In Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan v. State of Madhya
SC No. 947/2019
State Vs. Bijender Singh
FIR No. 358/2019, PS Najafgarh Page 16 of 21
Pradesh dated 28.01.2010, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while
discussing the nature of circumstantial evidence and the burden of
proof of prosecution stated as under:-
“39. In a case of circumstantial evidence, one must look for
complete chain of circumstances and not on snapped and
scattered links which do not make a complete sequence. This
Court finds that this case is entirely based on circumstantial
evidence. While appreciating circumstantial evidence, the
Court must adopt a cautious approach as circumstantial
evidence is “inferential evidence” and proof in such a case is
derivable by inference from circumstances.”
34. The case of the prosecution as already discussed is based on the
circumstantial evidence and the circumstances on which the
prosecution has heavily relied in order to prove the guilt of the
accused are as under :-
(a) PW-3 Ajit @ Sonu was called by PW-2 Kulwinder Kaur to take
deceased Rajesh Tehlan to Health Centre on 06.12.2018 and deceased
Rajesh Tehlan left the house with PW-3 and never returned back since
then.
(b) PW-1 and PW-4 had seen the accused throwing deceased Rajesh
Tehlan from his Ritz car No. HR 26BX 2770 into a Canal in Uttar
Pradesh.
(a) PW-3 Ajit @ Sonu was called by PW-2 Kulwinder Kaur to take
deceased Rajesh Tehlan to Health Centre on 06.12.2018 and deceased
Rajesh Tehlan left the house with PW-3 and never returned back since
then.
35. The prosecution case starts from the missing complaint of
17.12.2018 of the wife of Rajesh Tehlan, who is deceased in the
SC No. 947/2019
State Vs. Bijender Singh
FIR No. 358/2019, PS Najafgarh Page 17 of 21
present case on which no clue was found. After an year, on the
statement of brother of missing person, the present FIR was registered
initially under Section 365 IPC and fresh investigation was conducted.
36. The statement of Kulwinder Kaur, wife of Rajesh Tehlan was
recorded. She deposed as PW-2 in the present case. The perusal of her
testimony shows that she had not supported the prosecution case in
any manner. She deposed that her husband was having a good nature.
She deposed that after the missing report was registered on
17.12.2018, her husband has come to her house and had remained
with her whereas the case of prosecution is that he was killed by
accused on 06.12.2018. PW-2 Kulwinder Kaur was cross-examined by
Ld. Addl. PP for the State comprehensively, however, she denied all
the suggestions in respect of her husband harassing her or in respect of
her relations with the accused. She denied accused having made extra
judicial confession to her about the murder of her husband by him
(accused).
37. The reading of the cross-examination of PW-2 Kulwinder
Kaur by Ld. Addl. PP further reflects that she had belied the
prosecution story to the extent that she denied taking her husband by
PW-3 Ajit @ Sonu to the hospital and not returning back from there.
However, the reading of the testimony of PW-3 Ajit @ Sonu shows
that he had deposed that he received a call from wife of one Rajesh
Tehlan to take him to the hospital. Accordingly, he reached his house
and took him to Najafgarh Health Centre on his scooty and after initial
treatment, he left him at Tuda Mandi Chowk where he gave Rs. 20/- to
him and he did not know as to what had happened then.
SC No. 947/2019
State Vs. Bijender Singh
FIR No. 358/2019, PS Najafgarh Page 18 of 21
38. As per the statement of PW-2 Kulwinder Kaur, no such
incident of calling PW-3 Ajit @ Sonu or taking her husband by PW-3
had ever happened whereas PW-3 had deposed regarding happening
of the incident and taking deceased Rajesh Tehlan to the Najafgarh
Health Centre. The testimony of both these prosecution witnesses is
mutually contradictory. There is no investigation in regard to PW-2
Smt. Kulwinder Kaur calling PW-3 Ajit @ Sonu on 06.12.2018 which
could corroborate the testimony of PW-3. No investigation was
carried out in respect of the fact that deceased Rajesh Tehlan had ever
visited Najafgarh Health Centre with PW-3 Ajit @ Sonu. It does not
stand proved beyond doubt that deceased Rajesh Tehlan was
accompanied by PW-3 to Najafgarh Health Centre and thereafter he
was not seen alive.
(b) PW-1 and PW-4 had seen the accused throwing deceased Rajesh
Tehlan from his Ritz car No. HR 26BX 2770 into a Canal in Uttar
Pradesh.
39. The testimonies of PW-1 Anil Jha @ Kale and PW-4 Girish
Chand have been perused thoroughly. Though they have identified
their signatures on the statements given by them under Section 164
Cr.PC, however, both of them stated that the said statements were
given under the pressure and at the instance of police officials. Hence,
it does not stand proved at all that PW-1 and PW-4 had joined accused
Bijender for drinking liquor on 06.12.2018 in his Ritz car bearing No.
HR 26BX 2770 or that they found one person (deceased) in an
unconscious condition along with accused on the non-driver seat of
SC No. 947/2019
State Vs. Bijender Singh
FIR No. 358/2019, PS Najafgarh Page 19 of 21
Ritz car. Prosecution has further failed to prove that accused had taken
them to UP while driving and had thrown the person sitting on the
non-driver seat in a Canal. It does not stand proved that accused had
threatened PW-1 and PW-4 and had asked not to disclose anything to
anyone.
40. The entire prosecution case was based upon the statement of
PW-1 and PW-4. The statement of PW-1 and PW-4 recorded under
Section 164 Cr.PC was a crucial link to connect accused Bijender
Singh with the crime. Since both of them have completely failed to
support the prosecution version, therefore, there is not even an iota of
evidence on record in order to prove that accused was seen with
Rajesh Tehlan on 06.12.2018 at any point of time by anyone. There is
no evidence on record which could prove that accused Bijender Singh
had ever met Rajesh Tehlan on 06.12.2018 or at any point of time
thereafter.
41. It is worthwhile to note here that dead body of Rajesh Tehlan
has not been found from the Canal in UP wherein it was allegedly
thrown. PW-2 Kulwinder Kaur had stated in her cross-examination
that her husband had come to her after 17.12.2018 and has stayed with
her. From the testimonies of witnesses on record it, it is not even
proved that Rajesh Talhan has been murdered or his dead body was
thrown in the Canal in UP. There is no evidence at all on record which
can in any manner whatsoever, connect the accused with the offence.
The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. No witness
has supported the prosecution case. Neither the motive to commit the
offence which is an important link to prove the case based on
SC No. 947/2019
State Vs. Bijender Singh
FIR No. 358/2019, PS Najafgarh Page 20 of 21
circumstantial evidence is proved nor any circumstance has been
proved which could even remotely indicate that accused has
committed this offence. Not even a single link of the chain on which
prosecution had based its case stands established. Therefore, this court
has come to an inescapable conclusion that prosecution has miserably
failed to prove the charges against Bijender Singh at all.
Conclusion
42. Hence, accused Bijender Singh stands acquitted in present
FIR No. 358/2019 PS Najafgarh of the charges framed under Section
302/201/506 Part I IPC.
Digitally signed
VANDANA by VANDANA
JAIN
Announced in open court JAIN Date: 2024.12.24
23.12.2024 12:48:04 +0530
(Vandana Jain)
ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act)
Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi
Note: This judgment contains twenty one (21) pages and having my
signature on each page. Digitally signed
VANDANA by VANDANA
JAIN
JAIN Date: 2024.12.24
12:48:20 +0530
(Vandana Jain)
ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act)
Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi
SC No. 947/2019
State Vs. Bijender Singh
FIR No. 358/2019, PS Najafgarh Page 21 of 21