Delhi District Court
State vs Varun Soni on 13 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ ARORA:
FORMERLY ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST
DISTRICT: KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
NOW DISTRICT JUDGE-16: CENTRAL:
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. 45/2017
CNR No. DLNE01-005624-2016
FIR No. 763/2016
P.S.: Khajuri Khas
U/s : 363, 364-A and 302 IPC
STATE
Versus
VARUN SONI
S/o Sh. Hardwari Lal,
R/o House No.45, Gali No.19,
C-Block, Khajuri Khas,
Delhi.
Date of Institution : 21-02-2017
Date of Argument : 20-05-2025
Date of Judgment : 13-06-2025
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of this case are that on 27.10.2016, at about
8:45 p.m., an information was received at PS Khajuri Khas
regarding kidnapping of a boy for ransom. The information was
reduced into writing vide DD No.92B and the same was marked
to SI Manish Tyagi (hereinafter referred to as ‘IO/investigating
officer’). Thereafter, IO alongwith Ct. Lalit went to the spot i.e.
Gali No.16, B-Block, Khajuri Khas, Delhi where complainant
Javed Salmani met him and got his statement recorded. The
complainant Javed Salmani stated that he was residing at House
No.184, Gali No.16, B-Block, Khajuri Khas and was running a
Hair Saloon. His brother namely Danish, aged about 17 years,
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 1 of 59
had left his home at about 11:00 a.m. on 27.10.2016. He called
his brother at about 12:30 p.m. and asked him to come back
home immediately and hand over keys of his room, however, he
did not come back home. Thereafter, he made several calls to
Danish which were not answered. At about 5:00 p.m., the mobile
phone of Danish became switched off. At about 7:15 p.m., he
received phone call from mobile no. of his brother Danish and
some unknown person spoke and said “Danish ko hamne kidnap
kar liya hai aur agar apne bhai ko jinda dekhna chahta hai to raat
12 baje se pahle Rs.50,000/- lekar Wazirabad pool ke pahle 2-3
gadde hai, usme daal de. Agar police ko bataya to Danish ko
maar denge.” He was extended threat of killing Danish in case he
reports the matter to the police. He called at 100 number. He
revealed the description of his brother as height 5’2″, complexion
wheatish, long face, wearing black T-shirt and black lower. On
the basis of above said statement and PCR call, present FIR came
to be registered for the offences punishable u/s 363/ 364-A of
IPC. Thereafter, IO made inquiry from the complainant and other
persons in the locality. A special team of police officials was
constituted to trace the missing boy. At about 11:00 p.m., the
police team went to the place where complainant Javed was
called by the kidnappers. The team waited for arrival of suspect
for considerable time, but nobody came over there. Efforts were
made to search the missing boy Danish, but in vain. On
28.10.2016, at about 6:30 a.m., a PCR call was received that dead
body of a boy, who was kidnapped on the previous night, was
found lying at the corner of Gali No.19, C-Block. IO alongwith
Ct. Lalit reached there where they came to know that dead body
had already been removed to JPC Hospital. Thereafter, IO
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 2 of 59
alongwith Ct. Lalit and other police staff went to JPC Hospital
and collected MLC of victim wherein the doctor concerned had
declared the victim to be ‘brought dead’. Thereafter, section 302
IPC was added. Further investigation of the present case was
conducted by Insp. Om Dutt Vats (hereinafter referred to as
‘second IO / investigating officer’). The dead body was got
preserved at mortuary of GTB Hospital. The spot as well as the
dead body were got inspected from crime team. During
investigation, FSL team was also called at the spot. With the help
of FSL team, blood was detected on the slab as well as stairs
attached with slab of house of accused Varun Soni. Upon
following the trail of blood, they reached at third floor of the
house where they found scrap of wood and stones. Huge blood
was found on wooden scrap as well as on the floor under the
wooden scrap. Thereafter, postmortem of the deceased was got
conducted at GTB Hospital and after postmortem, dead body was
handed over to the relatives for the purpose of postmortem. The
mobile crime team as well as FSL team were called again at the
spot and the spot was got inspected and photographed. The scene
of crime report was collected from Crime Team. Meanwhile, a
secret informer informed that the crime under investigation was
committed by Varun Soni, who was residing in the Ground Floor
of the said house along with his father and who was present in his
house at that time. Thereafter, accused Varun Soni was
interrogated and upon sustained interrogation, he confessed about
commission of kidnapping and murder of deceased Danish.
Accused Varun Soni was arrested. At his instance, the weapon of
offence i.e. Danda and a mobile phone of deceased Danish,
which was used in the commission of crime, were recovered.
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 3 of 59
Thereafter, at the instance of accused Varun Soni, his blood
stained clothes and other clothes were recovered, which were
lying on the mezzanine of various floors of his house. On
05.11.2016, a supplementary statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of
complainant Javed was recorded wherein he stated that accused
Varun Soni was unemployed, used to remain indulged in
gambling/betting activities, and had borrowed certain sum of
money from his brother Danish. Accused Varun Soni was unable
to return the borrowed amount. He further stated that he had
revealed the said fact to SI Manish, however, since accused
Varun Soni had accompanied the IO while searching the
deceased Danish, no suspicion arose upon him. On 7.11.2016,
PC remand of accused Varun Soni was obtained and during
investigation, he revealed the names of two boys namely Anshul
and Kunal alias Raja from whom too he had borrowed certain
sum of money for spending in gambling/ betting activities. On
the same day, physics and biology teams of FSL were called at
the spot and at the instance of accused, certain other exhibits
were collected from the place from where the dead body of
deceased Danish was dropped. Thereafter, statements u/s 161
Cr.P.C. of Anshul and Kunal alias Raja were recorded wherein
they confirmed the claim of accused regarding borrowing of
money from them. The seized exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini
for opinion. After completion of necessary formalities, charge
sheet was filed against accused Varun Soni for offences
punishable u/s 363 / 364-A / 302 of IPC.
COMMITTAL
2. After taking cognizance and compliance of section 207 of
Cr.P.C., the present case was committed to the Courts of
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 4 of 59
Sessions vide order dated 13-02-2017 by Ld. ACMM/NE/KKD.
The same was allocated by the then Ld. District and Sessions
Judge to the Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
CHARGE
3. After hearing the arguments and finding that prima facie
case was made out against the accused for the offence punishable
u/s 363/364A/302 of IPC, charge was framed by ld. Predecessor
against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial. Thereafter, prosecution got examined as many as 19
witnesses.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. PW-1 SI Gayatri Daspa deposed that on 27-10-2016, he
was serving as Nodal Officer, CPCR, PHQ and on that day at
about 20:32:31 hours, an information was received in his office
from mobile no. 901945647, which was recorded in PCR form
Ex. PW1/A. On 28-10-2016 at about 06:08:32, another
information was received in his office from mobile no.
9811030754, which was recorded in PCR form Ex. PW1/B. He
had also issued certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act
regarding aforesaid PCR forms vide Ex. PW1/C.
The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence
counsel despite having given the opportunity.
PW-2 Dr. Priyal Jain, Sr. Demonstrator, Dept. of Forensic
Medicines, UCMS and GTBH, Delhi deposed that on
28/10/2016, he was posted at the aforesaid department and he
had conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Danish, 17
years old male on the request of Inspector Om Dutt of PS Khajuri
Khas. He noticed the following ante-mortem injuries:
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 5 of 59
1. Lacerated wound 2.5 x 0.5 cm x bone deep surrounded
by reddish abrasion of 8 x 6 cm present over right side
forehead and face 1 cm from mid-line extending 1 cm
below to 5 cm above eyebrow;
2. Multiple reddish abrasion present in an area of 6 x 4
cm over forehead in mid-line 1 cm above rout of nose
with size ranging from 3 x 0.8 to 0.8 x 0.4 cm;
3. Reddish abrasion of size 3 x 2 cm present over left side
of forehead, 4 cm from mid-line, 2.5 cm above
eyebrow;
4. Reddish abrasion of size 5 x 2 cm present over left side
of face, 1 cm lateral angle of left eye;
5. Reddish abrasion of size 3 x 2 cm present over nose;
6. Lacerated wound of size of 1.2 x 0.7 cm x bone deep
present over nose with fracture of underline nasal
bone;
7. Reddish abrasion of size 4 x 2 cm present over right
side of face, 4 cm from mid-line, 3 cm below eyebrow;
8. Reddish abrasion of size 2 x 1.5 cm present over right
side of chin, 1 cm from mid-line;
9. Reddish contusion of size 2 x 1 cm present over left
side of lower lip inner aspect;
10. Lacerated wound of size 5 x 0.3cm x bone deep
present over left side of head, 1 cm from mid-line, 6
cm above occipital protuberance;
11. Lacerated wound of size 6 x 0.5 cm x bone deep
present over right side of head, 1 cm from midline, 3
cm above occipital protuberance;
He also conducted internal examination and the findings
were: “Fracture of the skull vault, base of skull, sub-arachanoid
hemorrhage of left cerebral hemisphere, contusion laceration
over right occipital lobe, contusion over bilateral fronto-temporal
lobe.” Rest of the findings are mentioned in postmortem report.
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 6 of 59
He also preserved viscera, clothes, blood on gauze and nail
clippings along with sample seal and same were sealed and
handed over to the police. Time since death was about one day
prior to autopsy. Cause of death in my opinion was “shock as a
result of ante-mortem injury to head produced by blunt force
impact”. He proved his detailed postmortem examination report
as Ex.PW2/A.
To a court question as to any injury out of the above
mentioned injuries was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
to cause death, he replied that injury no. 13, 10 and 11 along with
internal injuries over brain were sufficient to cause death in
ordinary course of nature.
The witness was cross-examined, but nothing material
came in his cross-examination.
PW-3 Inspt. E. S. Yadav deposed that on 28.10.2016, he
was serving as I/C Crime Team, North-East District. On that day
at about 2:00 pm, they received an information from Control
Room. Thereafter, he along with other members of crime team
went to the spot i.e. C-44, Gali No. 19, C-Block, Khajuri Khas,
Delhi where he met IO/ Insptector Om Dutt along with other
staff. He inspected the place of incident from entrance to 3 rd
floor roof top of the said building where he noticed blood stains
at the entrance, on staircases and on the second floor near
staircase in a duchhatti which was constructed in a wall. He also
noticed blood stained cotton and other bedding clothes which
were kept there. On the 3rd floor, he noticed blood stained
bedsheet and dari which were kept in a plastic katta. On the roof
top, he also noticed a blood stained wooden piece, one mobile
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 7 of 59
and one blood stained plastic sheet. After inspecting the scene of
crime, he prepared rough notes and on the basis of those notes,
he prepared crime team report Ex. PW3/A and the same was later
on handed over to the IO. Thereafter, he destroyed the aforesaid
rough notes. Ct. Shri Bhagwan, the photographer and member of
crime team took the photographs of the different angles.
During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he
deposed that he with his team discovered all the aforesaid
articles.
PW-4 HC Shri Bhagwan deposed that on 28-10-2016, he
was serving as photographer in Mobile Crime Team, NE. On
that day at about 2 pm, he along with I/C Crime Team and other
members of Crime Team went to the spot i.e. C-44, Gali no. 19,
C-Block, Khajuri Khas, Delhi, where he took 29 photographs of
the scene of crime from different angles with digital camera at
the instructions of IO, out of them 28 photographs are Ex.
PW1/A-1 to A-28. He also brought certificate u/s 65B of Indian
Evidence Act in this regard vide Ex. PW4/B which was filled by
him in his handwriting. He identified one photograph on record
showing blood stains which was taken by him from the scene of
crime, which is Ex. PW4/A-29.
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel,
but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.
PW5 Dr. Ankit Gupta deposed that on 28-10-2016, he was
working as CMO at JPC Hospital, Shastri Park, Delhi. On that
day, at about 6:45 am, he medically examined Danish s/o Nafees,
aged 17 years old male, brought by HC Gulzar Chand. On
examination, he found that pulse of the patient was not
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 8 of 59
recordable, pupil was fixed and dilated, ECG showing straight
line. On local examination, there was clean lacerated wound
over occipital region (7 x 3 x 1.5 cm), CLW over base of nose
0.5 x 0.5 cm, swelling over right eye, CLW over right forehead 2
x 0.2 cm. The patient was declared ‘brought dead’. The dead
body of deceased was handed over to IO for postmortem
examination. He prepared the MLC no. 5741 vide Ex. PW5/A.
The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence
counsel despite having given the opportunity.
PW6 ASI Rajesh deposed that on 27-10-2016, he was
posted as HC at PS Khajuri Khas and performing his duty as DO
from 4 pm to 12 midnight. He proved the factum of registration
of present FIR as Ex. PW6/A; endorsement made by him on the
rukka vide Ex. PW6/B and issuance of certificate u/s 65B of
Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW6/C.
The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence
counsel despite having given the opportunity.
PW-7 Lokesh deposed that in the month of October 2016,
one day between 5:00-6:00 am, he had seen from his balcony that
a person was lying in their gali. However, he did not remember
the exact date. He thought that someone was lying there after
taking liquor. At about 6:00 am, he came down in the gali.
Public persons had also gathered there. He saw that there was
blood oozing out from head of the said person. He did not know
the said person. However, bystanders told him that he was
working in a shop in the neighbourhood and told his name as
Danish. They also told him that the person was missing for the
last two days. He made a call to 100 number from his mobile no.
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 9 of 59
9811030754. PCR van came there. Ambulance also came there
after one hour and took the said person to the hospital. As he
could see, he was dead. He knew the accused present in the court
as Varun Soni. He was also residing in the house adjacent to his
house. The public persons also told him that Danish had been
kidnapped and ransom of Rs. 50,000/- was demanded by the
kidnappers for releasing him.
To a leading question put up by Ld. Addl. PP regarding
date of incident, he could not say if he had seen the dead body in
the morning of 28.10.2016.
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel,
but nothing material came out in his cross-examination.
PW8 Javed Salmani deposed that deceased Danish was his
younger brother. On 27th in the year of 2016, but he did not
remember the month, his brother Danish was present with him at
their shop of hair saloon. At about 11:30 am, accused Varun Soni
came to their shop and took his brother Danish with him. At that
time, Danish was carrying a mobile phone but he did not
recollect his mobile phone number.
On 27-10-2016, his brother Danish had left the house at
about 11:00 am. After that, he had left his house to his barber
shop. At about 12:30 pm, he made phone call to his brother
Danish and asked him to come and hand over the key and also it
was his school time. Danish told him that he would come within
5 minutes. However, Danish did not come back for long. He
made various calls to Danish after about 10-15 minutes but he
did not pick up the phone and it was switched off. He tried
making calls to him till 5:00 pm but it was continuously found to
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 10 of 59
be switched off. At about 7:15 pm, he received a phone call from
the mobile phone of Danish and at that time, some unknown
person was making call. The caller told him that he had
kidnapped his brother Danish and he had given beatings to him.
The caller demanded Rs. 50,000/- for releasing Danish. The
caller instructed him to drop the money at 12:00 midnight in 2-3
digs which were little ahead of Wazirabad flyover. The caller
threatened him that if he would not pay money within time, he
would kill his brother Danish.
Thereafter, he made call to the police at 100 number.
Police came there and took him to police station. Police made
inquiries from him. He told them everything. Police recorded his
statement in the PS vide Ex. PW8/A. After that, police officials
took him to the place told by the caller where he along with
police officials waited for long. However, nobody came there.
Thereafter, they came back to the PS. In the PS, police officials
asked him if he had suspicion on anyone. However, he was
perplexed and worried, he could not tell anything. Police asked
him to go back to his house and assured him that nothing would
happen to his brother Danish. He came back to his home. On the
next morning, at about 6:00 am, he along with other members of
his family went in search of Danish in their area. He reached
Gali No.19, C-Block and there was lot of noise in the gali and
crowd also gathered there. When he reached there, he found that
dead body of his brother had already been taken by PCR van. His
father was already there who told him this fact. He also reached
hospital at Zero Pushta near Shastri Park but he did not
remember the name of the hospital. He saw body of his brother
Danish. There was lot of blood on his body and it appeared that
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 11 of 59
he was dead. However, the doctors after some time, referred him
to GTB hospital. He again said that doctor had declared Danish
dead and sent the dead body to GTB hospital. He also reached
the said hospital.
At the GTB hospital, he identified the dead body of his
brother Danish vide memo Ex.PW8/B. Thereafter, postmortem
was conducted. After postmortem, dead body of Danish was
handed over to them. He had also told to the police at GTB
hospital that one Varun Soni had taken money from his brother
Danish but he did not know the amount. He told this to the police
as he developed suspicion upon Varun Soni. Varun Soni was his
neighbour. He correctly identified the accused in the court.
They performed last rites of Danish at their village. On the
next day, they came to Delhi. He met the police officials and
they told that they had arrested Varun Soni.
He did not remember the mobile number of his brother
Danish but he had stored the same in his mobile phone. Witness
after seeing his mobile phone told the mobile number of Danish
as 7532898289. He did not know make of mobile phone of his
brother Danish. However, it was big phone of black colour.
He identified the clothes of his brother Danish i.e. one
white colour blood stained baniyan as Ex. P-1; one pant of brown
colour having belt in the loops as Ex. P-2; one T-shirt of blue
colour having dots and blood stains as Ex. P-3; one underwear of
dark blue colour as Ex. P-4 and cloth of the pullanda having
broken and intact seal of JPC HOSPITAL and particulars of the
present FIR and PM report no. 1573/16 dt. 28.10.2016 as Ex.
P-5.
He further deposed that police had recorded his statement
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 12 of 59
in this case twice and his first statement was recorded on
27.10.2016 at his house. His second statement was recorded by
the police on 05.11.2016 at the PS. He deposed that earlier
during his examination-in-chief dated 23.02.2018, he had
inadvertently mentioned that his first statement Ex. PW8/A was
recorded in the PS. He identified the receipt of dead body as Ex.
PW12/A bearing signature of his father Nafees at point B.
During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he
deposed that the barber shop in which he was working is situated
at Pakki Khajuri Main Market, B-Block, Gali No.16. The
distance between my shop and house is about 15-20 steps. He
usually opens his shop at about 7:00/8:00 am. My brother Danish
(since deceased) was studying in school but he did not remember
the name of the school. He was studying in 10th class. He used to
come to my shop and sometimes share my work. He denied that
accused Varun never came to his shop to call Danish. He also
denied that his statement on 27.10.2016 was recorded in the PS.
He admitted that in his statement Ex.PWB/A, he had not stated
that accused Varun had come to my shop to call Danish. He
deposed that 3-4 police officials came to his shop after calling at
100 number. He did not exactly remember the number of police
officials but there were 10-12 police officials approximately had
gone to Wazirabad bridge. He recollected only one name of
police official as Manish. All police officials were in civil dress
at the time of going to Wazirabad bridge. Some police officials
had gone in car and some on motorcycles. He had gone with
police officials in the car. All police officials had taken different
positions. He did not recollect name of police official who was
standing near him. He was standing near a pit at the said spot.
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 13 of 59
PW-9 SI Mukesh Chauhan deposed that on 28-10-2016, he
was posted as I/C Mobile Crime Team, PS Seema Puri. On that
day, on receipt of information, he along with HC Sube Singh,
photographer and ASI Akshay Kumar, finger print expert
reached at the spot i.e. in front of H. No. C-44, Gali no. 19,
Khajuri Khas, where he met IO/ Inspector Om Dutt with his staff.
At the instructions of IO, he inspected the scene of crime and
prepared crime team report Ex. PW9/A.
The witness was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel,
but nothing material came in his cross-examination.
PW-10 HC Sube Singh deposed that on 28-10-2016, he
was posted as photographer in Mobile Crime Team, NE, PS
Seemapuri. On that day, on receipt of information, he
accompanied I/C Crime Team SI Mukesh Chauhan to the spot
i.e. in front of H. No. C-44, Gali no. 19, Khajuri Khas where, he
met local police of PS Khajuri Khas. At the instructions of
Inspector, he took photographs of Gali no. 19 where a ring and
blood was lying. Thereafter, they went to GTB hospital mortuary
where he took 54 photographs of dead body, which are Ex.
PW10/A to A-54. He also issued certificate u/s 65B of Indian
Evidence Act vide Ex. PW10/B.
The witness was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel,
but nothing material came in his cross-examination.
PW-11 Ct. Sanjay Kumar deposed that on the intervening
night of 27/28-10-2016, he was performing his duty as DD writer
at PS since 8 pm to 8 am. At about 8:45 pm, B-64 Operator
came to him and informed him about kidnapping of brother of
caller and demand of ransom of Rs. 50,000/-. He recorded DD
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 14 of 59
no. 92B to this effect vide Ex. PW11/A. At about 6:25 am of 28-
10-2016, B-50 Operator telephonically informed him about a boy
lying dead at H. No. 44, Gali no. 19, C-Block, Khajuri Khas
regarding which kidnapping call was made in the night. He
recorded DD no. 21B to this effect vide Ex. PW11/B and its
contents were telephonically told to SI Manish.
The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence
counsel despite having given the opportunity.
PW-12 HC Lalit Kumar deposed that on 27-10-2016, he
was posted as constable at PS Khajuri Khas. in the intervening
night of 27/28.10.2016, he was on emergency duty. At about
8:45 pm, on receipt of DD No. 92B regarding kidnapping of a
boy and demand of ransom by SI Manish, he had accompanied
him near Gali No.19. He again said, he did not remember the
exact gali number.
He further deposed that on 27.10.2016 at about 8:45 pm,
on receipt of DD No. 92B by Sl Manish, he had accompanied
him to B-Block, Gali NO. 16, Khajuri Khas where complainant
Javed met them there. He got recorded his statement to SI
Manish about kidnapping of his brother Danish, and about
ransom call received by him. On his statement, SI Manish had
prepared rukka and gave him for registration of the case. He took
rukka to the PS and handed over the same to DO for registration
of the FIR. After some time, SI Manish alongwith complainant
had also come at the PS. He gave copy of FIR and original rukka
to SI Manish. After that, SI Manish prepared a team for arrest of
the kidnappers. Thereafter, they reached at the place as disclosed
by the complainant Javed i.e. the place prior to Wazirabad bridge
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 15 of 59
where they waited for the kidnappers but nobody came there.
After that, they came back from there and made efforts to find
out the kidnapped boy Danish but he could not be found.
Thereafter, complainant was relieved and they came back to the
PS.
On the next morning at about 6:30 am, SI Manish
telephonically called him and told that information had been
received regarding dead body of the boy who was kidnapped
lying in the corner of Gali No. 19, C-Block, Khajuri Khas. After
that, he accompanied SI Manish and Inspector Om Dutt to the
aforesaid place. Again said, Inspector Om Dutt did not
accompany them. When they reached there, they came to know
that PCR had taken the dead body of the said boy to JPC
Hospital. After some time, Inspector Om Dutt had also arrived
there alongwith other police staff. Inspector Om Dutt sent him
and SI Manish to JPC hospital. In the hospital, SI Manish
collected MLC of Danish on which doctor had declared him as
brought dead. Dead body was shifted to the mortuary of GTB
hospital by them. SI Manish informed Inspector Om Dutt about
the same and after some time, Inspector Om Dutt came to GTB
hospital along with the crime team. Crime team photographer
had taken photographs of the dead body. Inspector Om Dutt had
prepared inquest papers and handed over the same to SI Manish
for getting conducted postmortem on the body of deceased. After
that, Inspector Om Dutt left from there to the spot. SI Manish had
got conducted postmortem on the body of deceased. After
postmortem, doctor had handed over sealed viscera, blood in
gauze of deceased, sealed envelope containing postmortem report
and sample seal and sample seal of blood in gauze. The dead
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 16 of 59
body was handed over to the father of deceased namely Nafees.
He had signed the memo regarding handing over the dead body
vide memo Ex.PW12/A.
After postmortem, SI Manish had informed about the same
to Inspector Om Dutt. After some time, Inspector Om Dutt again
reached GTB hospital. On his arrival, he handed over the
aforesaid exhibits to Inspector Om Dutt who took the same into
possession vide separate seizure memos. Seizure memo of
viscera is Ex.PW12/B, seizure memo of blood in gauze is
Ex.PW12/C, seizure memo of PM report is Ex.PW12/D and
seizure memo of sample seal is Ex.PW12/E. After that, he along
with SI Manish and Inspector Om Dutt left from there and
reached the spot where he came to know that accused was
already arrested by the IO and that IO had lifted exhibits from the
spot. From the spot, they came to the PS where the case property
was deposited in the malkhana and accused Varun was put into
the lock up. My statement was also recorded by the IO. He
correctly identified the accused in the court.
During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he
deposed that 2-3 police officials were in civil dress and others
were in uniform.
PW-13 Ct. Hawa Singh deposed that on 28.10.2016, he
was posted as constable at PS Khajuri Khas. Delhi. On that day,
when he was present in his beat, he had come to know that a dead
body was found in the corner of Gali No.19, C-Block, Khajuri
Khas. On receipt of this information, he had reached there. SI
Manish along with Ct. Lalit were already present there. He came
to know that the dead body had been taken to hospital by the
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 17 of 59
PCR. In the meanwhile, Inspector Om Dutt had also come there.
He sent SI Manish and Ct. Lalit to JPC Hospital. Crime team had
also arrived there who had inspected the scene of crime. After
leaving him there for safety of the spot, Inspector Om Dutt left
from there to hospital alongwith crime team. After some time.
Inspector Om Dutt had come back to the spot. FSL team had also
arrived there and inspected the scene of crime. During inspection
by the FSL team, it was observed that blood was lying on
stair/slab of the adjoining house. From the stairs of that house,
they had climbed on the 4th floor where heap of woods including
one piece of large wood and some clothes. Some concrete were
also lying. Blood was lying beneath the heap of woods. Again
said, he did not know whether the clothes were lying there or not.
After some time, SI Manish had made a phone call to Inspector
Om Dutt. At which, Inspector Om Dutt left for the mortuary of
GTB hospital. After that Inspector Om Dutt along with SI
Manish and Ct. Lalit had again come at the spot. After that,
Inspector Om Dutt had made inquiries from one Varun Soni who
was friend of Danish. Initially, he did not disclose anything but
on detailed interrogation, he disclosed about the incident and
confessed his guilt. He correctly identified accused Varun Soni
in the court. Accused had pointed out the place of occurrence
vide pointing out memo Ex. PW13/A. One mobile phone was
also lying near the concrete which accused told that this mobile
phone belonged to Danish. IO/Inspector Om Dutt prepared
pullanda of the said mobile phone after sealing the same with the
seal of OM and same was taken into possession vide memo Ex.
PW13/B. After that, accused had got recovered the offending
danda used by him. He also got recovered his clothes and
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 18 of 59
chappals which he was wearing at the time of incident and the
blood stained clothes used by the accused in concealing the dead
body of the deceased. IO prepared the separate pullandas of the
aforesaid articles and were sealed with the seal of OM. Same
were taken into possession vide separate seizure memos. Seizure
memo of weapon i.e. danda is Ex. PW13/C, the seizure memo of
clothes of the accused is Ex. PW13/D and seizure memo of
chappals of the accused is Ex. PW13/E and seizure memo of
blood stained clothes is Ex. PW13/F.
At the time, accused Varun Soni was interrogated by the
IO and after interrogation, accused was arrested by the IO in the
present case vide memo Ex. PW13/G. His personal search was
also conducted vide memo Ex. PW13/H. Accused has also got
recorded piece of door bearing green and red colour fiber sheet.
There were blood stains on the fiber sheet. The same was kept by
the IO in a plastic katta and after sealing the same with the seal
of OM, it was taken into possession by the IO vide seizure memo
Ex. PW13/l. At that time, accused had also got recovered one
plastic katta containing old clothes used for odhne-bichane ke
liya from the duchhatti of the staircase on the 3rd floor opposite
entry gate. IO sealed those clothes in the said plastic katta. On
the katta ‘SHRIRAM Cement’ was printed with blue colour and
‘NIRMAN’ was printed with red colour. The katta containing
clothes was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/J.
The clothes which were taken into possession by the IO vide
seizure memo Ex.PW13/F were got recovered by the IO from the
duchhatti of staircase on the 2nd floor in front of the entry gate. At
the time of recovery, the clothes were lying in the light blue
colour plastic basket. The chappals which were got recovered by
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 19 of 59
the accused were of blue colour on which word ‘Bahamas’ was
printed. The offending danda which was got recovered by the
accused vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/C was of square shape. It
was 32.5 inch in length and 3 inch wide. The clothes which were
got recovered by the accused from the duchhatti of staircase of 1st
floor was one light blue colour half sleeves T-shirt and one jeans
of blue colour having sticker of Buff Jeans and one gray colour
nikkar. There were blood stains on T-shirt and jeans pant which
were found kept in a red colour polythene.
At the time, when FSL team had inspected the scene of
crime, the FSL team had lifted concrete material having blood
stains and stains lifted on gauge from near the place where dead
body was stated to be lying. Blood stains from the stair of H. No.
C-45, blood stains from the ramp of H. No. C-45, stains from the
top roof of the said house, pieces of pipe having brown colour
stains, stains from the bricks lying on the top most roof of the
house and blood stains lifted from wooden plank with fiber sheet
and stone pieces having brown stains from the top most roof. All
these aforesaid exhibits were handed over by the FSL team to the
IO. IO had kept all the aforesaid exhibits in separate envelopes
and stapled the same. Thereafter, all the envelopes were kept in a
transparent box and after closing the same with the doctor tape, it
was sealed with the seal of OM and taken into possession by the
IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW13/K. After that, they had come at
PS Khajuri Khas where his statement was also recorded by the
IO.
He identified the case property i.e. one cubical wooden
piece having some iron nails on both ends as Ex. P-6 as the same
which was got recovered by the accused from the corner of roof
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 20 of 59
of the top floor; one T-shirt of sky blue and grey colour, one
short (nikkar) of grey colour and one jeans ants of blue colour.
(There are cut marks on all the clothes and appears to haveen
made by the FSL for examination) as Ex. P-7, Ex. P-8 and Ex. P9
as the same which were got recovered by the accused; one piece
of fiber sheet having two pieces of wood on both sides attached
to it (appears to be piece of wooden door) as well as one piece
wooden ply having blood stains as Ex. P-10 (colly) which were
got recovered by the accused; one bedsheet of printed design Ex.
P-11, one dari Ex. P-12 and one quilt/gadda cover Ex. P-13.
(There are cut marks on all these articles and appears to have
been made by the FSL for examination) which were got
recovered by the accused; one dirty dari Ex. P-14, one dirty dari
in torn condition Ex. P-15, four cloth pieces in dirty condition
alongwith one plastic katta on which words ‘Shriram Cement in
blue colour and ‘Nirman’ in red colour are printed as Ex. P-16
(colly.). (All these articles were having cut marks which appear
to have been made by the FSL on examination), there were blood
stains on the wooden door piece. which were got recovered by
the accused.
It was pointed out on behalf of State that mobile phone,
pair of slippers (chappals) and certain blood stained soil,
concrete, etc. lifted under instructions and supervision of FSL
team on 28.10.2013, were also supposed to be deposited in
malkhana. However, MCH(M) have informed that said exhibits
were never deposited in the malkhana at any point of time by the
concerned IO.
During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he
deposed that front side of the said house was not even
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 21 of 59
whitewashed and bricks structure was visible from outside. The
length of recovered wooden danda was about 32 inch and its
thickness was about 3 inch or so. After seeing seizure memo
Ex.PW13/J regarding seizure of blood stained plastic katta
containing clothes, he affirmed that the said articles are
mentioned to have been recovered from 1st floor in the said
seizure memo but he has clarified that the word “1 st” has been
wrongly mentioned due to inadvertence and the same were
actually recovered from 3rd floor as already deposed by him
during his chief-examination. He further deposed that he could
not identify the handwriting appearing on Ex.PW13/J and same
is his reply with regard to other relevant memos which were
signed by him. He denied the suggestion that he is no able to
identify the handwriting of the said seizure memos as same were
not prepared in his presence of that he had subsequently signed
all those relevant memos at the instance of IO. He also stated that
several public persons had gathered outside the house on
28.10.2016 when the police had reached there and were carrying
out the relevant proceedings. IO had requested few of them to
join the proceedings but none agreed and they left after
expressing their personal difficulties before the IO. He affirmed
that father of accused was running jewelery shop at that time.
PW14 Ms. Poonam Sharma, Assistant Director (Biology
Division), FSL, Rohini, Delhi deposed that on 28.10.2016, on the
request of SHO PS Khajuri Khas in connection with case FIR
No. 763/16 dt. 25.10.2016 and as per directions of Director, FSL,
Rohini, she along with her team members including Sh Lokesh
Kumar, Scientific Assistant (Biology) and Sh. Praveen Rana, Lat
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 22 of 59
Attendant (Biology) had reached the place near H. No. 44, Gali
No.19, C-Block, Khajuri Khas, Delhi. After reaching there, they
had inspected the scene of crime for the presence of Biological
clue material. From that place, concrete material having brown
stains where dead body was stated to be lying were lifted and
blood stains were also lifted on gauze from that place and handed
over to the police. After that, they had entered in the nearby H.
No. C-45, Gali No.19, from where they lifted various exhibits
and handed over to the police as mentioned in her report.
On 07.11.2016, on the request of SHO and as per
directions of the Director, FSL, they had again visited at H. No.
C-45, Gali No.19, C-Block, Khajuri Khas. This time, they had
inspected the roof of the said house. At that time, some brown
stains were lifted from one boundary wall of terrace and handed
over to the police. Some brown stains were also lifted from
another boundary wall of the terrace and handed over to the
police. All the exhibits were handed over to the police for
onward transmission for examination. She had also prepared her
detailed report regarding lifting of exhibits by her from the
aforesaid places vide Ex.PW14/A.
The witness was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel,
but nothing material came in his cross-examination.
PW-15 Sh. Naresh Kumar, Sr. Scientific Officer (Biology)
FSL, Rohini deposed that on 09.01.2017, seven sealed parcel
were received in the office of FSL, Rohini, Delhi in the present
case from SHO PS Khajuri Khas. Same were marked to him for
examination. Seals on the parcels were tallied with the specimen
seals and found intact. Parcels were opened and exhibits were
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 23 of 59
taken out which were marked as Ex. E-1, E-2a, E-2b, E-2c, E-4a,
E-4b, E-4c, E-5a to E-51, E-6, E-6b and E-7a to E-7d.
On biological examination, blood was detected on all the
exhibits except E-2b, E-4b, E-4c and E-7d.
On DNA examination, Ex. E-1 (cubical wooden piece).
E-2a(T-shirt of accused), E-2c (jeans pant), E-3 (fiber sheet),
E-4a (gadda/quilt cover), E-5a (cloth piece), E-5b (cloth piece),
E-5c (cloth piece) E-Sd (cloth piece), E-Ga (left hand nail
clippings). E-6b (right hand nail clippings), E-7a (baniyan), E-7c
(T-shirt) were subjected to DNA isolation. DNA was isolated
from Ex. E-1, E-2a. E-2c, E-6a and E-6b.
On the basis of DNA profiling, it was concluded that DNA
profile of Ex. E-6a and E-6b were found to be matching with the
DNA profile of Ex. E-1, E-2a and E-2c. After examination,
parcels were resealed with the seal of NK FSL DELHI. He had
also prepared his detailed report including Allelic Data running
into four pages vide Ex PW15/A.
He identified the case properties examined by him i.e. one
cubical wooden piece having some iron nails on both ends as Ex.
P-6; one T-shirt of sky blue and gray colour as Ex. P7, one short
(nikkar) of grey colour as Ex. P8 and one jeans pants of blue
colour as Ex. P9. He also identified one piece of fiber sheet
having two pieces of wood on both sides attached to it as well as
one piece wooden ply as Ex. P10; one bedsheet of printed design
as Ex. P11, one dari as Ex. P12; one quilt/gadda cover as Ex.
P13; one dirty dari as Ex. P-14, one dirty dari in torn condition as
Ex. P-15, four cloth pieces in dirty condition alongwith one
plastic katta on which words ‘Shriram Cement in blue colour and
‘Nirman’ in red colour are printed as Ex. P-16; left hand nail
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 24 of 59
clippings (02) kept in a paper as Ex. P17; right hand nail
clippings (02) kept in a paper as Ex. P18; Baniyan as Ex. P-1,
pant of brown colour with belt as Ex. P-2, blue colour T-shirt as
Ex. P-3 and underwear as Ex. P-4.
The witness was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel,
but nothing material came in his cross-examination.
PW-16 Sh. V. Lakshmi Narasimhan, Asstt. Director
(Physics), FSL, Rohini, Delhi deposed that one request in writing
Ex. PW16/B was made by Inspector Om Dutt Vats from PS
Khajuri Khas to Director, FSL, Rohini, Delhi in connection with
the present case and accordingly, a team of FSL experts was
constituted as per directions of the Director, FSL including
himself, Ms. Poonam Sharma, AD (Biology) and other team
members.
On 07.11.2016, all the team members visited the scene of
crime i.e. H. No. 45, Gali No. 19, C-Block, Khajuri Khas, Delhi
where it was stated that a person’s dead body was found at the
corner of the street. The team members had inspected the scene
of crime and made observations in view of the request of the the
IO. He had prepared his detailed report vide Ex. PW16/A.
During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he
affirmed that in the rough notes, the address of scene of crime is
mentioned as H.No. 44, Gali No.19, C-Block, Khajuri Khas,
Delhi and H. No. 45 has been written thereafter. He voluntarily
stated that in the diagram, H. No. 45 is mentioned.
PW-17 SI Manish Tyagi was the first IO of thr present
case. He deposed that on 27.10.2016, he was posted in PS
Khajuri Khas and was on night emergency duty from 8:00 pm of
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 25 of 59
27.10.2016 till 8:00 am of 28.10.2016. On 27.10.2016, at about
8:45 pm, DD No. 92B regarding kidnapping for ransom of one
boy recorded in PS Khajuri Khas, was handed over to him for
necessary action. Accordingly, he along with Ct. Lalit went to B-
Block, Gali No.16, Khajuri Khas, where complainant namely
Javed met them. He made necessary enquiries from him and had
recorded his statement Ex.PW8/A. On the basis of said statement
Ex.PW8/A, he prepared rukka Ex. PW17/A and got the FIR No.
763/16 u/s. 363/364-A IPC registered at PS Khajun Khas through
Ct. Lalit. The investigation of the case was marked to him. He
along with few public persons including complainant Javed had
gone to PS and discussed the matter with SHO concerned.
During enquiry, complainant Javed had disclosed that he
had received ransom call from the kidnappers and they had called
Javed near Pul which was under construction in front of Sonia
Vihar Water Treatment Plant situated at Wazirabad. Accordingly,
team consisting of PW17, special staff, Javed and concerned
SHO was constituted. On the same day i.e. 27.10.2016 at about
11:00 pm, they all had gone to the said place where Javed was
called by the kidnappers. They waited at the said place for
arrival of suspect for considerable time but none came over there.
Accordingly, they returned back to PS. They kept on making
relevant enquiries from Javed and his family members during the
intervening night of 27/28.10.2016 and also made efforts to
search the kidnapped boy whose name was revealed as Danish, in
the area of PS Khajuri Khas but in vain. During further enquires
made from Javed, he had disclosed that Danish had lent a sum of
Rs. 50,000/- to his friend Varun Soni whose house was in C-
Block which was near to the barber shop being run by Danish in
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 26 of 59
B-Block area. Javed had also revealed that said Varun Soni had
accompanied him to PS Khajuri Khas and also that Varun Soni
was with them when they had made efforts to search for Danish
in the area of PS Khajuri Khas during the intervening night.
Accused Varun Soni had also been arrested in the case by
Inspector Om Dutt Vats in PS Khajun Khas during the said
intervening night of 27.10.2016 vide arrest memo.
On 28.10.2016 at about 6:30 am, PCR call was received
that dead body of boy who was kidnapped on the previous night,
was found lying at the corner of Gali No. 19, C-Block.
Accordingly, he along with Ct. Lalit went there, where it was
revealed that PCR van had already removed dead body to JPC
Hospital. In the meantime, Inspector Om Dutt Vats alongwith
local staff also reached there. On his instructions, he along with
Ct. Lalit went to JPC hospital where victim had already been
declared brought dead on his MLC by the concerned doctor.
Since JPC hospital did not have facility of mortuary, they had
shifted the dead body to GTB hospital, where he got the dead
body preserved in the mortuary of said hospital by making
written request in this regard. Inspector Om Dutt alongwith
photographer of mobile crime team also reached GTB hospital
and the photographs of dead body were got taken through said
photographer. Inspector Om Dutt had prepared relevant
documents concerning inquest proceedings and handed over the
same to him with instruction to get the postmortem conducted on
the dead body of deceased. He left the hospital accordingly.
Thereafter, he got the postmortem conducted on 28.10.2016
itself. Inspector Om Dutt was informed by him accordingly and
he also reached GTB hospital. Dead body was handed over by
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 27 of 59
him to family members of the deceased. Relevant exhibits i.e.
Viscera, Blood on gauze, clothes of deceased, etc. and same were
seized by Insp. Om Dutt Vats by preparing relevant seizure
memo in that regard. Thereafter, he along with Insp. Om Dutt
Vats and Ct. Lalit had visited the place of recovery of dead body
i.e. corner of Gali No. 19, C-Block where FSL team had already
arrived. In his presence. FSL team had conducted inspection of
the said place and Insp. Om Dutt Vats had lifted the relevant
exhibits under the supervision and as per directions of FSL team
seized those exhibits vide relevant memos prepared in this
regard. His statement was recorded by the IO in this regard.
He had again joined investigation of this case on
07.11.2016 when accused Varun Soni was in police remand. On
that day, accused Varun Soni was interrogated by Insp. Om Dutt
Vats and his supplementary disclosure statement Ex. PW17/B
was recorded by him.
During his supplementary disclosure statement, accused
Varun Soni named two persons i.e. Anshul and Kunal, from
whom he had borrowed money. IO/ Inspector Om Dutt Vats
made enquiries from Anshul and Kunal in his presence.
During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he
deposed that he could not tell the names and number of FSL team
members who had visited the spot. He remained at that place for
about 5-10 minutes only at that time. Statement of complainant
Javed dated 27.10.2016 already Ex.PW8/A is in his handwriting.
He is not sure if the seizure memos Ex.PW13/B, Ex.PW13/E,
Ex.PW13/D, Ex.PW13/C, Ex.PW13/F, Ex.PW13/I, Ex.PW13/J
and Ex.PW13/K are in his handwriting or not. He had signed
arrest memo Ex.PW13/G in police station at about 3:30 / 3:45
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 28 of 59
p.m. He could not admit or deny the suggestion that Ex.PW13/B,
Ex.PW13/E, Ex.PW13/D, Ex.PW13/C, Ex.PW13/F, Ex.PW13/I,
Ex.PW13/J and Ex.PW13/K are in his handwriting.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of
accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein
incriminating facts were put to the accused, which were denied
by him. He stated that he is innocent. He was not present at the
alleged spot on the alleged date and time. He was present at his
shop situated at C-45, Ground Floor, main Market Road, Khajuri
Khas, Delhi. He never met with deceased Danish during his
lifetime. Nothing was recovered from his house at his instance.
He has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police.
He did not opt to lead defence evidence.
6. On 22.03.2025, a supplementary charge sheet was filed to
place on record call details of mobile phone of deceased and his
brother, which were received on the official email ID of SHO
concerned, pursuant to the court notice issued by the Court to the
SHO concerned as to whether any reply to the application dated
9.1.2017 addressed to the network service provider through the
office of DCP, North-East has been received or not. Thereafter,
PW-18 Insp. Rakesh Yadav was examined.
PW-18 Insp. Rakesh Yadav, deposed that on 19.03.2025,
he had forwarded supplementary chargesheet in respect of CDR
of mobile no. 7532898289, 8910919094 & 9019456472 for the
period of 27.10.2016 to 28.10.2016. The formal request to
provide the CDR location and CAF of said mobile no. was sent
to the office of DCP NE/Delhi vide dispatch no. 04 dt.
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 29 of 59
09.01.2017 from Ps Khajuri Khas under signature of Insp. Om
Dutt, ATO Khajuri Khas as per record in present matter.
He had examined the record in respect of said mobile
numbers and found that for mobile no. 9019456472, one email
was received on 29.10.2016 at about 01:06 PM, on email ID of
SHO PS Khajuri Khas i.e. “[email protected]” from the
email ID of DCP office, North East i.e. “dcp.ne@delhipolice.
gov.in”. One file namely CDR 7867 is Re.I Manish DD No.92B
Kkhas171896 (853.8KB) was attached therewith and the print
copy thereof is Ex. PW-18/A. The record of the same was
produced by opening said email “[email protected]”
directly connected through internet. For mobile no. 7532898289,
one email was received on 28.10.2016 at about 04:43 PM, on
email ID of SHO PS Khajuri Khas i.e. “sho-khajurikhas-
[email protected]” from the email ID of DCP office, North East i.e.
“[email protected]“. One file namely CDR 7866 CD No
92B Kkhas (58.4KB) was attached therewith and the print copy
thereof is Ex. PW-18/B (OSR). The record of the same was
produced by opening said email “[email protected]”
directly connected through internet.
For mobile no. 8910919094, one email was received on
28.10.2016 at about 04:39 PM, on email ID of SHO PS Khajuri
Khas i.e. “[email protected]” from the email ID of DCP
office, North East i.e. “[email protected]“. One file
namely CDR 7867 Id…I Manish DD No 92B Kkhas (50.1KB)
was attached therewith and print copy thereof is Ex. PW-18/C
(OSR). The record of the same was produced by opening said
email “[email protected]” directly connected through
internet.
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 30 of 59
Mobile no. 7532898289, was registered in the name of
Nafees Ahmad S/o Rafiq Ahmad, R/o 1339, Block E, Jahangir
Puri, Delhi-110036. The SIM was of prepaid charge. The date of
activation was 21.09.2015 at 12:00 AM as per record received on
said email i.e. “[email protected]” from email ID
“[email protected]“, which was further received from
email “[email protected]” on 28.10.2016 at 10:51
AM. The said record was sent to email of SHO PS Khajuri Khas
in file no. 917532898289.xls(14.5KB), copy of the print of the
relevant page of the file is Ex. PW18/D. The record of the same
was produced by opening the said email “sho-khajurikhas-
[email protected]” directly connected through internet.
One Pendrive containing all the exhibited documents with
complete data in digital form (copied from downloaded file from
the said email) was produced by the witness and the same was
exhibited as Ex. PW18/E (colly). The email of SHO PS Khajuri
Khas was opened on laptop brought by the witness. PW-18
further stated that at that time, the said record was used in the
investigation and kept confidential and the same was produced as
per direction of the court.
The witness was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel,
but nothing material came in his cross-examination.
7. Supplementary statement of accused Varun Soni was
recorded u/S 313 Cr.P.C. wherein record brought by PW-18 was
put to the accused, to which, he replied by saying “I have no
personal knowledge, it is a matter of record.”
8. On application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. moved by Ld. Addl. P.P.
for State, which was allowed vide order dated 17.04.2025,
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 31 of 59
PW-19 Sh. Kashif Ahmad Alvi was examined.
PW-19 Sh. Kashif Ahmed Alvi, Jr. Judicial Assistant,
Record Room, NE/ KKD, Delhi brought the summoned record in
connection with FIR no. 159/19, PS Khajuri Khas, which was
kept in Record Room vide Goshwara no. 35/23. The copies of
ordersheet, final report, copy of FIR, order of Special Judge/ ASJ
dated 22-02-2019, seizure memo and store room register
considering 31 pages are Ex. PW19/A.
The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence
counsel despite having given the opportunity.
9. Supplementary statement of accused Varun Soni was
recorded u/S 313 Cr.P.C. wherein record brought by PW-19 was
put to the accused, to which, he replied by saying “I am not
aware.”
FINAL ARGUMENTS
10. This court has heard the arguments and perused the record.
The Ld. Addl. PP for the State submits that the testimonies
of all the prosecution witnesses is sufficient to bring home the
guilt of accused for the offences punishable u/s 363/364A/302 of
IPC beyond reasonable doubts. There is no major discrepancy or
contradiction in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. PW-8
was the ‘last seen’ theory witness got examined by the
prosecution. In his examination-in-chief dated 31.10.2017, he has
categorically deposed that on the date of incident, his brother
Danish was with him at his shop of hair saloon. At about 11:30
a.m., accused Varun Soni came to his shop and took his brother
Danish with him. Further, PW-8 proved that he was the recipient
of ransom call received by him from the mobile phone of
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 32 of 59
deceased Danish on 27.10.2016 at about 7:15 p.m. Further,
certain recoveries of incriminating articles have been effected at
the instance of accused after his arrest i.e. mobile phone of
deceased (seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/B); weapon of
offence i.e. danda (seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/C); blood
stained clothes worn by the accused at the time of commission of
offence (seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/D); chappal of
accused (seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/E); certain blood
stained clothes for wrapping and bedding (seized vide seizure
memo Ex.PW13/F); blood stained piece of door bearing green
and red colour fiber sheet (seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/I)
and one plastic katta containing old clothes for wrapping and
bedding (seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/J). As per DNA
profiling report Ex.PW15/A, the blood on the clothes of accused
i.e. T-shirt and Jeans (seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/D)
and weapon of offence i.e. danda (seized vide seizure memo
Ex.PW13/C), were found to be matching with DNA profile
generated from nail clipping of deceased (seized vide seizure
memo Ex.PW12/B). It is further submitted that CDRs of mobile
phone of accused and deceased and that of PW-8 Javed Salmani
could not be produced. However, PW-18 Insp. Rakesh Yadav
proved the fact that during investigation of the present case,
certain emails have been received by SHO, P.S. Khajuri Khas on
his official email ID from the official email ID of DCP, North-
East, which were procured from the email received from the
network service provider. The record of mobile nos.
7532898289, 8910919094 & 9019456472 was exhibited as
Ex.PW18/A to Ex.PW18/D. The record Ex.PW18/A to
Ex.PW18/D if read in light of section 88A and Section 90A of
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 33 of 59
Indian Evidence Act corroborates the testimony of PW Javed
Salmani. Ld. Addl. PP for the State, however, conceded that
there are certain lapses in investigation solely attributed to
IO/Insp. Om Dutt as he failed to procure the call details record
from the network service provider and he has also failed to
deposit certain case properties i.e. mobile phone of deceased, pair
of slippers of accused etc. and in this regard, FIR No.159/2019
was registered against the IO as he failed to deposit the case
properties in Malkhana. Nevertheless, the recovery of the above
stated missing case properties stands proved from the testimony
of recovery witness i.e. PW-13 Ct. Hawa Singh vide seizure
memos Ex.PW13/B to Ex.PW13/F.
On the other hand, Ld. Defence counsel has submitted that
prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable
doubts. There are several discrepancies and contradictions in the
depositions of prosecution witnesses. Prosecution has failed to
establish any motive as deceased has no source of income to give
loan. Prosecution also failed to examine any other material
witness to prove any relation between accused and deceased or
conduct of accused regarding his indulgence in gambling/betting
activities, therefore, motive has not been established.
There are contradictions regarding house no. from where
the alleged recoveries were effected at the instance of accused.
PW-16 V. Lakshmi Narasimhan Physics in his report of scene of
crime claimed that he inspected house no.C-44, whereas PW-16
in his examination-in-chief claimed the house no. to be C-45.
PW-13 HC Hawa Singh in his examination-in-chief stated that
the scene of crime is House No.C-45. PW-13 in second page of
his cross examination stated that front side of said house was not
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 34 of 59
even whitewashed and brick structure was visible. However, in
photographs filed by prosecution, wall is duly painted and even
in photograph address is mentioned by chalk as B-45.
Recovery of incriminating articles is not proved as IO is
not examined by the prosecution. PW-14 has stated that she has
lifted the blood on gauge from the spot, however, these blood
samples were neither sent to FSL nor produced in the court.
Further, no mobile phone of deceased, blood stained swabs and
concrete material were produced before court nor deposited in
malkhana contrary to the claim of recovery witnesses PW-13 and
PW-18. PW-13 in his examination-in-chief dated 9.8.2018
claimed that one katta containing clothes was recovered from 3 rd
flood but in seizure memo Ex PW13/J it is mentioned that it was
recovered from 1st floor. Certain electronic documents produced
by the prosecution at later stage by filing supplementary charge
sheet i.e. Ex.PW18/A to Ex.PW18/E could not be read in
evidence as the same are not supported with mandatory
certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
11. Before analyzing the evidence led by the Prosecution in
the present case, this court deems it proper to refer to some
provisions of law and citations of Superior courts, which are
found to be applicable to the facts of the present case.
Sections 363, 364A, 300 and 302 of IPC read as under:-
363. Punishment for kidnapping.–Whoever kidnaps any
person from 1[India] or from lawful guardianship, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine.
364A. Kidnapping for ransom, etc.–Whoever kidnaps or
abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such
kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 35 of 59
to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable
apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or
causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the
Government or 4[any foreign State or international inter-
governmental organization or any other person] to do or
abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be
punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall
also be liable to fine.
300. Murder–Except in the cases hereinafter excepted,
culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the
death is caused is done with the intention of causing
death, or –
Secondly–If it is done with the intention of causing such
bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the
death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or–
Thirdly–If it is done with the intention of causing bodily
injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be
inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death, or–
Fourthly–If the person committing the act knows that it is
so imminently dangerous that is must, in all probability,
cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,
and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the
risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
302. Punishment for murder-Whoever commits murder shall
be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall
also be liable to fine.
12. Perusal of the record would show that this case is totally
based upon the circumstantial evidence and there is no direct
evidence against the accused that he committed murder of the
deceased. Before deciding this case, it is necessary to ascertain
legal parameters of proving such a case based upon the
circumstantial evidence. The first leading case setting down the
principles of circumstantial evidence is titled Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, in which, it is
held that the onus to prove the circumstances is on the
prosecution and the complete chain of circumstances must be
proved beyond doubt. In a recent judgment titled Gargi v. State
of Haryana, (2019) 9 SCC 738, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
summarized the law of circumstantial evidence as under:
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 36 of 59
“18. It remains trite that in judicial proceedings, proof is made
by means of production of evidence, which may be either oral or
documentary. As regards its nature, the evidence is either direct
or circumstantial. The direct evidence proves the existence of a
particular fact that emanates from a document or an object
and/or what has been observed by the witness. The
circumstantial evidence is the one whereby other facts are
proved from which the existence of fact in issue may either be
logically inferred, or at least rendered more probable. [A Text
Book of Jurisprudence by G.W. Paton, 4th Edn., p. 598.]
18.1. In umpteen number of decisions, this Court has explained
the essentials before a particular fact could be held proved by
way of the proof of other fact or facts; and has expounded on the
principles as to how circumstantial evidence need to be
approached in a criminal case. We need not multiply on the case
law on the subject; only a brief reference to the relevant
decisions would suffice.
18.2. In Chandmal v. State of Rajasthan [Chandmal v State of
Rajasthan, (1976) 1 SCC 621 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 120], this Court
said : (SCC p. 625, para 14)
“14. It is well settled that when a case rests entirely on
circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests.
Firstly, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established.
Secondly, these circumstances should be of a definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Thirdly, the
circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so
complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within
all human probability the crime was committed by the accused
and none else. That is to say, the circumstances should be
incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save that
of the accused’s guilt.”
18.3. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
[Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4
SCC 116 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 487], The Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India laid down the golden principles of standard of proof
required in a case sought to be established on circumstantial
evidence with reference to several past decisions, including that
in Hanumant v. State of M.P. [Hanumant v. State of M.P., AIR
1952 SC 343 : 1953 Cri LJ 129] , in the following : (SCC p.
185, paras 153-54)
“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the
following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an
accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to
be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be”
established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal
distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should beFIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 37 of 59
proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v.
State of Maharashtra [Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033] where
the observations were made : [SCC p. 807, para 19 : SCC (Cri)
p. 1047]
’19. … Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must
be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and
the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and
divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.’
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should
not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the
accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one
to be proved, and
(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.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute
the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial
evidence.”
18.4. In the decision cited by the learned counsel for the
appellant in Sonvir [Sonvir v State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 8
SCC 24 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 486] , this Court, after taking note
of the other cited decisions, pointed out the principles as under :
(SCC p. 52, para 82)
“82. … Law of conviction based on circumstantial evidence is
well settled. It is sufficient to refer to the judgment of this Court
in Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan [Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan,
(2011) 3 SCC 685 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 54] where in para 17 the
following has been held : (SCC p. 693)
’17. Before we proceed with the matter, it has to be borne in
mind that this case depends upon circumstantial evidence and,
as such, as per the settled law, every circumstance would have to
be proved beyond reasonable doubt and further the chain of
circumstances should be so complete and perfect that the only
inference of the guilt of the accused should emanate therefrom.
At the same time, there should be no possibility whatsoever of
the defence version being true.'”
18.5. Thus, circumstantial evidence, in the context of a crime,
essentially means such facts and surrounding factors which do
point towards the complicity of the charged accused; and then,
chain of circumstances means such unquestionable linking of
the facts and the surrounding factors that they establish only the
guilt of the charged accused beyond reasonable doubt, while
ruling out any other theory or possibility or hypothesis.
18.6. Incidental to the principles aforesaid, which are neither ofFIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 38 of 59
any doubt nor of any dispute, profitable it would be to keep in
view the caveat entered by G.W. Paton [A Text Book of
Jurisprudence by G.W. Paton, 4th Edn., p. 598.] as regards
circumstantial evidence thus:
“On the other hand, circumstances may mislead or false clues
may have been laid by the wrongdoer to cast suspicion on
another.” [ This has been stated with reference to 514 in
Criminal Law by C.S. Kenny wherein, it is cautioned that:
though ‘circumstances cannot lie’, they can mislead. They may
even have been brought about for the very purpose of
misleading, as when Joseph’s silver cup was placed in
Benjamin’s sack, or when Lady Macbeth ‘smeared the sleeping
grooms with blood’.]”
13. Now, the case in hand has to be adjudicated in light of the
above-stated guidelines. As per the case of the prosecution, on
28.10.2016 at about 6.00 a.m., PW-7 Lokesh located the dead
body of kidnapped child lying on the corner of Gali No.19, C-
Block, Khajuri Khas. He made 100 number call from his mobile
no.9811030754. PCR Van came there. Ambulance also came
there one hour later and took the dead body to the hospital. Some
public persons told PW-7 Lokesh that the dead body was of one
Danish, who had been kidnapped and ransom of Rs.50,000/- was
demanded by the kidnappers for releasing him. PCR Form in this
regard is Ex.PW1/B. Prior to that on 27.10.2016, brother of
deceased namely Javed Salmani (PW-8) had already reported the
matter to the police vide PCR call Ex.PW1/E and his statement
Ex.PW8/A resulting in registration of present FIR. Subsequently,
accused Varun Soni was arrested on the basis of secret
information and during interrogation, he confessed about
committing the murder of deceased Danish as he borrowed about
Rs.3,000/- from deceased Danish about one year ago, which
amount he was unable to repay, however, deceased Danish was
insisting repeatedly to return the same. He revealed that on
27.10.2016, he called Danish on the roof of his house and then,
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 39 of 59
he smashed the head of deceased Danish with a wooden stick
lying on th heap of wooden scrap on the roof of his house. His
disclosure statement Ex.PW13/A was recorded. Pursuant to his
disclosure statement Ex.PW13/A, he got recovered the weapon
of offence i.e. blood stained danda from the top floor of his house
vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/C. At his instance, the mobile
phone of the deceased was also recovered, which was seized vide
seizure memo Ex.PW13/B. He got recovered a pair of slippers
which he was wearing at the time of committing murder from the
ground floor of his house i.e. C-45, Khajuri Khas, Delhi, which
was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/E. He also got
recovered the blood stained clothes i.e. jeans pant and light blue
T-shirt, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/D.
Subsequently, supplementary statement dated 05.11.2016 of
complainant Javed Salmani was recorded wherein he too raised
strong suspicion upon accused Varun Soni of kidnapping and
committing the murder of his deceased brother. He also claimed
that it was accused Varun Soni, who took his deceased brother on
27.10.2016 at about 11.30 a.m. from his hair saloon shop.
14. The prosecution has got examined one ‘last seen theory’
witness namely PW8 Javed Salmani, who has categorically
deposed in his examination-in-chief dated 31.10.2017 that on day
27 in the year 2016, his brother Danish was present with him at
his shop of hair saloon. At about 11.30 a.m., accused Varun Soni,
who was present in the court that day, came to his shop and took
his brother Danish with him. At about 12:30 pm, he made phone
call to his brother Danish and asked him to come and hand over
the key and also it was his school time. Danish told him that he
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 40 of 59
would come within 5 minutes. However, Danish did not come
back for long. He made various calls to Danish after about 10-15
minutes but he did not pick up the phone and it was switched off.
He tried making calls to him till 5:00 pm but it was continuously
found to be switched off. At about 7:15 pm, he received a phone
call from the mobile phone of Danish and at that time, some
unknown person was making call. The caller told him that he
had kidnapped his brother Danish and he had given beatings to
him. The caller demanded Rs. 50,000/- for releasing Danish. The
caller instructed him to drop the money at 12:00 midnight in 2-3
digs which were little ahead of Wazirabad flyover. The caller
threatened him that if he would not pay money within time, he
would kill his brother Danish.
15. Admittedly, last seen togetherness of the deceased with
accused is a material circumstance against the accused and put a
burden upon the accused to explain the time or point when he left
the last company of the deceased in alive condition. The failure
of any explanation of accused to this circumstance leads to an
adverse inference against the accused. However, last seen theory
would come into play where time gap between the point of time
when accused and deceased were seen alive together and
reported death of the deceased was so narrow to rule out any
intervention of any other one to provide him opportunity to kill
the deceased. A similar observation has been made by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled State of UP v. Satish 2005
(3) SCC 114 that:
“last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between
the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen
last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that
possibility of any person other than the accused being the authorFIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 41 of 59
of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some
cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with
the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other
persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other
positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased
were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a
conclusion of guilt in those cases.”
16. It is further held in Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy v.
State of UP 2006 (10) SCC 172 that:
“last seen theory, furthermore comes into play where the time
gap between the point of time when the accused and deceased
were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small
that possibility of any person other than the accused being the
author of the crime becomes impossible. Even in such a case the
courts should look for some corroboration.”
17. In the present case PW8 Javed Salmani proves the fact that
accused Varun Soni was in the company of deceased on
27.10.2016 after 11.30 a.m. onwards, since then, the deceased
went missing. In this case, the accused has not tendered any
explanation when he left the last company of the deceased.
18. Further, Section 106 of Evidence Act has put a burden
upon the accused to tender a plausible explanation to his last seen
togetherness with the deceased to rebut this presumption of the
facts within his personal knowledge. To ascertain the extent of
burden, it is necessary to see section 106 of Evidence Act as
under:
[Section 106. Burden of proving fact especially within
knowledge.- When any fact is especially within the knowledge
of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Illustrations
(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than
that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest,
the bur- den of proving that intention is upon him.
(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without ticket. The
burden of proving that he had a ticket on him.]
19. This above-said section provides, inter alia, that when any
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 42 of 59
fact is especially within the knowledge of any person the burden
of proving that fact is upon him. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India had occasion to deal with this presumption of section 106
of Indian Evidence Act in State of Rajasthan v. Thakur Singh VI
(2014) SLT 260 where death of wife was unnatural and witnesses
turned hostile. The burden of proof was fixed upon the accused
to explain the death of his wife took place within the four corners
of the house. Prior to it, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had
interpreted this section in Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of
Ajmer, 1956 SCR 199 that the section is not intended to shift the
burden of proof (in respect of a crime) on the accused but to take
care of a situation where a fact is known only to the accused and
it is well high impossible or extremely difficult for the
prosecution to prove that fact. It was observed by the court as
under:
“This [section 101] lays down the general rule that in a criminal
case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and section 106 is
certainly not intended to relieve if of that duty. On the contrary,
it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would
be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the
prosecution to establish facts which are “especially” within the
knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without
difficulty or inconvenience. The work “especially” stresses that.
It means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his
knowledge. It the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it
would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case
the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit
the murder because who could know better than that he whether
he did or did not.”
20. The observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in
State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar, (2000) 8 SCC
282 is also relevant. The court cited an example to explain the
principle behind section 106 of the Evidence Act in following
words:
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 43 of 59
“During arguments we put a question to learned senior counsel
for the respondents based on a hypothetical illustration. If a boy
is kidnapped from the lawful custody of his guardian in the sight
of his people and the kidnappers disappeared with the prey, what
would be the normal inference if the mangled dead body of the
boy is recovered within a couple of hours from elsewhere. The
query was made whether upon proof of the above facts an
inference could be drawn that the kidnappers would have killed
the boy. Learned Senior Counsel finally conceded that in such a
case the inference is reasonably certain that the boy was killed
by the kidnappers unless they explain otherwise.”
21. In view of the above-said interpretation of presumption of
Section 106 of Evidence Act, the burden of proof to prove the
facts establishing the guilt of accused does not dispense with by
the prosecution, however prosecution may not prove those facts
which are exclusively within the knowledge of the accused and
the burden to rebut this presumption has been put upon him. If
the facts established the case to raise a presumption against the
accused, then the failure to discharge this presumption would
cost the accused.
22. Further, accused Varun Soni was supposed to put forward
some explanation not only during cross examination of the
witnesses, who have proved their last togetherness with the
deceased, but also during his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. However,
he just replied to all incriminating facts emerging from the
evidence as “it is incorrect” “I do not know”. Nowhere he has
explained as to what he was doing at the relevant time i.e. on
27.10.2016 from 11.30 a.m. onwards. To question no. 2 of
statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., it has been specifically put before
the accused that PW8 had deposed that on 27.10.2016 at about
11.30 a.m., he came to the shop of complainant/PW-8 and took
Danish with him, to which he simply replied by stating, ‘it is
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 44 of 59
incorrect. I was present at my shop at that time.”. The accused
was supposed to tender a satisfactory explanation to the fact
which was within his personal knowledge in terms of section 106
of Evidence Act. No doubt, accused was not supposed to
examine any witness to prove this fact, but he was definitely
supposed to put forward some defense during prosecution
evidence and also to put forward some explanation u/s 313 CrPC
to rebut this presumption, which is not done by him.
23. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in case titled Jagroop
Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 768 that if accused
failed to tender any plausible explanation to incriminating
evidence, it would serve the purpose of fulfilling the missing link
of the circumstances. The relevant observation is as under:
“36. Another aspect is to be taken note of. Though the
incriminating circumstances which point to the guilt of the
accused had been put to the accused, yet he could not give any
explanation under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure except choosing the mode of denial.”
24. In State of Maharashtra v. Suresh [(2000) 1 SCC 471 :
2000 SCC (Cri) 263], it has been held that,
“when the attention of the accused is drawn to such
circumstances that inculpated him in the crime and he fails to
offer appropriate explanation or gives a false answer, the same
can be counted as providing a missing link for completing the
chain of circumstances. We may hasten to add that we have
referred to the said decision only to highlight that the accused
has not given any explanation whatsoever as regards the
circumstances put to him under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.”
25. In view of the facts, it stands proved that accused Varun
Soni was in the last company of the deceased, and has failed to
tender any explanation and shall be presumed that he was
involved in the incident in which deceased was killed. Thus,
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 45 of 59
there is no possibility that accused has left the company of
deceased Danish. Apart from the unimpeachable testimony of
star witnesses of prosecution i.e. PW8, PW12 and PW13, the
prosecution has also proved following incriminating pieces of
evidence collected by the investigating team during the course of
investigation which connects the accused with the commission of
alleged offence of kidnapping and murder of deceased Danish in
the present case:
(i) Seizure memo Ex.PW13/I whereby a piece of door bearing
green and red colour fibre sheet having blood stains on one
of its corner was recovered at the instance of accused from
the spot i.e. on the back side of top floor of house no. C45,
Gali No. 19, Khajuri Khas, Delhi.
(ii) Seizure memo Ex.PW13/J whereby one sack containing
old clothes being used for wrapping and bedding was
recovered at the instance of accused from the duchhatti of
the stair case on the third floor opposite entry gate of house
no. C45, Gali No. 19, Khajuri Khas, Delhi as reflected in
photograph Ex. PW4/A12.
(iii) Pointing out of place of commission of murder i.e. back
side of top floor of house no. C45, Gali No. 19, Khajuri
Khas, Delhi which is Ex.PW13/A prepared at the instance
of accused Varun Soni.
(iv) Seizure memo Ex.PW13/C whereby weapon used in
commission of offence i.e. one danda bearing iron nails
recovered at the instance of accused Varun Soni from the
corner of top floor of house no. C45, Gali No. 19, Khajuri
Khas, Delhi line under the heap of bricks and scrap doors.
(v) Seizure memo E.PW13/D whereby accused Varun Soni
got recovered the blood stained clothes, which he was
wearing at the time of commission of offence, i.e. one light
blue colour half sleeve t-shirt and one jeans of blue colourFIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 46 of 59
which was recovered from the duchhatti of stair case of 1st
floor of house no. C45, Gali No. 19, Khajuri Khas, Delhi.
(vi) Seizure memo Ex.PW13/F whereby accused got recovered
blood stained clothes for wrapping and bedding from the
duchhatti of stair case of entry gate on the 2 nd floor of
house no. C45, Gali No. 19, Khajuri Khas, Delhi.
(vii) Seizure memo Ex.PW13/E whereby accused got recovered
slippers which he were wearing at time of commission of
offence from the stair case of ground floor of house no.
C45, Gali No. 19, Khajuri Khas, Delhi.
(viii) Seizure memo Ex.PW13/B whereby accused got recovered
mobile phone of make Carbon model A-12 containing sim
of Aircel belonging to deceased Danish from the top floor
roof of house no. C45, Gali No.19, Khajuri Khas, Delhi
which was hidden under the pile of stone pieces as
reflected in photograph Ex. PW4/A13 to Ex. PW4/A16.
(ix) Seizure memo Ex.PW12/C and Ex. PW12/E whereby
blood sample of deceased Danish was taken by the
Autopsy Surgeon of mortuary of GTB Hospital.
(x) Seizure memo Ex.PW13/A whereby blood stains have
been lifted by the FSL team from ground floor to the top
floor of house no.C-45, Gali No.19, Khajuri Khas, Delhi.
(xi) Crime Scene reports Ex.PW14/A and Ex.PW16/A
prepared by the FSL experts on the basis of inspection
carried out at house no.C-45, Gali No.19, Khajuri Khas,
Delhi, whereby blood stains were detected from various
places of the aforesaid house.
(xii) FSL report Ex.PW15/A wherein it was concluded that
alleles from the DNA profiles generated from the source of
exhibits ‘E-6a’ (left hand nail clipping of deceased) and
‘E-6b’ (right hand nail clipping of deceased) both seized
vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/B, are accounted in the DNA
profile generated from the source of exhibits ‘E-1’FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 47 of 59
(weapon of offence i.e. danda, seized vide seizure memo
Ex.PW13/C at the instance of accused), ‘E-2a’ (blood
stained T-shirt of accused) and ‘E-2c’ (blood stained Jeans
of accused), which were seized at the instance of accused
vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/D.
26. All the above-stated recoveries vide seizure memos
Ex.PW13/B, Ex.PW13/C, Ex.PW13/D, Ex.PW13/E and
Ex.PW13/F have been effected at the instance of the accused
from isolated places. All the above-stated incriminating facts are
admissible in evidence being ‘fact discovered’ as per section 27
of Indian Evidence Act, which reads as follows:
“Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in
consequence of information received from a person accused of
any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such
information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates
distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”
27. As per the subsequent opinion of autopsy surgeon Dr.
Priyal Jain, which was given in response to court question during
his examination dated 19.07.2017, injury nos.1-3, 10 & 11 as
reflected in postmortem report Ex.PW2/A alongwith internal
injuries over brain were sufficient to cause death in ordinary
course of nature, which is consistent with the fact revealed by the
accused in his disclosure statement dated 28.10.2016. As such,
the portion of his disclosure statement dated 28.10.2016, where
he has revealed that on 27.10.2016, he took out one rectangular
shape danda from the heap of scrap material lying on the top
floor of his house and smashed the head of Danish with full force
using his both hands, due to which Danish fell down and
thereafter he gave two more danda blows which led to bleeding.
Subsequently when he heard groaning voice of Danish, he tilted
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 48 of 59
the body of Danish upside down and gave five more danda blows
thereby assuring that Danish is dead. The said portion of the
disclosure statement dated 28.10.2016 is admissible in evidence
being ‘fact discovered’ as per section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.
28. Section 27 is also called as doctrine of confirmation by
subsequent events because every part of the statement, made at
the instance of the accused, in a police custody should
necessarily be confirmed by the subsequent events of discovery,
to make it admissible in court. The provision is couched in the
form of a proviso, an exception, though it is not clear from its
terms as to which provisions it qualifies.
The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence
Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The
doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered
in a search made on the strength of any information obtained
from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the
information supplied by the prisoner is true. The theory of
confirmation by subsequent facts means the statements made in
custody are admissible to the extent they can be proved by the
subsequent discovery of facts.
It is quite possible that the content of the custodial
statement could directly lead to the subsequent discovery of
relevant facts rather than their discovery through independent
means. Hence, such statements could also be described as those
which furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed for
successful prosecution. The information might be confessional or
non-inculpatory in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact it
becomes a reliable information.
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 49 of 59
29. The decision in Pulukuri Kottaya & Ors. V. Emperor [AIR
1947 PC 67] is a leading judgment of Privy council on the aspect
of ‘discovery of fact’ in a confessional statement of accused
recorded by the police.
30. The Hon’ble Supreme court of India in State (NCT of
Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru [(2005) 11 SCC 600
has considered the question of discovery of a fact referred to in
section 27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered plethora
of decisions and explained the decision in Pulukuri Kottaya &
Ors. V. Emperor [AIR 1947 PC 67] and held thus :
“125. We are of the view that Kottaya case [AIR 1947 PC 67] is
an authority for the proposition that “discovery of fact” cannot
be equated to the object produced or found. It is more than that.
The discovery of fact arises by reason of the fact that the
information given by the accused exhibited the knowledge or the
mental awareness of the informant as to its existence at a
particular place.
126. We now turn our attention to the precedents of this Court
which followed the track of Kottaya case. The ratio of the
decision in Kottaya case reflected in the underlined passage
extracted supra was highlighted in several decisions of this
Court.
127. The crux of the ratio in Kottaya case was explained by this
Court in State of Maharashtra v. Damu. Thomas J. observed
that: (SCC p. 283, para 35) “The decision of the Privy Council
in Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor (supra) is the most quoted
authority for supporting the interpretation that the ‘fact
discovered’ envisaged in the section embraces the place from
which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as
to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that
effect.” In Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra [1976 1
SCC 828], Sarkaria, J. while clarifying that the expression “fact
discovered” in Section 27 is not restricted to a physical or
material fact which can be perceived by the senses, and that it
does include a mental fact, explained the meaning by giving the
gist of what was laid down in Pulukuri Kottaya case (supra).
The learned Judge, speaking for the Bench observed thus: (SCC
p. 832, para 13) “Now it is fairly settled that the expression ‘fact
discovered’ includes not only the physical object produced, but
also the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of
the accused as to this.”
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 50 of 59
31. In the present case, the prosecution has not established any
motive of the accused to commit murder of deceased Danish. As
regards the weight to be attached to the motive in deciding as to
whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable
doubt against an accused, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case
of Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar,1995 Supp (1) SCC 80
held as under:
“Sometimes motive plays an important role and become a
compelling force to commit a crime and therefore motive behind
the crime is a relevant factor for which evidence may be
adduced. A motive is something which prompts a person to form
an opinion or intention to do certain illegal act or even a legal
act with illegal means with a view to achieve that intention. In a
case where there is motive, it affords added support to the
finding of the Court that the accused was guilty for the offence
charged with. But the evidence bearing on the guilt of the
accused nonetheless becomes untrustworthy or unreliable
because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone
who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to adopt a
certain course of action leading to the commission of the crime.”
32. In Amitava Banerjee vs. State of W.B., (2011) 12 SCC
554, it was observed as under:
“Motive for the commission of an offence no doubt assumes
greater importance in cases resting on circumstantial evidence
than those in which direct evidence regarding commission of the
offence is available. And yet failure to prove motive in cases
resting on circumstantial evidence is not fatal by itself. All that
the absence of motive for the commission of the offence results
in is that the court shall have to be more careful and circumspect
in scrutinizing the evidence to ensure that suspicion does not
take the place of proof while finding the accused guilty.
42. Absence of motive in a case depending entirely on
circumstantial evidence is a factor that shall no doubt weigh in
favour of the accused, but what the Courts need to remember is
that motive is a matter which is primarily known to the accused
and which the prosecution may at times find difficult to explain
or establish by substantive evidence.
43. Human nature being what it is, it is often difficult to fathom
the real motivation behind the commission of a crime. And yet
experience about human nature, human conduct and the frailties
of human mind has shown that inducements to crime have
veered around to what Wills has in his book “Circumstantial
Evidence” said:
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 51 of 59
“The common inducements to crime are the desires of revenging
some real or fancied wrong; of getting rid of rival or an
obnoxious connection; of escaping from the pressure of
pecuniary or other obligation or burden of obtaining plunder or
other coveted object; or preserving reputation, either that of
general character or the conventional reputation or profession or
sex; or gratifying some other selfish or malignant passion.”
33. As regards the importance to be assigned to proof of
motive in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case titled as Mulakh Raj Etc vs Satish Kumar
And Others, 1992 AIR 1175, observed as under :
“Undoubtedly in cases of circumstantial evidences motive bears
important significance. Motive always locks up in the mind of
the accused and some time it is difficult to unlock. People do not
act wholly without motive. The failure to discover the motive of
an offence does not signify its nonexistence. The failure to prove
motive is not fatal as a mater of law. Proof of motive is never an
indispensable for conviction. When facts are clear it is
immaterial that no motive has been proved. Therefore, absence
of proof of motive does not break the link in the chain of
circumstances connecting the accused with the crime, nor
militates against the prosecution case.”
34. In light of law discussed above, though in a case of
circumstantial evidence motive assumes importance, however,
failure to prove motive does not signify its non-existence.
35. It is contended on behalf of accused that PW8 Javed
Salmani is the interested witness got examined by the
prosecution being the brother of the deceased and thus, his
testimony cannot be relied upon. In this regard, it is pertinent to
note that the testimony of PW8 is consistent with the statement
Ex.PW8/A and subsequent statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated
05.11.2016 recorded by the IO. He has duly identified the
clothes of his deceased brother Ex. P-1 to P-4, which were seized
during investigation of the present case at the instance of
accused. There is no reason to disbelieve his version.
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 52 of 59
36. In Waman v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 7 SCC 295 the
Hon’ble Supreme court of India had dealt with the case of a
related witness (though not a witness inimical to the assailant)
and while referring to and relying upon the case of Sarwan Singh
v. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 369, Balraje v. State of
Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673, Prahlad Patel v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 4 SCC 262, Israr v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, (2005) 9 SCC 616, S. Sudershan Reddy v. State of
Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 10 SCC 163, State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324, Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2009) 9 SCC 719 and Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 10
SCC 477 it was held:
“It is clear that merely because the witnesses are related to the
complainant or the deceased, their evidence cannot be thrown
out. If their evidence is found to be consistent and true, the fact
of being a relative cannot by itself discredit their evidence. In
other words, the relationship is not a factor to affect the
credibility of a witness and the courts have to scrutinise their
evidence meticulously with a little care.”
37. In Raju @ Balachandran & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on
27 November, 2012, the Hon’ble Supreme court of India held as
under:
“The sum and substance is that the evidence of a related or
interested witness should be meticulously and carefully
examined. In a case where the related and interested witness
may have some enmity with the assailant, the bar would need to
be raised and the evidence of the witness would have to be
examined by applying a standard of discerning scrutiny.”
In these circumstances, the contention that testimony of
PW8 cannot be relied upon fails to inspire the confidence of this
court.
38. It is argued vehemently that no independent witness was
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 53 of 59
got examined by the IO and therefore, prosecution case cannot be
relied upon. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that in the
present case, PW8 Javed Salmani, PW13 Ct. Hawa Singh and
PW-17 SI Manish Tyagi have been cross-examined at length.
There is nothing in their version to indicate that any other
independent witnesses had seen the occurrence i.e. the incident of
assault being caused by the accused.
39. It is pertinent to mention that on the above-mentioned
aspect, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in
judgment titled “Jhodha Sahney Vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2011
(1) Crimes 382”, as under:-
“7. The next ground taken by the Counsel for the appellant is
that no public witness was joined at the time of recovery. The
accused had started moving quickly towards the village on the
seeing police party and police party therefore stopped the
accused/appellant and checked his gunny bag. On checking it
was found that gunny bag held by the accused contained charas.
Merely because the police party did not associate public persons
in this “chance recovery” cannot be a ground to disbelieve the
case of prosecution. Moreover, there is normal tendency of
public persons not to associate themselves with police
investigation as the investigation and the trials in this country
are the source of great harassment to the witnesses who are often
not taken care of by the Courts or by the police. The witnesses
are normally scared to join any investigation or give testimony
even of what they have witnessed in broad daylight because of
the repeated summoning in the Courts and sending them
unexamined in a routine and casual manner by the Courts.”
40. Dealing with the aspect of reluctance of the public persons
to join the police proceedings, this Court in Jawahar vs. State
(2007) ILR 2 Delhi 146 observed as under:-
“As far as non association of public witnesses at the time of
recovery is concerned, I consider that this is not an infirmity
sufficient to throw out the case of the prosecution. It is very hard
these days to get association of public witnesses in criminal
investigation. Investigation itself is a tedious process and a
public witness, who is associated, has to spend hours at the spot.
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 54 of 59
Normally, nobody from public is prepared to suffer any
inconvenience for the sake of society. The other reason for the
public witness not readily agreeing to associate with
investigation is harassment of public witness that takes place in
the courts. Normally a public witness should be called once to
depose in the court and his testimony should be recorded and he
should be discharged. But experience shows that adjournments
are given even in criminal cases on all excuses and if
adjournments are not given, it is considered as a breach of the
right of hearing of the accused. These adjournments are
specifically taken by counsels for accused persons, when
witnesses are present, just to see that witnesses get harassed by
calling them time and again. The excuses normally given in the
courts are; the counsel having urgent personal work, left the
court; death of some near relatives etc; the counsel being busy in
arguing other matter in other court or cross examining other
witness in some other court. This attitude of the courts of
sending witness back is a major cause of harassment which
discourages public from associating in the investigation of any
case. Since the police is faced with this handicap, the police
cannot be blamed for not associating public witness. There is no
presumption that the police witnesses are not credible witnesses.
The testimony of every witness, whether from public or police,
has to be judged at its own merits and the court can believe or
disbelieve a police witness considering the intrinsic value of his
testimony. Police witnesses are equally good witnesses and
equally bad witnesses as any other witness and the testimony of
police witness cannot be rejected on the ground that they are
official witnesses”.
41. Thus, contention regarding non-joining of independent
public witnesses raised by the Ld. Defence counsel fails to
inspire confidence of this court. Further, the discrepancy
regarding the exact place of recovery of incriminating articles as
pointed out by Ld. Defence Counsel while addressing final
arguments also failed to inspire the confidence of this Court as in
the present case, a large number of blood stained articles have
been recovered from the multi-storey house of accused i.e. house
no.C-45, Gali No.19, Khajuri Khas, Delhi. Further, PW-13 Ct.
Hawa Singh has furnished clarification with regard to the
discrepancy in seizure memo Ex.PW13/J, in his cross-
examination dated 22.02.2019. PCR forms Ex.PW1/A and
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 55 of 59
Ex.PW1/B corroborate the version of star version of the
prosecution i.e. PW-8 Javed Salmani. It is observed that as many
as 11 external injuries have been reported in the postmortem
report Ex.PW2/A of deceased Danish. Thus, it is established that
the accused had the necessary intention to commit murder of
deceased.
42. As per the prosecution case, the mobile phone of the
deceased and pair of slippers of accused were seized during
investigation. Certain exhibits pertaining to blood stained soil,
concrete etc. were lifted under instruction and supervision of FSL
team on 28.10.2016. However, the above stated exhibits were not
produced as the said exhibits were misplaced by the IO resulting
in registration of FIR No. 159/19, P.S. Khajuri Khas. In the
opinion of this Court, non production of seized exibits during
trial is a serious lapse on the part of investigating agency. At the
same time, it is well settled that merely because of the lapse on
the part of the investigating agency, the entire case of the
prosecution cannot be thrown out when the same can be proved
through other reliable pieces of evidence.
43. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has observed in Deepak
Yadav vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) in CRL.A. 231/2017:
“It is clear that merely because of some defect in the
investigation, lapse on the part of the investigating officer, it
cannot be a ground for acquittal. Further, even if there had
been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or
omissions, etc. it is the obligation on the part of the court to
scrutinise the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses to find
out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and whether
such lapses affect the object of finding out the truth. ”
44. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hema v. State reported as
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 56 of 59
(2013) 10 SCC 192 whilst holding that fair investigation is a part
of the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21
of the Constitution of India and it is the immediate requirement
of the rule of law that investigation must be fair, transparent and
judicious, observed as follows:
“14. It is also settled law that for certain defects in
investigation, the accused cannot be acquitted. This aspect has
been considered in various decisions. In C. Muniappan v.
State of T.N. [(2010) 9 SCC 567 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1402] ,
the following discussion and conclusions are relevant which
are as follows: (SCC p. 589, para 55) “55. There may be
highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be
examined as to whether there is any lapse by the IO and
whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the
accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in
the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If
primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations
or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the
faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice
administration would be eroded. Where there has been
negligence on the part of the investigating agency or
omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there
is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the
prosecution evidence dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out
whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent
it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object
of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the
solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The
conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend
solely on the probity of investigation.”
45. Nevertheless, the prosecution has proved the seizure
memos of all the seized exhibits. The entire judicial file of FIR
no.159/2019 consisting of 31 pages which includes ordersheets,
final report, copy of FIR, order of Special Judge (NDPS) / ASJ /
NE dated 22.02.2019, seizure memo and store room register has
been proved as Ex.PW19/A by PW-19 Sh. Kashif Ahmad Alvi,
Jr. Judl. Assitant, Record Room, NE/Karkardooma Court. PW-19
was not cross-examined despite having given the opportunity.
Thus, contention with regard to non production of certain
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 57 of 59
exhibits on account of lapse on the part of the IO in depositing
the exhibits in the Malkhana of PS also fails to inspire the
confidence of this court. The citations relied upon in defence are
not found applicable in the present case in light of peculiar facts.
No defence evidence has been led by the accused despite having
given the opportunity.
46. It is pertinent to note that as per the prosecution case, it
was accused Varun Soni who had made the ransom call to PW-8
Javed Salmani on 27.10.2016 at about 7:15 p.m. from the mobile
phone of deceased whereby he demanded Rs.50,000/- for
releasing Danish. In this regard, it is observed that no voice
sample of accused was taken by the IO during investigation of
the present case. Further, it appears from the version of PW-8
Javed Salmani that he was acquainted with accused Varun Soni
prior to the date of incident yet in his deposition dated 23.2.2018,
he claimed that some unknown person had made a call on
27.10.2016 at about 7:15 p.m. Had he recognized the voice of
accused Varun Soni, he would not have claimed that some
unknown person had made the impugned ransom call. In these
circumstances, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has
failed to establish the fact that accused Varun Soni had made the
ransom call from the mobile phone of deceased Danish to brother
of deceased namely Javed Salmani after kidnapping deceased
Danish.
DECISION OF THE COURT
47. In the opinion of this court, the testimony of prosecution
witnesses comes out to be clear, convincing, trustworthy and
inspires confidence of this court. Nothing material came out in
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 58 of 59
their respective cross-examination. There is no reason to
disbelieve the version of prosecution witnesses. All the
ingredients of section 302 and 363 of IPC are satisfied. The
prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt
that on 27.10.2016 at about 11:30 a.m., accused Varun Soni
kidnapped one Danish, aged about 17 years, from the lawful
guardianship of his parents and subsequently on the same day,
accused Varun Soni committed murder of Danish on the top floor
of his house i.e. house no.C-45, Gali No.19, Khajuri Khas, Delhi
by giving him multiple danda blows. Accordingly, accused
Varun Soni is hereby convicted of the offences punishable u/s
302 and 363 of IPC, however, he is acquitted from the charges
punishable u/s 364-A of IPC. Let the convict be heard on the
quantum of sentence and grant of compensation on the next date
of hearing.
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT PANKAJ ARORA
Date:
ARORA 2025.06.13
ON 13.06.2025 16:05:00
+0530
(PANKAJ ARORA)
FORMERLYADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-04:
NORTH-EAST/KARKARDOOMA/
NOW DISTRICT JUDGE-16,
CENTRAL/TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI/13.06.2025
Note:
This Judgement is being pronounced
in accordance with Order No. 15/D-3/
Gaz.IA/DHC/2025 dated 30.05.2025
of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
FIR No. 763/16 State Vs. Varun Soni Page 59 of 59