[ad_1]
Delhi District Court
State vs Pawan Kumar on 11 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF PRANJAL ANEJA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
(SC-RC), SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR No.DLCT020094542020
FIR No.213/2020
U/s 302/201/120B/34 IPC
PS Wazirabad
SC No.288/2020
STATE Through:
Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State.
Versus
(1) Pawan S/o Sh. Balbir Singh
(2) Dharamwati W/o Sh. Balbir Singh
(3) Rinki @ Meenakshi W/o Sh. Naveen
(4) Preeti W/o Sh. Laxman.
All R/o Gali No.4, Jagat Pur village, Wazirabad, North, Delhi.
...accused persons.
Through:
Dr. Anil Kumar Gupta, Mr. R.K.
Bedi & Mr. Vineet Hans, Ld.
Counsels for all the accused
persons.
Date of Institution : 10.09.2020
Date of Final Arguments : 20.05.2025
Date of Judgment : 11.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The accused persons in this case are facing trial for the
offence punishable U/s 302/201/34 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 for committing the murder of a 2½ year old girl child
Digitally
signed by
namely Kinjal @ Guddo on 16.04.2020. Accused No.1 is
PRANJAL
PRANJAL ANEJA
ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11
18:33:07
the father of the deceased girl child, accused no.2 is the
+0530grand mother and accused no.3 & 4 are the Bua of
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 1 of 83
deceased i.e sisters of accused No. 1.
2. Present FIR came to be registered on 20.05.2020 on the
basis of the statement of the complainant i.e. mother of the
deceased girl child alleging that the accused persons
together killed her 2 ½ year old girl child namely Kinjal @
Guddo.
3. The events unfolding in the case are as follows :- On
16.04.2020 at 10:06:14 a PCR call recorded as GD No.12A
PS Wazirabad reported the murder of a 2 ½ year old girl in
which the lady caller specifically named Pawan S/o Balbir
as the offender. The call was assigned to ASI Prem Ram,
who visited the spot i.e. the house at Gali No.4, Village
Jagatpur, Delhi. There he found a 2 ½ year old girl child
lying dead in the house at the given address and many
persons including neighbours were present. The accused
Pawan Kumar was found present, who stated that he has
two children, one boy aged 4 years namely Vansh and the
other one is a girl aged 2 ½ years namely Kinjal @ Guddo.
Pawan Kumar further stated that the girl child has fallen
from the bed and was taken to Divine Hospital, where she
has been declared brought dead. Upon enquiry, it was
further revealed that the mother of the deceased girl child
had left her husband Pawan and has been living at her
parental house at Meerut. The ASI Prem Ram called the
mother Smt. Lokesh to Delhi. Crime Team was called at
Digitally
signed by
PRANJAL
PRANJAL ANEJA
the spot which inspected the scene of crime and took
ANEJA Date:
photographs. The body of the deceased girl child was sent
2025.07.11
18:33:18
+0530to mortuary where the postmortem was conducted on the
same date i.e. 16.04.2020.
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 2 of 83
4. ASI Prem Ram recorded the statements of Pawan,
Dharamwati, Rinki and Preeti on the same date i.e.
16.04.2020. In his statement (Ex.PW14/A), Pawan Kumar
stated that he resides with his family in his house in gali
no.4, Village Jagatpur, Delhi and runs a dairy in Gali
No.20, Jagatpur Extension, Delhi. He further stated that his
wife Smt. Lokesh left the house on 28.11.2019 due to
quarrel between them and since then she has been residing
at her parental house at Meerut. He further stated that he
has two children, a boy aged 6 years and a girl aged 2 ½
years and both children reside with him. He further stated
that he daily resides at his dairy in the night and in the
intervening night of 15-16.04.2020 also he was at his dairy
when he received call from his sister Rinki at about 7:00
am on 16.04.2020 that his daughter Kinjal @ Guddo had
fallen from the bed and has been taken to Divine Hospital,
where he reached, however, the child had expired. Pawan
Kumar further stated that there is no doubt upon anyone
and they do not want any legal action.
5. Statement of Dharamwati (Ex.PW14/B) was also recorded
in which she stated that she had gone to the temple in the
early morning and was informed by a child that Kinjal @
Guddo had fallen and has been taken to the hospital by her
Bua. Dharamwati further stated that there is no doubt upon
anyone and they do not want any legal action.
PRANJAL 6. Statement of Rinki (Ex.PW14/C) was also recorded in
ANEJA
which she stated that she is married in Faridabad, but has
Digitally signed
by PRANJAL
ANEJA
Date: 2025.07.11 been residing at her parental house in Gali no.4, Village
18:33:25 +0530
Jagatpur, Delhi since December 2019. She further states
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 3 of 83
that on 16.04.2020 at about 7am, she was in the toilet and
her younger sister was rinsing clothes at the terrace, the
mother had gone to the temple, the brother Pawan had
gone to the dairy and his daughter Kinjal @ Guddo was
sleeping in the room. When she heard a thud sound she
came and saw Kinjal @ Guddo has fallen on the floor and
then she took the child to a Bengali Doctor who referred
the child to hospital and then she took the child to Divine
Hospital, where she was declared dead. Rinki further
stated that there is no doubt upon anyone and they do not
want any legal action.
7. Statement of Preeti (Ex.PW14/D) was also recorded
wherein she stated that she has been residing at her
parental house for last one month. She further stated that
she alongwith her sister and mother had given bath to
Kinjal @ Guddo and had made her sleep after giving milk.
Thereafter, the mother had gone to the temple and Kinjal
@ Guddo was sleeping on the bed and she had gone to
rinse clothes at the terrace at that time her sister Rinki
heard the sound of falling of the child and crying and she
took the child to the Bengali Doctor and thereafter to
Divine Hospital, where she was declared dead. Preeti
further stated that there is no doubt upon anyone and they
do not want any legal action.
8. When Smt. Lokesh the mother of the deceased child was
called to Delhi by ASI Prem Ram, her statement /
PRANJAL complaint was also recorded on the same date i.e.
ANEJA
Digitally signed by
16.04.2020. The present FIR came to be registered on the
PRANJAL ANEJA
basis of said complaint. In her complaint dated 16.04.2020
Date: 2025.07.11
18:33:31 +0530
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 4 of 83
(Ex.PW3/A), the mother of the deceased girl child stated
that she got married to accused Pawan Kumar in the year
2014 and has two children, one son aged 5 – 5 ½ years and
one daughter 2 ½ years old. She alleged in her complaint
that her father had given Santro Car at the time of marriage
but her husband used to say that he wanted Scorpio vehicle
and there was dispute in this regard, due to which the
Santro Car was given to the brother-in-law by her husband
and on several occasions he had beaten up the complainant
for failure to fulfill the demand of Scorpio Vehicle. It is
further alleged in the complaint that the husband Pawan
Kumar had beaten up her and her children about six
months ago. She further alleged that when her brother
came to take her to his house at Meerut, she also wanted to
take along her minor children but they were snatched away
by her husband and he did not allow to take them with her.
Further alleged that her husband never loved the minor
daughter and whenever she used to fall sick he would not
even get medicines for her. The complainant also made
allegations that her husband Pawan Kumar had also
damaged her ear by beating her, but she did not take any
action.
9. The complainant further states in her complaint that her
elder sister resides in the same village Jagatpur and
through her she came to know that her 2 ½ year girl child
Digitally
had died due to fall from the second floor, however, there
signed by
were no injuries on her body, while later it came to be
PRANJAL
PRANJAL ANEJA
ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11
18:33:37
+0530
known that the child died due to fall from the bed. The
complainant makes allegations that her husband alongwithFIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 5 of 83
his mother and two sisters have killed her 2 ½ year girl
child namely Kinjal @ Guddo.
CHARGE-SHEET:
10.The postmortem report was collected on 02.05.2020 and
the present FIR came to be registered on 25.05.2020 and
investigation was handed over to IO Inspector Gulshan
Gupta. During the course of investigation, the accused
Pawan Kumar was arrested from his house & he was
interrogated. During police interrogation, accused Pawan
confessed to his guilt and disclosed that he had disputes
with his wife and while she was at her parental house, he
killed his 2 ½ years old daughter by smothering and at that
time his two sisters namely Rinki and Preeti as well as his
mother Dharamwati were also present. The IO further
concluded that the conduct of accused persons present at
the home at the time of offence is in itself doubtful as they
did not inform the mother of the deceased about the
incident. The complainant/mother came to know about the
incident only through her Jija (Hardeep) who lives in the
same village Jagatpur & who came to know about the
incident from his villagers/neighbours which confirms the
fact that the accused persons wanted to perform the last
rituals of the deceased without informing her mother or
PRANJAL police by portraying her death as accidental (by falling
ANEJA
from the bed) to destroy the evidences & to avoid her
Digitally signed by
PRANJAL ANEJA
Date: 2025.07.11
18:33:43 +0530
postmortem so that her exact cause of death could not be
known. Moreover, the distance between the bathroom in
which accused Rinki was stated to be inside & the room in
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 6 of 83
which bed is kept from where the deceased has been stated
to have fallen, is about 35 feet and the location of the
bathroom is at the extreme corner of the house alongwith
the street & from such place, it is not possible to hear the
sound of fall of a child from the bed with such a meager
height. Further to notice that there is another door on the
gallery also in addition to door of the said room. Thus,
both the sisters of accused Pawan Kumar i.e. Preeti &
Rinki & his mother Dharamwati tried to mislead the police
by giving false statements during the inquest proceedings.
11.Call details of the accused were obtained for the day of
incident i.e. 16.04.2020 and as per charge-sheet all the
accused were present at home/place of offence at the time
of death of Kinjal @ Guddo. Charge sheet further states
that as per CDR analysis there was a mobile call to
accused Preeti by accused Pawan Kumar in the morning &
a call by accused Rinki to accused Pawan Kumar thereafter
in the early morning on the date of incident. IO further
concluded that it is also surprising that if the accused
Dharamwati was in temple at that time as per her statement
during inquest proceedings, why didn’t any one inform her
on her mobile about the incident of falling of the child
Kinjal @ Guddo from the bed. IO concludes in the charge-
PRANJAL
sheet that in view of the disclosure statement of accused
ANEJA
Digitally signed by
Pawan Kumar, it is clear that all of the accused persons are
PRANJAL ANEJA
Date: 2025.07.11
18:33:48 +0530
involved in the conspiracy of murder of deceased Kinjal @
Guddo. Accordingly, section 120B/34 IPC were added in
the case.
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 7 of 83
12.During the course of investigation, the site plan with and
without scale has been prepared. It is further mentioned in
the charge-sheet that the maximum height of the bed
without and with mattress is 19″ & 22″ respectively from
the ground and it seems quite impossible to get injuries as
mentioned in the PM report by mere fall from the bed with
such meager height. In the supplementary statement it is
mentioned that the complainant has further stated that her
accused mother-in-law & Nanads were in the mood of
remarrying accused Pawan Kumar after evicting her from
the house & they used to bring new marriage proposals for
her husband & instigated him for remarrying after
throwing her & children out of the house. They always
empoisoned her husband against her & children.
13.During the course of investigation, the viscera of the
deceased preserved during the Postmortem was deposited
in the FSL, Rohini for chemical analysis & as per report
filed with the supplementary charge-sheet no poisoning
could be detected.
14.It is further stated in the charge-sheet that there is one lady
Neelam to whom accused Pawan tried to befriend with her
& come close to her by making calls on her mobile
multiple times in a day & even during late night hours. The
statement of PW namely Umesh has also been recorded
who is landlord of Neelam & friend of accused Pawan. He
has also stated that accused Pawan told him many times to
PRANJAL help him in befriending & making physical relations with
ANEJA
Neelam by convincing her somehow. As per charge-sheet
Digitally signed by
PRANJAL ANEJA
Date: 2025.07.11
the CDR of accused Pawan reflects that he used to call
18:33:54 +0530
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 8 of 83
Neelam multiples times a day & even in odd hours in
night. This behavior of him shows that he was eager to get
re-married.
15.During investigation, accused Pawan Kumar was arrested
while other co-accused persons were absconding, however,
later they were also arrested.
16.The charge-sheet concluded that all accused persons in
conspiracy with each other murdered the girl child Kinjal
@ Guddo as they wanted the accused Pawan Kumar to
remarry in which the girl child was a hindrance. It has
been further concluded that even though there is no eye
witness of the crime, from the facts it is clear that the girl
child died under mysterious circumstances and the false
story created by the accused persons that the child fell
from the bed which is contrary to the injuries reflected in
postmortem report clearly raises suspicion. Since the
danda used in beating the deceased was not recovered,
section 201 IPC has also been added. Therefore, in view of
the circumstantial evidence the accused persons have been
charge-sheeted u/s 302/201/120B/34 IPC.
CHARGE :-
17.On completion of necessary formalities, matter was
committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges under
sections 302/201/34 IPC were framed upon all four
accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and
PRANJAL
ANEJA claimed trial.
Digitally signed
by PRANJAL
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :-
ANEJA
Date:
2025.07.11
18:34:05 +0530
18. Before beginning to note the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses, it would be apt to note, for convenience, the
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 9 of 83
prosecution witnesses and their role in the case. The same
has been tabulated as under :-
Witness Name of the witnesses Role
No.
PW-01 HC Dharmendra Singh To prove the registration of
(Duty Officer at PS FIR Ex.PW1/A.
Wazirabad on
25.05.2020)
PW-02 Ct. Naveen To prove the scaled site plan
(Assistant Draftsman) Ex.PW2/A prepared by him as
he joined investigation
alongwith IO Inspector
Gulshan Gupta.
PW-03 Smt. Lokesh To prove her complaint / FIR
(Complainant /Mother Ex.PW3/A and facts /
of the deceased girl) allegations therein.
PW-04 Ct. Praveen Kumar To prove the photographs
(Photographer in Mobile Ex.PW4/A1 to Ex.PW4/A22
Crime Team) taken by him at his visit to the
spot on the date of incident i.e
16.04.2020.
PW-05 Sh. Mange Ram To prove the facts of the case.
(Mama of the deceased)
PW-06 Sh. Hardeep @ Pintu To prove the facts of the case.
(Jija of the complainant)
PW-07 Smt. Neelam
(Tenant of Umesh –
friend of accused Pawan
Kumar)
PW-08 Sh. Umesh To prove the prosecution case
(Friend of the accused that accused Pawan Kumar
Pawan Kumar) wanted to have physical
relation with Neelam and used
to make mobile calls to her.
PRANJAL PW-09 Sh. Pawan Singh To prove CAF / CDR etc.
ANEJA
(Nodal Officer, (Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/G) of
Digitally signed by
PRANJAL ANEJA
Date: 2025.07.11
Vodafone Ltd.) mobile no.8588070662 and
18:34:10 +0530
9643044967 for the period
05.04.2020 to 16.04.2020.
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 10 of 83
PW-10 Sh. Surender Kumar To prove CAF / CDR /
(Nodal Officer, Bharti Location Chart etc.
Airtel Ltd.) (Ex.PW10/A to Ex.PW10/C)
of mobile no.7428706907 for
the period 15.04.2020 to
16.04.2020.
PW-11 Dr. Sandeep Kumar To prove postmortem report,
Garg Ex.PW11/A.
(Conducted postmortem
of deceased)
PW-11 SI Inderjeet Singh To prove his report
(even (Incharge Crime Team)
though Ex.PW11/A of the scene of
PW-11 is
the doctor, crime.
inadvertent
ly this
witness has
also been
given the
same
number)
PW-12 HC Sachin To prove the facts and
(joined investigation evidence gathered during
with Inspector Gulshan investigation and also to prove
Gupta) the arrest of accused Pawan
Kumar.
PW-13 Sh. Pankaj Sharma To prove CAF / CDR etc.
Nodal Officer, Reliance (Ex.PW13/A to Ex.PW13/H)
Jio. of mobile nos. (1)
8700328528, (2) 8700530456
and (3) 8076276986 for the
period 16.04.2020 to
17.04.2020.
PW-14 ASI Prem Ram To prove facts of the case,
(Police personnel from statements of the accused
PS Wazirabad who persons (Ex.PW14/A to
reached at the spot in Ex.PW14/D), documents
response to the PCR call relating to inquest proceedings
PRANJAL
vide GD No.12A dated (Ex.PW14/E to Ex.PW14/J),
ANEJA 16.04.2020) tehrir (Ex.PW14/K).
Digitally signed
by PRANJAL
PW-15 Inspector Gulshan Gupta To prove the facts and
ANEJA
Date: 2025.07.11 (IO of the case who evidence collected during
18:34:16 +0530
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 11 of 83
conducted investigation investigation such as site
after registration of FIR) plans Ex.PW15/A and
Ex.PW15/B, notice u/s 91
Cr.P.C Ex.PW15/C,
Ex.PW15/D and Ex.PW15/E,
arrest and personal search
memos of three accused
persons Ex.PW15/F to
Ex.PW15/K and their
disclosure statements
Ex.PW15/L to Ex.PW15/N,
seizure memo of bed
Ex.PW15/O, FSL result
Ex.PW15/P, Corrigendum
Ex.PW15/Q, status report
filed in anticipatory bail
application Ex.PW15/R.
PW-16 Sh. Amit Rawat. To prove his report
(Assistant Director, Ex.PW15/P pertaining to
Chemistry, FSL, Rohini, examination of viscera and
Delhi) blood sample of deceased
child.
PW-17 HC Sangeeta To prove the facts and
(joined investigation evidence gathered during
with IO Inspector investigation.
Gulshan Gupta)
PW-18 Ct. Basanti To prove the facts and
(joined investigation evidence gathered during
with IO Inspector investigation.
Gulshan Gupta)
PW-19 HC Sujata To prove the PCR call i.e GD
(Duty officer at PS entry no.12A dated
Wazirabad on 16.04.2020, Ex.PW19/A.
16.04.2020)
PRANJAL PW-20 W/Ct. Saraswati To prove GD entry no.56 A
ANEJA (CCTN operator at PS dated 16.04.2020 at 21:23:35,
Wazirabad on Ex.PW20/A recorded by her
Digitally signed by
PRANJAL ANEJA
16.04.2020) vide which ASI Prem Ram
Date: 2025.07.11 lodged his arrival in the PS in
18:34:21 +0530
connection with this case.
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 12 of 83
PW-21 Mahipal To prove facts of the case
(neighbour of accused such as he alongwith Nitish @
Pawan Kumar) Akash, S/o Raj Kumar took
the girl child on a bike to
Divine Hospital, upon
checking doctor declared her
dead.
19.PW1/Duty Officer/HC Dharmendra Singh, deposed that on
25.05.2020, he was posted at PS Wazirabad as Head
Constable / Duty Officer from 04:00 PM to 12:00 Night.
On that day, at about 05:30PM, ASI Prem Ram brought
Rukka prepared by him for registration of FIR.
Accordingly, the present case FIR No.213/2020 was
registered by him which is Ex.PW1/A and endorsed rukka
vide DD no.25A, Ex.PW/B and issued certificate U/S 65B
Indian Evidence Act regarding computerized registration
of FIR, Ex.PW1/C. He further deposed that on recording
of the FIR, he also lodged Kymi DD entry number 25A
with regard to registration of case FIR no.213/2020 and
after recording of the FIR, DD entry no.26A was also
lodged to the effect that the further investigation of this
case was handed over to Insp. Gulshan Gupta and copy of
FIR was also sent to the Learned MM and to the senior
official through special messenger. PW1 exhibited both
DD entries as Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E respectively.
20. PW2/Ct. Naveen, deposed that on 02.06.2020, he was
PRANJAL
ANEJA posted in Mapping Section Outer North District as
Digitally signed by
PRANJAL ANEJA
Assistant Draughtsman. PW2 further deposed that he
Date: 2025.07.11
18:34:26 +0530
joined investigation with IO Inspector Gulshan Gupta and
reached at the spot i.e. house of Pawan Kumar, Gali No.4,
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 13 of 83
Jagat Pur Village, Delhi alongwith IO. PW2 further
deposed that IO narrated entire incident to him and he took
measurement and finally prepared scaled site plan,
Ex.PW2/A.
21. PW3/ Smt. Lokesh, deposed that she was residing at
Village Gangol, PS Parta Pur, Meerut since last two years
and she is housewife and 10th class pass. She got married
with accused Pawan Kumar in the year 2014, R/o Village
Jagat Pur, Delhi. After marriage, PW3 started living at her
matrimonial home and has two children from this wedlock,
one son and one daughter. PW-3 further deposed that
during her stay at her matrimonial house, she was not
having cordial relations with her husband because quarrel
used to take place between them. PW3 then deposed that
she left her matrimonial house on 28.11.2019 after leaving
her both children at her matrimonial home and at that time
her son namely Vansh was four years old and her daughter
namely Kinjal @ Guddo was about two years old.
Thereafter, PW3 started residing at her parental house
situated in Meerut, UP.
22. PW3 further deposed that on 16.04.2020, her sister Savita,
who was residing in Jagat Pur Village, Delhi telephonically
informed her that she has heard that her daughter Kinjal @
Guddo had expired due to fall from stairs from second
PRANJAL
ANEJA floor of her matrimonial home. Thereafter, she alongwith
Digitally signed by
PRANJAL ANEJA
her brother namely Mange Ram reached at her
Date: 2025.07.11
18:34:32 +0530 matrimonial house i.e. Jagat Pur Village, Delhi where she
saw dead body of her daughter Kinjal @ Guddo.
Thereafter, she alongwith her brother Mange Ram went to
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 14 of 83
PS Wazirabad where her statement, Ex.PW3/A was
recorded by the police. PW3 further deposed that after
postmortem examination, dead body of her daughter was
received by her husband vide dead body handing over
memo, Ex.PW3/B. PW-3 further deposed that she does not
know anything else.
23. As PW-3 resiled from her earlier statement, she was cross-
examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the state with permission of
the Court. In such cross-examination, PW-3 admitted that
her parents had given Santro Car to her husband at the time
of marriage, but denied that her husband/accused Pawan
Kumar was demanding Scorpio car and over the issue of
the same, there was a dispute between them. PW-3 further
denies that she has stated in her statement that her husband
had given his Santro car to her brother-in-law and that he
will drive only Scorpio car due to which her
husband/accused Pawan Kumar had beaten her several
times. PW-3 was then confronted with relevant portions of
her statement Ex.PW3/A, where it is so recorded.
Similarly, PW-3 further denied that the facts of her
complaint as to beatings given by her husband to her and
her children about six months ago, her husband not
providing medicines to her daughter whenever she used to
PRANJAL fall ill, husband beating to her damaging her ear etc. PW-3
ANEJA was then confronted with relevant portions of her
Digitally signed
by PRANJAL
ANEJA
statement Ex.PW3/A, where it is so recorded. PW-3 further
Date: 2025.07.11
18:34:40 +0530
denied her complaint statement that when she was leaving
her matrimonial home alongwith her brother and children,
her husband did not allow her to take her children with her
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 15 of 83
and snatched them from her. PW-3 was then confronted
with relevant portion of her statement Ex.PW3/A, where it
is so recorded. PW-3 further denied her complaint
statement to the effect that her daughter Kinjal was killed
by her husband, mother-in-law and two sisters of her
husband. PW-3 was then confronted with relevant portion
of her statement Ex.PW3/A, where it is so recorded.
24.However, PW-3 admitted that neither her husband nor her
in-laws informed her about the incident that had happened
with her daughter Kinjal on 16.04.2020.
25.PW-3 denied to other suggestions put to her regarding her
sister-in-law Rinki having abused her brother and Jija
when they came in matrimonial house for giving marriage
card of the brother of jija. PW-3 also denied that her in-
laws wanted re-marriage of her husband to have more
dowry and therefore, they killed her daughter to remove
hindrance in his remarriage with another girl.
26.PW4/Ct. Praveen Kumar is the photographer in the Mobile
Crime Team which inspected the spot on 16.04.2020.
PW-4 proved the 22 photographs of the spot clicked by
him as Ex.PW4/A1 to Ex.PW4/A22, its CD Ex.PW4/B and
certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW4/C.
27. PW5/Sh. Mange Ram is the Mama of the deceased girl
child i.e the brother of Smt. Lokesh (mother of deceased).
He deposed that he is residing at Meerut and Smt. Lokesh
PRANJAL
ANEJA is his youngest sister. PW-5 further deposed that the
Digitally signed marriage of his sister Smt. Lokesh was solemnized with
by PRANJAL
ANEJA accused Pawan, R/o Village Jagat Pur, Delhi in the year
Date: 2025.07.11
18:35:11 +0530
2014 and her marriage was mediated by his brother-in-law
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 16 of 83
namely Hardeep and after marriage she started residing at
her matrimonial home and has two children, one son and
one daughter. PW-5 further deposed that he came to know
through his sister that there was a minor dispute between
her and her husband / accused Pawan Kumar on the
account of working in early morning to care cattles as
accused Pawan Kumar was running a milk dairy. PW-5
further deposed that due to dispute in respect of day to day
work between his sister Smt. Lokesh and her husband, she
started residing at her parental house situated in Meerut
about 2-3 months prior from the incident. PW-5 further
deposed that in the morning of 16.04.2020, he came to
know that baby Kinjal had fallen from roof of the second
floor, where they used to sleep by putting bed on the roof,
thereafter she expired. PW-5 further deposed that he
alongwith his sister Lokesh and father went to Jagat Pur
village, Delhi at her matrimonial house and came to know
that postmortem of the dead body of baby Kinjal has been
done. Thereafter, dead body of baby Kinjal was handed
over to her father/accused Pawan Kumar.
28. As PW-5 resiled from his earlier statement, he was cross-
examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the state with permission of
the Court. In such cross-examination, PW-5 denied his
previous statement as to dowry demand by the in-laws of
Smt. Lokesh, the beatings given by accused Pawan to her
PRANJAL
ANEJA sister Lokesh, the remarriage talks of accused Pawan
Digitally signed by
PRANJAL ANEJA
Kumar, misbehavour of Dharamwati and Rinki with him
Date: 2025.07.11
18:35:17 +0530 and brother-in-law, the holding of panchayat and refusal of
in-laws of Smt. Lokesh for any settlement, the intentional
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 17 of 83
killing of baby girl by accused persons to facilitate re-
marriage of accused Pawan Kumar. However, PW-5
admitted that his sister Lokesh left her matrimonial home
on 29.11.2019 without her both kids due to resistance of
accused Pawan and Dharamvati and came back at my
house. PW-5 also admitted that neither accused Pawan
Kumar nor his mother or sister informed him about the
death of baby girl Kinjal.
29. PW6/Sh. Hardeep @ Pintu is the jija (brother-in-law) of
Smt. Lokesh (mother of the deceased) i.e the husband of
Lokesh’s sister Savita. PW6 Hardeep and Savita are
resident of the same village and reside in Gali No.2 near
by the house of accused Pawan. PW-6 deposed that he got
the marriage of Lokesh and Pawan Kumar solemnized in
the year 2014, thereafter, Smt. Lokesh started residing at
her matrimonial home and has two kids i.e one son aged
about 5 years and one daughter aged about 2.5 years. PW-6
further deposed that he does not know whether there was
any dispute between Lokesh and her husband Pawan. PW6
further deposed that on 16.04.2020, in the morning time,
uncle of accused Pawan came at his house and he asked
mobile number of his brother-in-law namely Mange Ram
by stating that baby girl Kinjal had died due to fall from
bed on floor. He further deposed that he also came to know
Digitally
signed by
PRANJAL
through villagers/neighbours that baby girl Kinjal had died
PRANJAL ANEJA
ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11
18:35:23
due to fall from the roof of second floor of her house as
+0530she was sleeping on the bed put on the roof of second floor
in the intervening night of 15/16.04.2020. PW6 correctly
identified the accused persons in the Court.
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 18 of 83
30. As PW-6 resiled from his earlier statement, he was cross-
examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the state with permission of
the Court. In such cross-examination, PW-6 denied his
previous statement as to dowry demand by the in-laws of
Smt. Lokesh, the beatings given by accused Pawan to her
sister Lokesh, the remarriage talks of accused Pawan
Kumar, misbehavior of Dharamwati and Rinki with him
and brother-in-law, the intentional killing of baby girl by
accused persons to facilitate re-marriage of accused Pawan
Kumar. However, PW-6 admitted that Smt. Lokesh left her
matrimonial home on 29.11.2019 without her both kids
due to resistance of accused Pawan and Dharamvati and
came back at my house. PW-6 also admitted that neither
accused Pawan Kumar nor his mother or sister informed
him about the death of baby girl Kinjal.
31. PW7/Smt. Neelam, is a tenant of Pawan’s friend Umesh
and she deposed that she does not know anything about
this case. She deposed that she was called by the IO in the
police station in the year 2020 but does not know for what
purpose she was called. As PW-7 resiled from her earlier
statement, she was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the
state with permission of the Court. In such cross-
examination, PW-7 denied to the suggestions given by Ld.
Digitally
signed by
Addl. PP based on her previous statement. However, she
PRANJAL
PRANJAL ANEJA
ANEJA Date:
admitted that she belongs to Maharashtra and is residing in
2025.07.11
18:35:28
+0530 the house of Umesh and used to work as a maid for
household work.
32. PW8/ Sh. Umesh is the friend of accused Pawan. PW-8
deposed that he does not know anything about this case
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 19 of 83
and does not know for what purpose he was called in the
police station in the year 2020. As PW-8 resiled from his
earlier statement, he was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP
for the state with permission of the Court. In such cross-
examination, PW-8 denied to the suggestions given by Ld.
Addl. PP based on his previous statement. However, he
admitted that accused Pawan is his friend and he is having
property in which Neelam, belonging to Maharashtra, was
a tenant in the house of Umesh. PW-8 denied to the
suggestion that Pawan wanted to have intimacy with
Neelam.
33. PW9/Sh. Pawan Singh is the Nodal Officer from Vodafone
Idea Limited. He proved CAF / CDR / Location Chart /
Certificate u/s 65B IEA (Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/G) of
mobile no.8588070662 and 9643044967 for the period
05.04.2020 to 16.04.2020. PW-9 further deposed that the
mobile phone No.8588070662 was registered in the name
of Pawan and the mobile phone No.9643044967 was
registered in the name of Shila Pramod.
34.PW10/Sh. Surender Kumar is the Nodal Officer, Bharti
Airtel Limited. He proved the CAF / CDR / Certificate u/s
65 IEA (Ex.PW10/A to Ex.PW10/C) of mobile No.
7428706907 pertaining to one Praveen S/o Dharam Singh.
35. PW11/Dr. Sandeep Kumar Garg, Specialist, Forensic
Medicine, Bhagwan Mahavir Government Hospital,
Digitally
signed by
PRANJAL
Pitampura, Delhi is the doctor who conducted the
PRANJAL ANEJA
ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11
18:35:33
postmortem of deceased. He deposed that on 16.04.2020,
+0530
while posted as Sr. Resident, Department of Forensic
Medicine, Aruna Asif Ali Govt. Hospital, Delhi, uponFIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 20 of 83
request of IO, he had conducted postmortem on the dead
body of deceased Kinjal @ Guddo D/o Pawan Kumar,
aged 2 years 6 months old female child. PW11 further
deposed that he had examined the body of the deceased
and at the time of the examination the following external
injuries were found on the dead body.
1. Reddish contusion of size 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm, present
over the left side of forehead,, 1cm above left
eyebrow.
2. Reddish contusion of size 2.5cm x 1.5, present over
right side of forehead, 0.5 cm above right eyebrow.
3. Reddish contusion of size 1.5 cm, present over
centre of forehead.
4. Reddish contusion o size 5.5 cm x 2.5 present over
left side of head, 6.5cm above left ear.
5. Reddish contusion of size 4.5 x 2.5, present over
back of right side of head, 7 cm above posterior
hairline.
6. Reddish contusion of size 3.5 cm x 2.8 cm, present
over left side of head, 8cm above left ear.
7. Reddish contusion of size 1 cm x x 0.5 cm present
over left ala of nose.
8. Reddish contusion of size 1cm x 1cm, present over
left side of face on left angle of mandible.
9 Reddish contusion of size 1.2 c x 1cm, present over
left side of face 0.5cm above injury no. 7.
10. Reddish contusion of size 1 cm x 0.5 cm, present
over left side of upper part of neck 0.3cm below left
angle of mandible.
11. Reddish contusion of size 1 cm x 1 cm, present
over left side of chin.
12. Reddish contusion of size 4 cm x 2 cm, present
Digitally
over the left ear lobule.
signed by
PRANJAL 13. Reddish contusion of size 2 cm x 1 cm, present
PRANJAL ANEJA
ANEJA Date: over beck of left elbow joint.
2025.07.11
18:35:38 14. Reddish contusion of size 1 cm x 1 cm, present
+0530
over back of left forearm, 5cm above wrist joint.
15. Reddish contusion of size 1.5 cm x 1.3 cm present
over back of right forearm, 3.5 cm below right elbow
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 21 of 83
joint.
16. Reddish contusion of size 2 cm x 1cm, present
over front of left thigh, 4 cm above left knee joint.
17. Reddish contusion of size 2cm x 1 cm, present
over front of left knee joint.
18. Reddish contusion of size 1 cm x 0.5, present over
front of left leg, 4cm below left knee joint.
19. Reddish abrasion of rail road pattern of size 6 cm
x 1 cm, oblique present over back lower part of right
side of chest.
20. Reddish abrasion of rail road pattern of size 4 cm
x 1 cm, present over back of upper part of left side of
abdomen.
21. Multiple reddish contusions over an area 9cm x
5cm, present over back of upper part of chest, varying
from size 2cm x 1.4 cm to 1.6 cm x 1 cm.
Internal Examination
A) Head
Scalp: On reflection, effusion of blood is present in
undersurface of whole scalp.
Skull: Intact, Brain: Thin film of subdural hemorriage
is present over back of left cerebral hemisphere.
B) Neck
Pharynx, Larynx and Trachea: Hyoid Bone and neck
cartilages showed no fractures. Thyroid gland is
grossly unremarkable. Esophagus is unremarkable.
Vessels are grossly normal in appearance
C) Chest
Ribs, collar bone and sternum: NAD, pleurae and both
pleural
cavity: NAD
Lungs: Both lungs are congested.
Heart: NAD
D) Abdomen
Peritoneum: NAD
Liver: Congested
PRANJAL Spleen: Congested
ANEJA Kidneys: Congested
Digitally signed
Small and Large Intestines: contains fecal matter and
gases.
by PRANJAL
ANEJA
Date:
2025.07.11
18:35:44 +0530 Stomach: Contains about 10cc of brownish fluid.
Mucosal Walls
congestedFIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 22 of 83
E) Pelvis: NAD
F) Spinal Column: NAD
After postmortem, I am of the opinion that the cause
of death in the present case was due to asphyxia as a
result of smothering consequent to injury no. 07 to 10.
All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature, fresh in
duration prior to death. Injury no. 01 to 06, 11 to 18
and 21 were caused by blunt force impact. Injury
no.19 to 20 were caused by cylindrical blunt weapon.
Above mentioned injuries are consistent with severe
beating prior to death. However, viscera was
preserved to rule out any intoxication at time of death.
PW10 prepared a detailed report in this regard bearing
no. 444/2020 dated 16.04.2020, Ex PW1I/A. His
opinion regarding cause of death is at point X.
36. PW11 is SI Inderjeet Singh. (It is noted that doctor
Sandeep Kumar Garg has been examined and already
numbered as PW-11, however, inadvertently this witness
has also been given the same number) is the Incharge. SI
Inderjeet Singh proved his report of the scene of crime as
Ex.PW11/A.
37.PW12/HC Sachin is the police personnel who joined the
investigation alongwith IO Inspector Gulshan Gupta on
25.05.2020. PW 12 deposed that on that day, he alongwith
IO Inspector Gulshan Gupta and ASI Prem Ram reached at
the residence of accused Pawan Kumar. The accused was
found present at his house. The ASI Prem Ram briefed the
entire facts of the case as well as the PCR information to
Inspector Gulshan Gupta. At the instance of ASI Prem
Digitally
signed by
PRANJAL
Ram, Inspector Gulshan Gupta prepared the site plan. The
PRANJAL ANEJA
ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11 IO Inspector Gulshan Gupta had inspected the place of
18:35:49
+0530
scene at the instance of ASI Prem Ram and also taken the
measurements of the bed from which the deceased girl wasFIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 83
reported to have fallen. The height of the bed from the
base/ground is 19 inch without mattress and the height
with mattress is 22 inch. The distance of the room where
the deceased was lying was about 35-40 feet. Inspector
Gulshan Gupta also made inquiry from the accused Pawan
Kumar and thereafter he was arrested in connection of this
case vide arrest memo Ex.PW12/A. His personal search
was conducted vide memo Ex.PW12/B. Disclosure
statement of the accused is Ex.PW12/C.
38. PW13/Sh. Pankaj Sharma is the Nodal Officer from
Reliance Jio. He proved the CAF / CDR / Cell ID Chart /
Certificate u/s 65B IEA (Ex.PW13/A to Ex.PW13/H) of
mobile nos. (1) 8700328528, (2) 8700530456 and (3)
8076276986 for the period 16.04.2020 to 17.04.2020.
39. PW14/ASI Prem Ram is the police personnel who visited
the spot from PS Wazirabad in response to the PCR call i.e
GD No.12A dated 16.04.2020. PW-14 deposed that upon
receiving the GD entry for enquiry, he alongwith HC
Parshu Ram, went to Gali No.4, Jagar Pur Village. Dead
body of a girl aged about 2 ½ year was found lying in the
gallery of the house. Many public persons were present
there. Senior officers i.e. SHO and ACP also came at the
spot. Crime team was called at the spot and the spot was
also photographed. The dead body of deceased child wasPRANJAL sent to mortuary. Father of the deceased child Pawan
ANEJA Kumar, her grand-mother (Dadi) Dharamwati and her
Digitally signed by
PRANJAL ANEJA Buas Rinki and Preeti were present at the spot. PW14
Date: 2025.07.11
18:35:59 +0530
further deposed that he made enquiry from them and
recorded their statements which are exhibited asFIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 24 of 83
Ex.PW14/A to Ex.PW14/D respectively. Thereafter, PW14
went to Subzi Mandi mortuary. Mother of deceased child
namely Smt. Lokesh came at the mortuary. PW14 made
enquiry from her and recorded her statement which is
Ex.PW3/A. PW14 prepared inquest papers and got the
postmortem examination of the deceased child conducted
vide his application to Medical Supdt. Aruna Asif Ali
Hospital, Mortuary Subzi Mandi, Delhi, Ex.PW14/E. The
dead body of child was duly identified by her father Pawan
Kumar and her neighbour namely Raj Kumar vide their
statements, Ex.PW14/G and Ex.PW14/H. After the
postmortem examination, dead body of the child was
handed over to her father vide receipt Ex.PW3/B. The
exhibits pertaining to the deceased child, in sealed
condition were given by the examining Doctor and the
same were seized by him with the sample seal. The seizure
memo of sealed parcel containing clothes of the deceased
with sample seal is Ex.PW14/I. The seizure memo of
viscera jar alongwith blood sample and sample seal is
Ex.PW14/J. The seizure memo of sealed blood in gauze of
the deceased child alongwith sample seal is Ex.PW14/J.
The postmortem report of deceased child was collected
from mortuary on 02.05.2020. PW14 informed the senior
officers regarding the facts. PW14 further deposed that on
25.05.2020, PW14 prepared Tehrir on the statement of
PRANJAL
ANEJA mother of the deceased child and got the present case
Digitally signed
by PRANJAL registered. The said Tehrir is Ex.PW14/K. The
ANEJA
Date: 2025.07.11
18:36:03 +0530 investigation of case by the direction of SHO was handed
over to Inspector Gulshan Gupta, Inspector Investigation.
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 25 of 83
PW14 further deposed that on 25.05.2020, he joined
investigation in this case with IO Inspector Gulshan Gupta
and he alongwith Ct. Sachin, went to Gali no.4, Village
Jagat Pur where accused Pawan Kumar was found present
at his house. IO prepared the rough site plan on his
pointing out. IO had made enquiry from accused Pawan
Kumar and arrested him vide arrest memo, Ex.PW12/A
and his personal search was taken vide memo,
Ex.PW12/B. His disclosure statement is Ex.PW12/C.
40. PW15/Inspector Gulshan Gupta is the IO deputed to the
case upon registration of FIR on 25.05.2020. PW-15
deposed that on the same day, he alongwith ASI Prem Ram
and Ct. Sachin reached at the spot i.e. House of accused
Pawan Kumar at Village Jagatpur, where accused Pawan
was found present. ASI Prem Ram had described the place
of incident. PW15 prepared two site plans i.e. Ex.PW15/A
and Ex.PW15/B at the instance of ASI Prem Ram. PW15
took the measurements of the alleged bed from which the
deceased Kinjal @ Guddo was stated to have fallen on the
day of incident. The maximum height of the bed from the
floor was 19 inches without mattress. Thereafter, accused
Pawan was interrogated, who confessed his crime and was
then arrested. Remaining accused persons namely
Dharamwati, Rinki @ Meenakshi and Preeti were not
found at the house. During investigation, PW15 recorded
PRANJAL
ANEJA supplementary statement of complainant Smt. Lokesh and
Digitally signed
by PRANJAL
statement of her brother Mange on 27.05.2020. Statement
ANEJA
Date: 2025.07.11
18:36:09 +0530 of Sh. Hardeep, brother-in-law (Jija) of Smt. Lokesh was
recorded on 30.05.2020. Search of co-accused was made.
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 26 of 83
During investigation, PW15 alongwith Assistant
Draftsman Ct. Naveen went to place of incident and PW15
had shown place of incident to him who later prepared the
scaled site plan. PW15 further deposed that during
investigation he recorded statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C of
other official witnesses and collected documents pertaining
to them such as CD, Photographs, certificate u/s 65 B IEA,
CDRs of mobile phones etc. The notices u/s 91 pertaining
to CDR are Ex.PW15/C, Ex.PW15/D and Ex.PW15/E.
During investigation, remaining accused who were
absconding, were also arrested vide arrest memos
Ex.PW15/F to Ex.PW15/H, personal search memos
ExPW15/I to Ex.PW15K and their disclosure statement are
Ex.PW15/L to Ex.PW15/N. The seizure memo of bed with
mattress is Ex.PW15/O. The FSL result (Chemical
analysis) is Ex.PW15/P. The corrigendum to postmortem
report of deceased is Ex.PW15/Q.
41.PW-15 further deposed that during investigation, he had
visited the Divine Hospital, where he came to know that no
document like ECG etc. of the deceased girl child was ever
conducted in the said hospital.
42.PW16/ Sh. Amit Rawat is the Assistant Director
(Chemistry), FSL, Rohini, Delhi, who proved his chemical
analysis report Ex.PW15/P pertaining to viscera and blood
sample of the deceased Kinjal @ Guddo. PW16 deposed
PRANJAL
ANEJA that he is of the opinion that on Chemical, Microscopic,
Digitally signed
by PRANJAL
ANEJA
TLC & GC-MS examination, metallic poisons, ethyl and
Date: 2025.07.11
methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids,
18:36:13 +0530
barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 27 of 83
detected in exhibits ‘1’, ‘2’ & ‘3’.
43.PW-17/HC Sangeeta is the police personnel who joined
investigation alongwith IO Inspector Gulshan Gupta, Ct.
Basanti and Ct. Preseta on 10.09.2020 and assisted in the
carrying out of investigation and arrest of accused persons
and also seizure of bed with mattress.
44. PW-18/Ct. Basanti is the police personnel who joined
investigation alongwith IO Inspector Gulshan Gupta, Ct.
HC Sangeeta and Ct. Preseta on 10.09.2020 and assisted in
the carrying out of investigation and arrest of accused
persons and also seizure of bed with mattress.
45. PW-19/ HC Sujata is the duty officer who was posted at PS
Wazirabad. PW-19 deposed that she received the
information at about 10:06 am regarding the murder of two
and half year old girl stating that ‘ Lady caller bol rahi hai
ki yanha par ek 2.5 saal ki ladki ka murder kar dia h…
jisne kia h uska naam Pawan S/o Balbir h’ and this
information was recorded to GD No.12A which is
Ex.PW19A, the same was marked to ASI Prem Ram to
attend the call.
46.PW-20 W/Ct Saraswati deposed that on 16.04.2020, she
was posted as W/Ct/CCTN operator at PS Wazirabad. On
that day, his duty hours were from 02:00pm to 10:00 pm.
On that day at about 09:23 pm, ASI Prem Ram has lodged
Digitally
signed by
PRANJAL
PRANJAL ANEJA
his arrival in the police station in connection of this case
ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11
18:36:19
+0530
and the same was typed by her in the computer vide DD
no. 56A. The attested copy of the DD entry number 56 A,
Ex.PW20/A bearing the signatures of the then DO/ASI
Kanwar Singh at point A.FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 28 of 83
47. PW-21/Shri Mahipal is the neighbour of accused Pawan.
He deposed that on 16.04.2020, he was living along with
his family in the Jagat Pur Village and was having house at
Gali No. 4. On that day at about 7:00 AM, when he was
present in his house, he heard some noises coming from
his neighbourhood and when he came out from his house
to see what was happening, he saw 2/3 neighbourers were
also present near the house of accused Pawan. He also
reached there and found that the mother of the accused
Pawan namely Smt. Dharamwati was having the daughter
of Pawan in her lap. PW21 further deposed that he
inquired about the girl child from accused Dharamwati
who told him that the child has fallen from the first floor
of the house through stairs and she became unconscious.
PW21 further deposed that he took the girl child to Divine
Hospital on his motorcycle and the child was attended by
the doctor and after checking, her ECG was done and then
they declared that the child has already expired. Thereafter,
PW21 brought back the child to the house of Pawan.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/S 313 Cr.P.C
48.Examined under Section 313 of CrPC, accused persons
either pleaded ignorance about the incriminating evidence
or denied the same as incorrect. Accused Dharamwati
stated that she had gone to the temple at the time of
PRANJAL
ANEJA incident. The accused Rinki and Preeti stated that they
Digitally signed by
PRANJAL ANEJA
Date: 2025.07.11
were at their in-laws at the time of incident.
18:36:24 +0530
49. Accused persons opted not to lead defence evidence. The
matter then proceeded for final arguments.
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 29 of 83
ARGUMENTS OF LD. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR FOR THE STATE :
50. It is argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the state that prosecution
has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt
against the accused persons and therefore they deserve to
be convicted for offence u/s 302/201/34 IPC.
51.Ld. Addl. PP further argued that the matrimonial discord
between the accused Pawan Kumar and his wife Smt.
Lokesh has been duly proved. The fact that both the
children were retained by accused Pawan Kumar with him
while Smt. Lokesh was leaving for her parental home is
also duly established. Ld. Addl. PP also argued that the
mother and two sisters of the accused Pawan Kumar
wanted to remarry him with a suitable match, so as to fetch
more dowry and therefore, all the accused persons in
conspiracy with each other and in furtherance of their
common intention, killed the girl child Kinjal @ Guddo, so
as to remove the hindrance in the remarriage.
52. As regards the delay in lodging FIR, it was argued that the
incident occured during the 1st lockdown of COVID-19
and furthermore the postmortem report was not received in
time afterwhich it was clear that the case is that of
homicide and not an accident.
Digitally
signed by
PRANJAL
PRANJAL ANEJA
ANEJA Date:
ARGUMENTS OF LD. DEFENCE COUNSEL :
2025.07.11
18:36:29
+0530
53. Ld. Defence Counsel (LAC) for accused argued on various
aspects of the matter. He argued that there is an inordinate
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 30 of 83
delay of about more than a month and the case has ben
falsely imputed upon the accused persons. Ld. Counsel
further arged that the cause of death of the girl child in
merely accidental as she fell from the cot lying on the 2 nd
floor i.e. terrace where she was sleeping and when she fell
down and came rolling through the staircase to the ground
floor sustaining injuries. Ld. Counsel also argued that the
post-mortem report is not correct and the same was
prepared during ist lockdown of the covid-19 period. Ld.
Counsel further argued that the crime team or IO did not
inspect the 2nd floor and did not take possession of the cot
being case property while they have falsely impounded the
bed as case property just to falsely implicate the accused
persons. Ld. Counsel further argued that accused Rinki and
Preeti were at their in-laws’ homes at the time of incident
and accused Dharamwati was in the temple. He stated that
the accused persons are God-beleivers and they have even
built a temple in their house and therefore they could not
have committed any offence of this kind.
54. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record.
For appreciating the rival contentions, it would be apt to
analyse the evidence brought on record in detail to
adjudicate if the prosecution has been able to prove its
case beyond all reasonable doubts or whether accused
PRANJAL
ANEJA deserves to be acquitted in the present case?
Digitally signed by
PRANJAL ANEJA
Date: 2025.07.11
ANALYSIS:
18:36:34 +0530
55. Facts of the case reveal that there is no direct evidence
with respect to the offence committed. A girl child aged 2
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 31 of 83
½ yrs old died in her house in mysterious circumstances.
As per prosecution, the girl child has been killed by the
accused persons while the defence taken is that the child
died due to fall from the cot lying on 2 nd floor on which
she was sleeping and came down rolling through the
staircase, having no railing, to the ground floor where
construction material was kept as the house was under
construction. As per prosecution case, the following
circumstances exist and are proposed to be proved against
the accused persons in the present case:
1. There were matrimonial disputes between the parents of
the deceased girl child due to which the mother of the child
had left the matrimonial house in November 2019 leaving
behind both her children and started residing at her
parental house;
2. The deceased girl child was in the custody of accused
persons before her death and she was found dead in the
house where accused persons were residing and present at
the time of incident;
3. Cause of death is homicidal in nature;
4. Identification of the deceased girl child and accused
PRANJAL
persons is not disputed.
ANEJA
Digitally 56. While appreciating the evidence on record, this court shall
signed by
PRANJAL
now proceed with the case in hand and shall give findings
ANEJA
Date:
2025.07.11
18:36:39
+0530with respect to each of the circumstance which can help in
arriving at a just decision of the case.
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 32 of 83
Circumstance no.1:
There were matrimonial disputes between the parents of
the deceased girl child due to which the mother of the child
had left the matrimonial house in November 2019 leaving
behind both her children and started residing at her
parental house.
57. It is not in dispute that the mother of deceased girl child
left her matrimonial house at Delhi and had gone to her
parental house at Meerut (U.P.) in November 2019 and
record does not suggest that she ever visited the
matrimonial home thereafter till the time death of the child
was reported. The mother Smt. Lokesh in her complaint
Ex. PW3/A as well as in her testimony as PW3 stated that
she got married with accused Pawan in the year 2014 and
started living in her matrimonial house at Gali No.4,
Village Jagatpur, Delhi. She further deposed that from the
wedlock she had two children i.e. a son who was 4 yrs old
and daughter namely Kinjal @ Guddo who was about 2 yrs
old when she left the matrimonial house on 28.11.2019.
The girl child Kinjal @ Guddo was about 2 ½ years old
when she died. These facts are not under challenge.
58. Regarding matrimonial disputes, the complainant stated in
her complaint Ex. PW3/A that her parents gave Santro car
Digitally
signed by
PRANJAL
however her husband wanted Scorpio car resulting which
PRANJAL ANEJA
ANEJA
dispute arose and the husband never used that Santro car
Date:
2025.07.11
18:36:44
+0530and gave it to his brother-in-law. She further made
allegations in the complaint that about 6 months ago herFIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 33 of 83
husband had beaten her and her children and then she
called her brother to take her and while she was leaving
with her brother along with both the children, her husband
did not allow her to take the children. Complainant also
made allegations that her husband did not used to love
their daughter and also never used to provide medicines to
her whenever she used to fall ill. Complainant also stated
that once her husband had beaten her so much that her ear
got damaged but she did not take any action.
59. However, in her testimony in the Court PW3 did not
support the abovesaid allegations of her complaint.
Without going into any details, she simply deposed in her
examination-in-chief that she was not having cordial
relations with her husband because of quarrel between
them.
60. As PW-3 resiled from her earlier statement, she was cross-
examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State with permission of
the Court. In such cross-examination, PW-3 admitted that
her parents had given Santro Car to her husband at the time
of marriage, but denied that her husband/accused Pawan
Kumar was demanding Scorpio car and over the issue of
the same, there was a dispute between them. PW-3 further
denied to all other allegation made in her complaint.
PRANJAL
61.However, PW-3 admitted that neither her husband nor her
ANEJA
in-laws informed her about the incident that had happened
Digitally signed by
PRANJAL ANEJA
Date: 2025.07.11
18:36:48 +0530
with her daughter Kinjal on 16.04.2020.
62. In cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel, PW3
admitted to a suggestion that the quarrel between her and
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 34 of 83
her husband was over petty issues such as not cooking
food and not waking up early morning.
63. The fact remains that there were no cordial relations
between the complainant/PW3 and her husband. Even
though PW3 deposed that she had quarrel with her
husband over petty issues, it does not appear so in view of
the fact that she took the bold step of leaving her
matrimonial house and going to her parents’ house with her
brother. It is also worth noting that neither did she return
back nor was there any effort for calling her back to the
matrimonial house despite both children having been
retained by her husband Pawan Kumar with him for last
about 6 months prior to the death of the girl child Kinjal @
Guddo. This reflects the gravity of the dispute between
them. It is further fortified by the fact that information
about the incident i.e. death of her infant daughter was not
given to her being mother. It is the case of defence that the
information was given to complainant’s sister Savita.
However, death of a 2½ years girl child in mysterious
circumstance is a very serious matter and not informing the
same directly to the mother of the deceased child cannot be
viewed lightly in the given facts and circumstances of the
case.
64. In any case, it can be safely concluded that ceratinly there
was matrimonial discord between the parents of the
PRANJAL deceased girl child as a result of which mother of the
ANEJA
deceased child left the matrimonial house on 28.11.2019
Digitally signed
by PRANJAL
ANEJA
Date: and started residing at the house of her parents at Meerut
2025.07.11
18:36:53
+0530
(U.P.). The complainant in her complaint states that while
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 35 of 83
she was leaving the matrimonial house with both of her
children, her husband snatched both of them from her and
did not allow her to take them along with her. Though the
complainant/PW3 in her testimony simply states that both
the children were left at the matrimonial house, however
the abovenoted matrimonial discord between the
complainant and her husband and the manner in which she
has resiled from her complaint, speaks more than what
appears a routine affair. With the given ages of the children
at that time i.e. about 4 – 4.5 years and 2 years
respectively, they would have been more likely to be
attached with the mother, especially the younger one i.e.
infant daughter in the age zone of breast-fed, however she
was not allowed to take them. Notably, there is no
suggestion from the accused persons during cross-
examination of the complainant or any other witness to the
effect that both the children were more attached with the
father and therefore on insistence of the children they
remained with their father and did not accompany their
mother. It is also noted that one of the witness PW 6 /
Hardeep @ Pintu who happens to reside in same locality
and is the husband of complainant’s sister Savita i.e.
Complainant’s jija, deposed in his testimony that the
Digitally
complainant could not take both the kids with her due to
signed by
PRANJAL the resistance of accused Pawan and Dharamwati. Thus,
PRANJAL ANEJA
ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11 what clearly comes out is that the children could not
18:36:58
+0530
accompany their mother due to the resistance of accused
Pawan and Dharamwati and Pawan forcefully retained
both the children with them.
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 36 of 83
65. As the complainant/PW3 resiled from her complaint, the
denial to the suggestions put by Ld. Addl. PP during cross-
examination, based on the allegations in her complaint,
cannot be taken without a pinch of salt in these very given
fasts and circumstances of the case.
66. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the both the
children including the deaceased girl child remained at
Pawan’s house when his wife i.e. complainant left the
matrimonial house. This circumstance no.1 therefore
stands proved.
Circumstance no. 2:
The deceased girl child was in the custody of accused
persons before her death and she was found dead in the
house where accused persons were residing and present at
the time of incident.
67. It is the case of prosecution that all four accused persons
were at the house in Gali No.4, Jagatpur Village,
Wazirabad, Delhi where the death of the child occurred on
16.04.2020. All four accused persons have been
chargesheeted for the murder of the deceased girl child
with the hypothesis that they all committed it in common
intention of all in order to eliminate her thereby facilitating
the remarriage of accused no. 1/ Pawan Kumar.
68. There is no dispute over the fact that the deceased girl
PRANJAL
ANEJA
child was in the house of her father i.e. accused Pawan at
Digitally signed
Gali No.4, Jagatpur Village, Wazirabad, Delhi before her
by PRANJAL
ANEJA
Date: 2025.07.11
18:37:08 +0530
death as she was retained there when her mother Smt.
Lokesh left the matrimonial house. The same has also been
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 37 of 83
discussed under circumstance no.1 above. In fact, both the
children were in the custody of the father i.e. accused
Pawan. Being father he is also the natural guardian of the
child as per law i.e. Section 6 of The Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956. Even though by this law the
custody of a minor child under 5 years is ordinarily with
the mother, in this case admittedly the father i.e. accused
Pawan also took the custody of the girl child when the
mother Smt. Lokesh left the matrimonial house. Thus, the
father i.e. accused Pawan is not only the legal guardian of
the deceased girl child but was also having her custody. In
this scenario, the presence of accused Pawan in the house
at the time of incident cannot be ruled out. Therefore,
greater onus lies upon him to explain his non-presence in
the house at the time of incident. It is important to note that
nowhere in the entire evidence it has come on record that
accused Pawan was not present in the house at the time of
incident. There is no plea of alibi taken by the accused
Pawan. The incident occurred within the four walls of the
house. When neighbours had gathered at the house hearing
about the death of the child, accused Pawan was present.
He was also there when the police had arrived upon the
PCR call. He was also present in the mortuary and even
received the dead body of his girl child.
PRANJAL
ANEJA 69. PW 14 ASI Prem Ram had reached the spot upon the PCR
Digitally signed
call. He found the deceased girl child lying in the gallery
by PRANJAL
ANEJA
Date:
2025.07.11
18:37:13
of the house. There he recorded statement of accused
+0530
Pawan and also of other 3 accused persons which are Ex.
PW14/A to Ex. PW14/D. It has come in these statements
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 38 of 83
that accused Pawan was at his dairy at the time of incident.
However, these statements precede the FIR & the
investigation. Moreover, they have turned out to be of the
accused persons chargesheeted by the police. Therefore,
stricto sensu, as per law, these statements (Ex. PW 14/A to
14/D) cannot be relied upon in evidence. Although PW14 /
ASI Prem Ram has tendered the same in his deposition,
but the accused persons have disowned them by putting
suggestion to PW 14 during his testimony that the
statements of accused are fabricated after registration of
the case. Even in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused
Pawan denied having made any such statement and stated
that his signatures were obtained on blank papers by the
police. So, it is no one’s case that the accused Pawan was
at his dairy or elsewhere at the time of incident. It is again
noted that accused Pawan has not taken any plea of alibi
during the entire trial. Additionally, prosecution has also
relied upon CAF (consumer application form) and CDR
(call detail record) with chart location of the mobile
number 8588070662 of accused Pawan and examined the
concerned nodal officer from Vodafone Idea in this regard
as PW 9 who exhibited these documents as Ex. PW 9/A
(CAF), Ex. PW9/D (CDR) and Ex. PW 9/E (location
chart). Admittedly, the said mobile number belongs to the
PRANJAL
ANEJA accused Pawan. There is nothing disputed during the cross-
Digitally signed by
PRANJAL ANEJA
examination of PW 9 as regards the cell tower location
Date: 2025.07.11
18:37:21 +0530 with regard to accused Pawan.
70. It is worth noting that neither PW14 / ASI Prem Ram nor
any other witness in cross-examination has been asked
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 39 of 83
about the presence of accused Pawan at the time of
incident. No suggestion has been put from defence side to
any of the prosecution witness that the accused Pawan was
not present inside the house or that he was at the dairy or
elsewhere at the time of incident. Surprisingly, in his
statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. also the accused Pawan
nowhere denied about his presence inside the house at the
time of incident. Infact, when the question concerning
evidence led by IO /PW15 regarding measurements of the
bed & mattress was put to the accused Pawan in his
examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C., he answered that it is
incorrect and further explained that they used to sleep at
the second floor i.e. terrace on a charpai. Thus, accused
Pawan himself indicated his presence inside the house at
the time of incident. Nowhere he took the defence that he
was at his dairy or elsewhere at the time incident. No
evidence has been led in defence to deny his presence at
the spot at the time of incident. Thus, it can safely be
concluded that accused Pawan was present inside the
house at the time of incident.
71. As regards accused Dharamwati, it is noted that she is the
grandmother of the deceased girl child. As such she is a
natural resident of the house. Except for a bald statement
made by her u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that she had gone to the
PRANJAL temple where she came to know about the death of her
ANEJA
Digitally signed by
grand daughter Kinjal @ Guddo, there is no stand taken or
PRANJAL ANEJA
Date: 2025.07.11
18:37:25 +0530
suggestion given to any of the prosecution witness that she
was not present at the spot and that she had gone to the
temple when the incident occurred. Various questions have
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 40 of 83
been asked to many witnesses regarding the temple and the
religious beliefs and sentiments of the accused
Dharamwati and Pawan, however no defence has been
built during the cross-examination so as to show her non-
presence at the spot during the incident. Admittedly, the
temple has been built on the ground floor inside the house
itself. This makes the presence of accused Dharamwati all
the more plausible inside the house at the time of incident
even if her aforesaid plea during the examination u/s 313
Cr.P.C. is taken at its face value. As discussed in the
preceding para qua accused Pawan, the statement of
accused Dharamwati Ex. PW 14 / B recorded by PW 14
ASI Prem Ram cannot also be relied upon and the same
has even otherwise been disowned by the defence. It is
recorded in such statement that accused Dharamwati had
gone to the temple at the time of incident. As already
noted, no positive evidence has been led by the defence to
deny the presence of accused Dharamwati inside the house
at the time of the incident. There is also no negative
suggestion put to any prosecution witness concerning the
presence of accused Dharamwati. Merely a bald plea taken
during the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that she was in the
temple will not help her establish the plea of alibi. She was
PRANJAL also present when ASI Prem Ram reached the spot in
ANEJA
Digitally signed by
PRANJAL ANEJA response to the PCR call. The above discussion thus leads
Date: 2025.07.11
18:37:31 +0530
to the conclusion that accused Dharamwati was also
present in the house at the time of incident.
72. Now coming to the aspect with regard to the presence of
other two accused persons namely Rinki and Preeti at the
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 41 of 83
spot during the incident. These two accused persons are
the bua of the deceased girl child i.e. her father’s sisters. As
per record, both are married with their in-laws at Faridabad
(Haryana). The IO charge sheeted these two accused
persons on the basis of disclosure statement of the accused
Pawan. In that disclosure statement Ex. PW 12/C of
accused Pawan it is recorded that on 15.04.2020 he came
home drunk and out of frustration due to matrimonial
discords he had beaten both his children after which he
went to his diary and he had mobile conversation on
16.04.2020 at 4 am with his sister Rinki who told that
Kinjal @ Guddo was not amenable with the beatings after
which he came home and saw that both her sisters (Rinki
& Preeti) were insisting Kinjal @ Guddo to have milk but
she was not drinking it, then out of anger he had beaten her
and upon instigation of all other three accused persons
present there, he killed the girl child by smothering i.e. by
choking her nose and mouth. However, this confession
statement does not have any evidentiary value and there is
no discovery out of this statement so as to cover it u/s 27
of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, the same cannot
PRANJAL
ANEJA be relied upon. There are also statements of these two
Digitally signed accused persons recorded by ASI Prem Ram as Ex. PW
by PRANJAL
ANEJA
Date:
2025.07.11
18:37:37 +0530
14/C and Ex. PW 14/D when he visited the spot on
16.04.2020 in response to the PCR call. In the statement
Ex. PW 14/C of accused Rinki it is recorded that on
16.04.2020 at about 7 am while she was in the toilet she
heard a thud sound and crying of child and when she came
to the room where Kinjal @ Guddo was sleeping on theFIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 42 of 83
bed she saw the girl child had fallen on the floor. Then she
took the girl child alone to a Bengali doctor who referred
the child to Divine Hospital and upon taking the child
there, she was declared dead. Similarly, the statement Ex.
PW 14/D of accused Preeti records that the girl child
Kinjal @ Guddo was sleeping on the bed inside the room
while she was on the terrace to rinse the clothes. As
already noted, these statements cannot be relied upon in
evidence. The prosecution also relies upon the CDR
connection amongst accused Pawan and these two accused
persons in the early morning of 16.04.2020 to establish the
presence of these two accused Rinki and Preeti in the
house at the time of incident. For this, the prosecution
relied upon CAFs, CDRs and location charts Ex. PW 10/A,
Ex. PW 10/B and Ex. PW 10/C exhibited by PW10 (Nodal
Officer – Bharti Airtel) with respect to mobile No.
7428706907 and also Certificate u/s 65B IEA, CAFs,
CDRs and Cell ID charts exhibited as Ex. PW 13/A to Ex.
PW 13/H exhibited by PW 13 (Nodal Officer – Reliance
JIO) with respect to mobile numbers 8700328528,
8700530456 and 8076276986. However, none of the CAFs
(customer application form) of the above-mentioned four
mobile numbers were found to be that of accused Rinki or
Preeti. There is no other evidence brought on record to
show that those mobile numbers were used by them either.
PRANJAL
ANEJA
Thus, the Cell ID chart alone cannot be relied upon to
Digitally signed
establish that mobile communication occurred between
by PRANJAL
ANEJA
Date:
2025.07.11
two certain persons. It could not be thus established that
18:37:43 +0530
those mobile numbers were used by accused Rinki and
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 43 of 83
Preeti. Both of these accused persons in their statements
u/s 313 Cr.P.C. stated that they were at the house of their
in-laws at the time of incident. Even though this may
merely be seen as a bald plea of alibi, the prosecution also
could not properly establish the presence of these two
accused – Rinki and Preeti at the spot at the time of
incident. It is also not the case of prosecution that these
two accused persons namely Rinki and Preeti were already
residing at the house of Pawan when the complainant had
left the matrimonial house and that they have been since
then residing here at their brother’s house in Vill. Jagatpur,
Delhi, so as to undoubtedly infer their presence at the spot
at the time of incident. The benefit of doubt therefore
accrues in favour of the accused Rinki and Preeti as to
their presence at the spot at the time of incident.
73. As to the child having died in the house, it is neither the
case of prosecution nor of the defence that the child died
elsewhere. The incident, which is termed as ‘accident’ by
the defence and ‘murder’ by the prosecution, occurred
inside the house of Pawan only and then the child was
found dead.
74. In view of the above discussion, it is concluded under this
circumstance no. 2 that the deceased girl child Kinjal @
Guddo was in the custody of accused persons Pawan
Kumar and Dharamwati before her death and she was
PRANJAL
ANEJA
found dead in the house where these accused persons were
Digitally signed
by PRANJAL
ANEJA residing and present at the time of incident.
Date:
2025.07.11
18:37:49 +0530
Circumstance no. 3:
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 44 of 83
Cause of death is homicidal in nature
75. The accused persons have tried to built up a defence that
the death of the girl child has occured due to fall from the
cot lying on 2nd floor i.e. terrace on which she was sleeping
as she came down rolling through the staircase, having no
railing, to the ground floor where construction material
was kept as the house was under construction. It is their
defence that this was an accident.
76. To the contrary, the post-mortem report opines the death to
be homicidal in nature. The post-mortem was conducted
on the same day of the ocurrence of the incident. The
doctor who conducted the post-mortem was examined as
PW11 who proved his PM report Ex. PW 11/A and opined
that the death is due to asphyxia as a result of smothering
consequent to certain injuries i.e. reddish contusions all
present over left ala of the nose, left side of face on the left
angle of mandible and over left side of face above injury
on the nose. It is also opined that certain injuries are
caused by blunt force impact and some injuries are caused
by cylindrical blunt weapon and all injuries are consistent
with severe beating prior to death. The said opinion of PM
report Ex. PW 11/A is reproduced as under:
“OPINION:
PRANJAL Death is due to asphyxia as a result of smothering
ANEJA consequent to injury no. 07 to 10. All the injuries are
ante-mortem in nature, fresh in duration prior to
Digitally signed by
PRANJAL ANEJA death. Injury no. 01 to 06, 11 to 18 and 21 are caused
Date: 2025.07.11
18:37:53 +0530
by blunt force impact. Injury no.19 to 20 are caused
by cylindrical blunt weapon. Above mentioned
injuries are consistent with severe beating prior to
death. However, viscera has been preserved to rule
out any intoxication at time of death.
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 45 of 83
Manner of Death: Homicide
Time since death: Within 12 hours. Body preserved
in cold storage prior to autopsy”
In order to properly appreciate the PM opinion, it
would also be profitable to reproduce the various
injuries recorded in the PM report:
“EXTERNAL INJURIES:
1. Reddish contusion of size 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm, present
over the left side of forehead,, 1cm above left
eyebrow.
2. Reddish contusion of size 2.5cm x 1.5, present
over right side of forehead, 0.5 cm above right
eyebrow.
3. Reddish contusion of size 1.5 cm, present over
centre of forehead.
4. Reddish contusion o size 5.5 cm x 2.5 present over
left side of head, 6.5cm above left ear.
5. Reddish contusion of size 4.5 x 2.5, present over
back of right side of head, 7 cm above posterior
hairline.
6. Reddish contusion of size 3.5 cm x 2.8 cm, present
over left side of head, 8cm above left ear.
7. Reddish contusion of size 1 cm x x 0.5 cm present
over left ala of nose.
8. Reddish contusion of size 1cm x 1cm, present over
left side of face on left angle of mandible.
9 Reddish contusion of size 1.2 c x 1cm, present over
left side of face 0.5cm above injury no. 7.
10. Reddish contusion of size 1 cm x 0.5 cm, present
over left side of upper part of neck 0.3cm below left
angle of mandible.
11. Reddish contusion of size 1 cm x 1 cm, present
over left side of chin.
12. Reddish contusion of size 4 cm x 2 cm, present
over the left ear lobule.
PRANJAL 13. Reddish contusion of size 2 cm x 1 cm, present
ANEJA over back of left elbow joint.
14. Reddish contusion of size 1 cm x 1 cm, present
Digitally signed over back of left forearm, 5cm above wrist joint.
by PRANJAL
ANEJA 15. Reddish contusion of size 1.5 cm x 1.3 cm
Date: 2025.07.11
18:37:58 +0530
present over back of right forearm, 3.5 cm below
right elbow joint.
16. Reddish contusion of size 2 cm x 1cm, present
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 46 of 83
over front of left thigh, 4 cm above left knee joint.
17. Reddish contusion of size 2cm x 1 cm, present
over front of left knee joint.
18. Reddish contusion of size 1 cm x 0.5, present
over front of left leg, 4cm below left knee joint.
19. Reddish abrasion of rail road pattern of size 6 cm
x 1 cm, oblique present over back lower part of right
side of chest.
20. Reddish abrasion of rail road pattern of size 4 cm
x 1 cm, present over back of upper part of left side of
abdomen.
21. Multiple reddish contusions over an area 9cm x
5cm, present over back of upper part of chest,
varying from size 2cm x 1.4 cm to 1.6 cm x 1 cm.
INTERNAL EXAMINATION
A) Head
Scalp: On reflection, effusion of blood is present in
undersurface of whole scalp.
Skull: Intact. Brain: Thin film of subdural
hemorriage is present over back of left cerebral
hemisphere.
B) Neck
Pharynx, Larynx and Trachea: Hyoid Bone and neck
cartilages showed no fractures. Thyroid gland is
grossly unremarkable. Esophagus is unremarkable.
Vessels are grossly normal in appearance
C) Chest
Ribs, collar bone and sternum: NAD. Pleurae and
both pleural cavity: NAD
Lungs: Both lungs are congested.
Heart: NAD
D) Abdomen
Peritoneum: NAD
Liver: Congested
Spleen: Congested
Kidneys: Congested
PRANJAL Small and Large Intestines: contains fecal matter and
ANEJA gases.
Digitally signed by
PRANJAL ANEJA Stomach: Contains about 10cc of brownish fluid.
Date: 2025.07.11
18:38:03 +0530
Mucosal Walls – congested
E) Pelvis: NAD
F) Spinal Column: NAD”
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 47 of 83
77. It is seen from the above report that there are in as much as
21 external injuries on the body of the deceased. Except
two injuries (injury no. 19 & 20) which are abrasions of
rail road pattern present over lower back part of right chest
and over upper back part of left abdomen, all other injuries
are reddish contusions all over the body including the face.
Important to not that all the injuries are stated to be
consistent with severe beatings prior to death and the cause
of death is opined to be asphyxia as a result of smothering
consequent to injuries no. 7 to 10 i.e. reddish contusion
over left ala of the nose, reddish contusion over left side of
face on the left angle of mandible and reddish contusion
over left side of face above injury on the nose,
respectively.
78. Upon analysing the cause of death taken in the defence by
the accused perons in light of the above-discussed post-
mortem report, it gives a clear picture that the defence
taken by the accused persons as to cause of death is highly
inconsistent with the nature of injuries sustained on the
body of the deceased girl child.
79. There are photographs Ex. PW4/A-1 of the house taken by
the crime team where the incident ocurred. In one of the
photograph the stairs are visible and the same are seen
unplastered i.e. in a raw form. It is the case of defence
itself that the house was under construction and
PRANJAL
ANEJA construction material was also lying at the ground floor. In
Digitally signed
by PRANJAL
ANEJA such a senario, a fall of the child from the 2 nd floor to the
Date: 2025.07.11
18:38:07 +0530
ground floor by rolling down through those raw &
unplastered stairs would certainly bring lots of bruises overFIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 48 of 83
the face and body with blood oozing out and may also
cause fractures. But the Post-mortem Ex. PW 11/A records
no injury of such kind. Rather, the PM report opines the
cause of death due to asphyxia as a result of smothering
consequent to injuries no. 7 to 10 i.e. reddish contusion
over left ala of the nose, reddish contusion over left side of
face on the left angle of mandible and reddish contusion
over left side of face above injury on the nose,
respectively. In smothering, a person is killed by covering
his/her face so that he/she cannot breathe. As per the
medical opinion, the reddish contusions over the nose,
mandible and face have occurred due to smothering. Such
injury could not have occurred upon a fall through the
stairs. Though in cross-examination by Ld. defence
counsel it was suggested to the doctor / PW11 that as per
Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence injuries no. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8,
19, 20 & 21 may be possible due to fall from cot and
rolling through stairs, no proper reference has been
produced in support of this bald suggestion which is
vague in nature. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that in
order that an object falling from 2nd floor reaches the
ground floor, ordinarily it has to take minimum three turns
which come in between the 4 sets of staircase between 2 nd
floor and ground floor. It is highly improbable in this
situation that the girl child would freely fall uninterrupted
PRANJAL
ANEJA right from the 2nd floor till the ground floor though the
Digitally signed by
PRANJAL ANEJA staircase taking note of the fact that the staircase have
Date: 2025.07.11
18:38:12 +0530turns and are even in an unplastered/raw form and not at
all slippery. The absence of railing on the staircase, asFIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 49 of 83
suggested by the defence, even poses more danger of a free
fall directly from any of the turns in the staircase and such
fall is likely to bring skull or bone breakages or even more
visible injuries, both external & internal, with blood
oozing out given the circumstance as suggested by defence
that construction material was kept lying at the ground
floor. Such construction material may generally consist of
bricks, stones, cement, iron etc. and may thus pose threat
of a greater bodily injury. But the PM report does not
suggest such injuries consistent with the above-said
situation of a fall from the 2nd floor.
80. As regards asphyxia, the Ld. Defence counsel raised
various suggestions to the doctor/PW11 stating that
generally during the time of asphyxia the eyes will be open
and tounge protrudes out, right side of chest may be full of
blood and left side empty, kidney gets distended and brain
gets oedematous and there should be lesser number of
oxygen particles in the blood and there might be swelling
on the lips. It is noted that in all these suggestions the word
‘generally’ has been used. The doctor / PW11 in reply to all
these suggestions stated that these findings are not correct
in all the cases and they differ from case to case. No
particular medical reference was given by the defence in
support of these bald suggestions. The doctor / PW11
clearly denied to these suggestions and categoricallyDigitally
deposed in the end that none of the injuries mentioned in
signed by
PRANJAL
PRANJAL ANEJA
ANEJA Date:
the post-mortem report Ex. PW 11/A could be possible by
2025.07.11
18:38:19
+0530
fall from cot on the roof through rolling on stairs. There
have been also some suggestions in the cross-examinationFIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 50 of 83
to the doctor that postmortem was conducted by his
supporting staff and that he himself had never examined
the body and that the report was prepared only on the
observations of the supporting staff. Those have been
denied by the doctor. It is seen that there is no denial by
the defence in the entire cross-examination as to the nature
of the injuries, while only their cause has been questioned,
that too unsuccessfully. The post-mortem report is a
detailed report which has minutely recorded the external
injuries which are too many in number i.e. 21. There is
therefore no basis to put these bald suggestions as
aforesaid. Resultantly, the challenge of the defence to the
post-mortem report Ex. PW 11/A remains unsuccessful.
81. Analysing independently, the defence taken by acccused
persons that the girl child died due to fall from the cot
lying on 2nd floor i.e. terrace on which she was sleeping as
she came down rolling through the staircase, having no
railing, to the ground floor where construction material
was kept, numerous questions arise on this line of defence.
Firstly, whether the girl child was sleeping alone on the
terrace (2nd floor), if yes, then it is highly questionable as
to how a just 2½ year infant, and that too a girl child, was
left to sleep alone on the terrace with risk that the child
may just not able to climb down the stairs without human
support or railing, as there was no railing also. And if she
Digitally
was sleeping with accused Pawan and Dharamwati, then
signed by
PRANJAL
questions naturally arise as to what attempts were made to
PRANJAL ANEJA
ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11
18:38:23
+0530save the girl child from rolling down the stairs and
ultimately falling down on the ground floor. Were bothFIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 51 of 83
accused sleeping or were already awoke at that time?
Naturally, as the child would have fallen from the cot, she
would have cried or atleast made some noise either at that
moment or soon therafter when she started rolling down
the staircase. This would have awaken Pawan and
Dharamwati in case they were asleep. If the stand taken by
Dharamwati is believed that she was at the temple and
Pawan was at the Dairy at the time of incident, then who
saw the child falling from the cot on the terrace by rolling
through the staircase down to the ground floor. Why the
face/body/clothes of the deceased child was not got dirty
or filthy with earth as she had fallen down from the 2 nd
floor to the ground floor where construction material was
kept ? All these questions remained unresolved as there is
nothing on record to suggest answer to any of these
questions which remains only a mystery. Nothing
whatsoever is stated or explained by the accused persons in
their examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on these aspects.
82. This analysis and finding leads to an irresistable
conclusion that the death of the girl child Kinjal @ Guddo
is homicidal in nature and the defence plea of accident
taken by the accused persons that the girl child died due to
fall from the cot lying on 2nd floor i.e. terrace on which she
was sleeping as she came down rolling through the
staircase, having no railing, to the ground floor where
construction material was kept as the house was under
Digitally
signed by
PRANJAL
PRANJAL ANEJA
construction is a sham & false defence which is discarded.
ANEJA Date:
This circumstance no.3 thus duly stand established, that
2025.07.11
18:38:28
+0530the death is homicidal in nature.
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 52 of 83
Circumstance no. 4:
Identification of the deceased girl child and accused
persons.
83. There is no dispute over the identity of the deceased girl
child namely Kinjal @ Guddo. The accused Pawan signed
the death report Ex. PW 14/F and also identified the dead
body of his girl child in the mortuary vide dead body
identification memo Ex. PW 14/G. The complainant /
mother of deceased girl child Smt. Lokesh also deposed
that she signed on the dead body handing over memo when
the body was handed over to her husband Pawan after the
post-mortem. There is also no dispute over the identities of
the accused persons as they are all family members.
FURTHER ANALYSIS & FINDINGS:
84. Having discussed the above mentioned circumstances
being proved on record, it becomes imperative to now
discuss their resultant effect in view of the law as
applicable.
85. In heinous crimes like murder, it becomes difficult to have
an eye-witness. Under criminal law, the deposition or the
oral testimony of an eye-witness is called direct evidence.
But where the witness has not directly seen the
commission of the offence, the case becomes that of a
Digitally
signed by
PRANJAL
PRANJAL ANEJA
circumstantial evidence also known as indirect evidence,
ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11
18:38:33 deduced from the existing facts and is an inference drawn
+0530from proved facts. This kind of evidence though an
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 53 of 83
admissible evidence in a criminal trial, it has to be treated
with a lot of caution and circumspection by the Criminal
Court because of the inherent subjectivity in drawing the
conclusions by the Court concerned. The law regarding the
nature and character of proof of circumstantial evidence
has been settled by several authorities of Hon’ble Supreme
Court and the Hon’ble High Courts in India. The locus
classicus of the decision was rendered by Hon’ble Mr.
Justice Mahajan of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hanumant
V. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1953 Crl.L.J 129, who
expounded the concomitants of the proof of a case based
on circumstantial evidence by holding:
“The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency and they should be such as to exclude
every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. It
must be such as to show that within all human
probability the act must have been done by the
accused.”
86. In the celebrated judgment of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda
V. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, while examining the nature and character
of proof of circumstantial evidence, reiterated its decision
rendered in the aforesaid case of Hanumant (supra)
wherein the Hon’ble Court had propounded five golden
principles regarding circumstantial evidence. The said
golden principles of Sharad Birdhichand (supra) have been
recently reiterated in an Apex Court judgment in Nusrat
PRANJAL
ANEJA Parween Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2024 INSC 955 [Criminal
Digitally signed by
PRANJAL ANEJA
Date: 2025.07.11
Appeal No. 458 of 2012] under para 7 as follows:
18:38:38 +0530
“7. It is a well-established principle of criminal
jurisprudence that conviction on a charge of murder may be
based purely on circumstantial evidence, provided that such
evidence is deemed credible and trustworthy. In casesFIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 54 of 83
involving circumstantial evidence, it is crucial to ensure that
the facts leading to the conclusion of guilt are fully
established and that all the established facts point irrefutably
to the accused person’s guilt. The chain of incriminating
circumstances must be conclusive and should exclude any
hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. In other
words, from the chain of incriminating circumstances, no
reasonable doubt can be entertained about the accused
person’s innocence, demonstrating that it was the accused
and none other who committed the offence. The law with
regard to conviction based on circumstantial evidence has
been crystalised by this Court in the case of Sharad
Birdhichand Sharda Vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein it
was held:
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 be proved” as was held by this
Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade V. State of
Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793] where the
observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807]
“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
Digitally signed
by PRANJAL not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
PRANJAL ANEJA
ANEJA
Date:
2025.07.11
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
18:38:43
+0530 show that in all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused.”
(emphasis supplied)
87. The aforesaid five cardinal principles have been reiterated
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 55 of 83
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in numerous
judgments. The principle, as laid down in aforesaid
judicial dicta, is that in cases based on circumstantial
evidence, circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such
circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all
the circumstances should be complete, forming a chain and
there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. The
various circumstances in the chain of events must be such
so as to rule out the reasonable likelihood of innocence of
accused. The missing of important link snaps the chain of
circumstances and the other circumstances cannot in any
manner establish guilt of accused beyond all reasonable
doubts.
88. The principle of circumstantial evidence has been
reiterated by the Apex Court in a plethora of cases. In
Bodhraj @ Bodha And Ors. Vs. State of Jammu &
Kahsmir, (2002) 8 SCC 45, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held as under:-
“10. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where
a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference
of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts
and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the
innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See
Hukam Singh V. State of Rajasthan (1977) 2 SCC 99, Eradu V.
State of Hydrabad, AIR 1956 SC 316, Earabhadrappa v. State
of Karnataka (1983) 2 SCC 330, State of U.P. Vs. Sukhbasi
(1985) Suppl. SCC 79, Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab
(1987) 1 SCC 1 and Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P.,
Digitally 1989 Suppl. (1) SCC 560) The circumstances from which an
signed by
PRANJAL inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be
PRANJAL ANEJA
ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11
proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be
18:38:48
+0530 closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred
from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Punjab,FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 56 of 83
AIR 1954 SC 621 it was laid down that where the case depends
upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative
effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the
innocence of the accused and bring home the offences beyond
any reasonable doubt.
11. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in
C. Chenga Reddy V. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein
it has been observed thus: (SCC pp. 206-07, para 21) “21. In a
case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that
the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn
should be fully proved and such circumstances must be
conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be
complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of
evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally
inconsistent with his innocence.”
89. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra,
(2006) 10 SCC 681, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as
under:
“10. In the case in hand there is no eyewitness of the
occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on
circumstantial evidence. The normal principle in a case
based on circumstantial evidence is that the
circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought
to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that
those circumstances should be of a definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that
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 they should be
incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than
that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their
innocence.”
90. In light of the aforesaid guiding principles of law, turning
to the case in hand it is observed that the four
Digitally
signed by
circumstances discussed above have been duly proved and
PRANJAL
PRANJAL ANEJA
established by the prosecution viz. there were matrimonial
ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11
18:38:53
+0530disputes between the parents of the deceased girl child due
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 57 of 83
to which the mother of the child had left the matrimonial
house in November 2019 leaving behind both her children
and started residing at her parental house; the deceased girl
child was in the custody of accused Pawan Kumar and
Dharamwati before her death and she was found dead in
the house where these two accused persons were residing
and present at the time of incident; cause of death being
homicidal in nature; and there being no dispute as to
identification of deceased girl child and accused persons.
91. As per the precedents discused above, it is settled law that
the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to
be drawn should be fully established. As noted above, the
four circumstances lined out in this case are so connected
in a way and have been fully established by the
prosecution that there is no impediment in moving further
towards drawing the conclusion as regards guilt in this
case.
92. The warps and wefts of the weave in the fabric of aforesaid
circumstantial evidence are so cogent and firm that they
have left no gaps in them. They cumulatively form a
complete chain unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the
accused persons and there is no escape from the conclusion
that within all human probability the crime was committed
by them. The proven circumstances in this case are
consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused
persons and totally inconsistent with their innocence.
93. The stage is now set for invocation of Sec. 106 of Indian
Digitally
signed by
Evidence Act, 1872.
PRANJAL
PRANJAL ANEJA
ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11
18:38:57
+0530FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 58 of 83
INVOCATION OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF U/S 106
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872:
94. Section 106 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 embodies the rule
with respect to the burden of proving facts especially
within the knowledge of any person. The provision reads
as under:
“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.
Illustration
(a) When a person does an act with some intention
other than that which the character and
circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of
proving that intention is upon him.
(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway
without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had
a ticket is on him.”
95. The expression ‘Burden of Proof’ is used in two senses in
the Indian Evidence Act, firstly, as the burden of proving
an issue, also termed as ‘Legal Burden’ and secondly, the
burden of adducing evidence, also termed as ‘Evidential
Burden’. The difference between the two is that ‘Legal
Burden’ never shifts and ‘Evidentiary Burden’ keeps on
shifting during the trial. In criminal cases the ‘Legal
Burden’ is on the prosecution. It is trite law that
prosecution has to stand on its own legs and burden of
proving the case lies upon it only, the same is inflexible.
The elementary rule of burden of proof is embodied in Sec.
101 Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under:
“101. Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to
any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of
Digitally
signed by
PRANJAL
facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
PRANJAL ANEJA
ANEJA Date: When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact,
2025.07.11
18:39:02 it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
+0530FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 59 of 83
Illustrations
A desires a Court to give judgment that B shall be
punished for a crime which A says B has committed.
A must prove that B has committed the crime. 2. ….”
96. The ‘Evidential Burden’ remains shifting during the
various stages of trial. This rule is embodied in sec. 102
Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under:
“102. The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on
that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given
on either side.”
97. As per sec. 102, the initial onus is always on the
prosecution and if the initial onus is discharged and a case
is made out entitling it for relief, the onus shifts to the
accused to prove those circumstances which would
disentitle the prosecution of the relief. Thus, the two terms
‘Burden’ and ‘Onus’ are distinguishable when we take a
conjoint reading of sec. 101 & 102 Indian Evidence Act,
1872.
98. As a general rule, the burden of proving facts asserted by
the prosecution lies upon it only as per sec. 101 Indian
Evidence Act. However, sec. 106 is an exception to this
general rule of legal burden. Recently, in a 3 Judges Bench
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anees v. The State
Govt. of NCT, 2024 INSC 368 it has been observed as
follows:
“36. Section 106 of the Evidence Act referred to above
provides that when any fact is especially within the
knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is
upon him. The word “especially” means facts that are pre-
PRANJAL
ANEJA eminently or exceptionally within the knowledge of the
accused. The ordinary rule that applies to the criminal trials
Digitally signed by
PRANJAL ANEJA that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of
Date: 2025.07.11
18:39:06 +0530 the accused is not in any way modified by the rule of facts
embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Section 106FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 60 of 83
of the Evidence Act is an exception to Section 101 of the
Evidence Act. Section 101 with its illustration (a) 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 it 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 the facts which
are, “especially within the knowledge of the accused and
which he can prove without difficulty or inconvenience”.
99. As regards the meaning and import of the word
“especially”, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Anees (supra)
observed as follows:
“37. In Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer, AIR
1956 SC 404, this Court while considering the word
“especially” employed in Section 106 of the Evidence Act
speaking through Vivian Bose, J., observed as under: “11.
… The word “especially” stresses that it means facts that are
pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If 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 he whether he
did or did not. It is evident that that cannot be the intention
& the Privy Council has twice refused to construe this
section, as reproduced in certain other Acts outside India, to
mean that the burden lies on an accused person to show that
he did not commit the crime for which he is tried. These
cases are Attygalle v. The King, 1936 PC 169 (AIR V 23)
(A) and Seneviratne v. R. 1936-3 All ER 36 AT P. 49 (B).
38. The aforesaid decision of Shambhu Nath (supra) has
been referred to and relied upon in Nagendra Sah v. State of
Bihar, (2021) 10 SCC 725, wherein this Court observed as
under: “22. Thus, Section 106 of the Evidence Act will
apply to those cases where the prosecution has succeeded in
establishing the facts from which a reasonable inference can
be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts
PRANJAL which are within the special knowledge of the accused.
ANEJA When the accused fails to offer proper explanation about the
Digitally signed by existence of said other facts, the court can always draw an
PRANJAL ANEJA
Date: 2025.07.11 appropriate inference. 23. When a case is resting on
18:39:10 +0530
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 61 of 83
circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a
reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him
by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such a failure
may provide an additional link to the chain of
circumstances. In a case governed by circumstantial
evidence, if the chain of circumstances which is required to
be established by the prosecution is not established, the
failure of the accused to discharge the burden under Section
106 of the Evidence Act is not relevant at all. When the
chain is not complete, falsity of the defence is no ground to
convict the accused.” (Emphasis supplied)”
100. The Hon’ble Supreme Court then went ahead to observe
that until a prima facie case is established by evidence led
by prosecution, the onus does not shift to the accused. The
relevant excerpt from Anees (supra) is as follows:
“44. Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be
invoked to make up the inability of the prosecution to
produce evidence of circumstances pointing to the
guilt of the accused. This section cannot be used to
support a conviction unless the prosecution has
discharged the onus by proving all the elements
necessary to establish the offence. It does not absolve
the prosecution from the duty of proving that a crime
was committed even though it is a matter specifically
within the knowledge of the accused and it does not
throw the burden on the accused to show that no
crime was committed. To infer the guilt of the
accused from absence of reasonable explanation in a
case where the other circumstances are not by
themselves enough to call for his explanation is to
relieve the prosecution of its legitimate burden. So,
until a prima facie case is established by such
evidence, the onus does not shift to the accused.”
101. Further, the Hon’ble Court in Anees (supra) also explained
the meaning of prima facie case or foundational facts as
under :
Digitally
signed by
PRANJAL
PRANJAL ANEJA
“ii. What is “prima facie case” (foundational facts) in the context
ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11
of Section 106 of the Evidence Act?
18:39:15
+0530 49. The Latin expression prima facie means “at first sight”,
“at first view”, or “based on first impression”.
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 62 of 83
….
…
50. Section 106 of the Evidence Act would apply to cases
where the prosecution could be said to have succeeded in
proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be
drawn regarding guilt of the accused.
51. The presumption of fact is an inference as to the
existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts,
unless the truth of such inference is disproved.
52. To explain what constitutes a prima facie case to make
Section 106 of the Evidence Act applicable, we should refer
to the decision of this Court in Mir Mohammad (supra),
wherein this Court has observed in paras 36 and 37
respectively as under: “36. In this context we may profitably
utilize the legal principle embodied in Section 106 of the
Evidence Act which reads as follows: “When any fact is
especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of
proving that fact is upon him.” 37. The section is not
intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But the section
would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in
proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be
drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless
the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding
such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might drive
the court to draw a different inference.”
102. It would be worthwhile to also mention the further
observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case of Anees
(supra), as follows:
“55. If an offence takes place inside the four walls of a
PRANJAL
ANEJA house and in such circumstances where the accused has
all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at a
Digitally signed time and in the circumstances of his choice, it will be
by PRANJAL
ANEJA extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead direct
Date: 2025.07.11
18:39:46 +0530 evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. It is to
resolve such a situation that Section 106 of the Evidence
Act exists in the statute book. In the case of TrimukhFIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 63 of 83
Maroti Kirkan (supra), this Court observed that a Judge
does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that
no innocent man is punished. The Court proceeded to
observe that a Judge also presides to see that a guilty man
does not escape. Both are public duties. The law does not
enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such
character, which is almost impossible to be led, or at any
rate, extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the
prosecution is to lead such evidence, which it is capable
of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case.”
103. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anees (supra) has
held that section 106 would apply to cases where the
prosecution has succeeded in bringing out a prima facie case
i.e. proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be
drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless
the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding
such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might drive
the court to draw a different inference. The Hon’ble Court
observed that once the foundational facts are duly proved,
the Courts are justified in invoking the principles enshrined
under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
104. Applying to the case in hand the aforesaid principles of
law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it follows that
the circumstances or the foundational facts have duly proved
by the prosecution. As noted, Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Anees (supra) observed that if an offence takes place inside
the four walls of a house and in such circumstances where
the accused has all the opportunity to plan and commit the
offence at a time and in the circumstances of his choice, it
PRANJAL
ANEJA
will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead direct
Digitally signed
by PRANJAL
ANEJA
Date:
evidence to establish the guilt of the accused and it is to
2025.07.11
18:39:50 +0530
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 64 of 83
resolve such a situation that Section 106 of the Evidence Act
exists in the statute book. Hon’ble Supreme Court futhre
observed that the situation is apt to invoke sec. 106 Indian
Evidence Act. In the present case also the girl child Kinjal
@ Guddo died inside the four walls of the house. Thus, the
situation and chain of established circumstances as dicussed,
call for invocation of section 106 of Indian Evidence act,
1872 here.
105. As already observed, the deceased girl child was under the
gurdianship and custody of the father i.e. accused no.1 as the
mother / complainant had left the matrimonial house without
the children. It has been also observed under circumstance
no.2 above that the grandmother Dharamwati/accused no.2
being a natural resident was also present in the house at the
time of incident. However, the presence of accused no.3 and
4 i.e. Rinki and Preeti could not be established.
106. The cause of death of the girl child has clearly been found
to be homicidal in nature. The prosecution relied upon the
initial statements Ex.PW14/A to Ex.PW14/D of the accused
persons recorded on the date of incident in which a plea was
taken that the girl child was sleeping on the bed from where
she fell and the thud sound was heard by accused Rinki who
was in the toilet at the time and who came to the room and
saw the child fallen on the ground whereafter she took the
Digitally
signed by
child to a Bengali doctor who referred the child to be taken
PRANJAL
PRANJAL ANEJA
ANEJA Date: to hospital and accused Rinki took the child to Divine
2025.07.11
18:39:56
+0530
Hospital where the child was declared dead. On the basis of
such reliance, the IO/Inspector Gulshan Gupta seized the
bed and the mattress of the room and as per the
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 65 of 83
measurement the maximum height of the bed was found to
be 19 inches without mattress and 22 inches with mattress
from the ground. This is how, the IO concluded that the
death of the girl child could not have occured by mere fall
from the bed of such meager height. However, this seizure
of the bed and mattresses and the drawing of this conclusion
is solely based upon the above said initial statements
Ex.PW14/A to Ex.PW14/D of the accused persons which are
inadmissible under law, as already observed in forgoing
paras of this judgment. On the other hand, the defence which
has been tried to be built up by the accused persons is that
the girl child was sleeping on the cot lying on the second
floor from where she fell and came down rolling through the
stair case, having no railing, at the ground floor where
construction material was kept as the house was under
construction. The said defence / theory has also been found
to be sham and clearly displaced by the nature of injuries as
per the post mortem report, as discussed under circumstance
no. 3 above.
107. There is no dispute with respect to the identification of the
deceased girl child as well as the accused persons. As
discussed under circumstance no.2 above, the presence of
accused Rinki and Preeti at the spot at the time of incident
has been doubted and thus they have been given benefit of
doubt, however, the same is not in the case of accused
PRANJAL Pawan and Dharamwati. In these very circumstances of the
ANEJA
case having been fully established, onus lay upon the
Digitally signed
by PRANJAL
ANEJA
Date: 2025.07.11
accused Pawan and Dharamwati to reasonably explain or
18:40:01 +0530
present cogent reason for the death of the girl child Kinjal @
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 66 of 83
Guddo in order to dispel the inference drawn against them.
The girl child having died inside four walls of the house and
the chain of established circumstances as dicussed being
complete, this stage calls for invocation of section 106 of
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 here.
108. The accused persons were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in
which all incriminating evidence were put to them. To
almost all the questions / incriminating evidences, the
accused persons simply replied by stating ‘incorrect’ and
‘false’.
109. It is pertinent to note that in his entire examination u/s 313
Cr.P.C., the accused no.1 / Pawan Kumar nowhere
stated/explained about his whereabouts at the time of
incident. Notably, when it was put to him that he was
present at his house upon visit of ASI Prem Ram there on
16.04.2020 on receipt of call regarding murder of child and
ASI recorded statements of Pawan and other 3 accused
persons, the accused Pawan Kumar specifically denied
recording of any such statements stating that signatures were
obtained on blank papers by police, but did not specifically
deny his presence at his house at that time however he
specifically ensured to state that his sister was not present.
110. Similary, in examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. of accused
Dharamwati when it was put to her that she was present at
her house upon visit of ASI Prem Ram there on 16.04.2020
on receipt of call regarding murder of child and ASI
recorded statements of her and other 3 accused persons, the
PRANJAL accused Dharamwati specifically denied recording of any
ANEJA
Digitally signed by
PRANJAL ANEJA
such statements stating that signatures were obtained on
Date: 2025.07.11
18:40:06 +0530
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 67 of 83
blank papers by police, but she did not specifically deny her
presence at the house at that time however she specifically
ensured to state that her daughters were at their in-laws’
homes. As to her presence at the time of incident, accused
no. 2 / Dharamwati in her statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. stated
that at the time of incident she had gone to the temple and it
was told to her that Kinjal @ Guddo had fallen from the cot
on which she was lying on the terrace and had fallen through
the stairs.
111. To the statements Ex. PW14/A & Ex. PW14/B recorded by
ASI Prem Ram on 16.04.2020, both the accused Pawan
Kumar and Dharamwati denied that no statement was
recorded and their signatures were obtained on blank papers
by police.
112. When the medical evidence i.e. Post-mortem report,
opining severe beatings and cause of death as smothering,
was put, both the accused Pawan and Dharamwati simply
stated that it is a false report prepared by doctor during
covid-19 period.
113. Further, when asked why this case has been filed against
them, both accused Pawan and Dharamwati simply stated
that it is a false case and has been tried to work out the case
and interested witnesses deposed against them without any
reason. Here, it be worth noting that a suggestion was put to
the IO/PW 15 that the present case has been falsely
PRANJAL registered against accused persons at the instance of Mr. Raj
ANEJA
Kumar as there was property dispute between them. Nothing
Digitally signed
by PRANJAL
ANEJA
of this sought as to property dispute is mentioned anywhere
Date:
2025.07.11
18:40:13 +0530
in their entire examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 68 of 83
114. Similarly, in their examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the other
two accused persons Rinki and Preeti responded to the
evidences & questions put to them in the same manner as
answered by accused Pawan and Dharamwati. As regards
their presence at the time of incident, both accused Rinki
and Preeti stated that they were at their in-laws’ home.
115. While the examination of accused persons u/s section 313
Cr.P.C. gives them a valuable opportunity to personally
explain any circumstances appearing in evidence against
them and this is what the purpose of 313 Cr.P.C. carries,
however, it is observed that the accused persons did not
explain/comment or even answer anything on the most vital
aspect of the case i.e. the cause of death of the girl child.
They simply gave a vague reply that the post-mortem report
is a false one prepared by doctor during covid-19 period.
The evidence as to the post-mortem has been put to the
accused persons in detail clearly mentioning the opinion of
the doctor that the death occurred due to asphyxia as a result
of smothering consequent to injury no. 07 to 10 and that all
the injuries were ante-mortem in nature, fresh in duration
prior to death and also that injury no. 01 to 06, 11 to 18 and
21 were caused by blunt force impact while injury no.19 to
20 were caused by cylindrical blunt weapon. It is also put to
the accused persons that as per PM opinion the above
mentioned injuries are consistent with severe beating prior
to death. Despite the medical evidence being elaborately put,
PRANJAL
ANEJA there is no reasonable answer coming from the accused
Digitally signed by persons. The answer given by them that the report is false
PRANJAL ANEJA
Date: 2025.07.11
18:40:18 +0530
and prepared by doctor during covid-19 period does not
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 69 of 83
appeal to a reasonable mind. Here, the accused persons not
even stated their defence that the girl child died due to fall
from the cot lying on 2nd floor on which she was sleeping
and came down rolling through the staircase, having no
railing, to the ground floor where construction material was
kept as the house was under construction. Only the accused
Dharamwati stated that she came to know that her grand-
daughter Kinjal had fallen from the cot lying on the terrace
and had fallen through the stairs while at that time she had
gone to the temple. The accused persons kept silent giving
no explanation at all on the points of medical evidence as to
numerous injuries i.e. totalling 21 sustained on the body of
the deceased girl child, severe beatings consistent to those
injuries and death being caused due to asphyxia as a result
of smothering consequent to injury no. 07 to 10 i.e. reddish
contusions all present over left ala of the nose, left side of
face on the left angle of mandible and over left side of face
above injury on the nose, respectively.
116. The accused persons opted not to lead any defence
evidence.
117. Several questions have been put to the accused persons in
their examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. encompassing all
incriminating evidence on record, but they answered almost
all of them simply in words such as “It is incorrect”, “It is a
PRANJAL
ANEJA matter of record”, “I do not know”. As already noted, on the
Digitally signed
by PRANJAL
medical evidence they gave an evasive reply and on the
ANEJA
Date:
2025.07.11
18:40:23 +0530
reason for registration of this case they did not reply that this
case is falsely registered against them at the instance of Mr.
Raj Kumar as there was property dispute between them,
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 70 of 83
which was the defence taken by them during the evidence.
Accused Pawan Kumar miserably failed to utter any word
regarding his whereabouts at the time of incident, thus
prompting a clueless situation which leads to drawing an
adverse inference.
118. In Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 912,
the Hon’ble Court held that it is obligatory on the part of the
accused while being examined under section 313, Cr.P.C. to
furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating
circumstances associated with him and the court must take
note of such explanation even in a case of circumstantial
evidence so as to decide whether or not the chain of
circumstances is complete. The same view was taken in the
case of Mushir Khan v. State of M.P., AIR 2010 SC 762. In
Munish Mubar case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed that “circumstantial evidence is a close companion
of actual matrix, creating a fine network through which can
be no escape for the accused, primarily, because such facts
when taken as a whole, do not permit us to arrive any other
inference but one, indicating the guilt of accused.”. In this
case of Munish Mubar (supra), the accused/appellant and
deceased both were having illicit relation with co-accused
lady, the car of accused/appellant was found parked at
Airport where the deceased was to arrive and the car was
moved out of parking area after arrival of the flight,
PRANJAL
ANEJA presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence was
proved by his telephonic records. Articles recovered on
Digitally signed by
PRANJAL ANEJA
Date: 2025.07.11
18:40:28 +0530
disclosure made by the appellant were found to contain
human blood, the appellant gave no explanation as to the
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 71 of 83
parking of his car at the Airport or about the recoveries
made at his instance. Circumstance clearly connected the
appellant with crime. And merely making the bald statement
under section 313 by the accused that he was innocent and
recoveries had been planted and the call records were false
and fabricated documents, was found not enough as none of
the said allegations made by the appellant could be
established. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the
accused/appellant was expected to explain the reason for
which he had gone to Airport and why the car had remained
parked there for several hours.
119. In the case of Phula Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh,
AIR 2014 SC 1256, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an
accused has the right to maintain silence during examination
or even remain in complete denial when his statement under
section 313, Cr.P.C. is being recorded. But in such an event
adverse inference could be drawn against him.
120. In Sanatan Naskar & Another v. State of West Bengal, AIR
2010 SC 3507, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the
option lies with the accused to maintain silence coupled with
simplicitor denial or, in the alternative, to explain his version
and reasons, for his alleged involvement in the commission
of crime. Further held that this is the statement which the
accused makes without fear or right of the other party to
cross-examine him, however, if the statements made are
Digitally
signed by
PRANJAL false, the Court is entitled to draw adverse inferences and
PRANJAL ANEJA
ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11
18:40:33 pass consequential orders, as may be called for, in
+0530accordance with law.
121. In the present case, thus, analysis of the statement of
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 72 of 83
accused persons recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. yields nothing in
their favour which could help them discharge the burden
casted upon by virtue of sec. 106 Indian Evidence Act, 1872
as discussed above. As noted, the accused persons have
miserably failed to offer any explanation or plausible reason
against the medical evidence i.e. post-mortem report and as
regards their whereabouts at the time of incident. Adverse
inference is therefore drawn against them in view of the
dictum in Phula Singh (supra). As discussed under
circumstance no. 3, the line of defence taken by the accused
persons that the child died due to fall from the terrace has
been totally discarded as the same has been found to be
sham & false in light of the post-mortem repot and in view
of the various unresolved questions such as whether the girl
child was sleeping alone on the terrace ?; If she was sleeping
with accused Pawan and Dharamwati, what attempts were
made to save her while she was falling ?; Were both accused
sleeping or were already awoke at that time? Were there
cries of the child or noise made her while falling or after
she finally fell to the ground floor ? Did those cries not wake
up accused Pawan or Dharamwati or even any neighbour ?
If no one was at the tearrace i.e. Dharamwati being at the
temple (as per stand taken by her0 and Pawan also not there,
may be gone to the diary, then who saw the child falling ?
PRANJAL Why the face/body/clothes of the deceased child was not got
ANEJA
Digitally signed
dirty or filthy with earth as she had fallen down from the 2 nd
by PRANJAL
ANEJA
Date: 2025.07.11
floor to the ground floor where construction material was
18:40:37 +0530
kept ?These questions remain only a mystery. Nothing
whatsoever is stated or explained by the accused persons in
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 73 of 83
their examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on these aspects. This is a
case of absolute absence of explanation which would itself
be an additional link that completes the chain. Also, nothing
material could be elicited out during cross-examinations of
PWs which could establish any reasonable defence of the
accused or could discharge their burden of sec. 106 of Indian
Evidence Act.
122. On the aspect of absence of explanation or false
explanation itself becoming an additional link completing
the chain, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Deonandan Mishra vs
The State of Bihar, 1955 AIR 801 observed as under:
“It is true that in a case of circumstantial evidence not only
should the various links in the chain of evidence be clearly
established, but the completed chain must be such as to rule out
a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. But in
a case like this where the various links as stated above have
been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the
appellant as the probable assailant, with reasonable
definiteness and in proximity to the deceased as regards time
and situation, and he offers no explanation, which if accepted,
though not proved, would afford a reasonable basis for a
conclusion on the entire case consistent with his innocence,
such absence of explanation or false explanation would itself
be an additional link which completes the chain. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that this is a case which satisfies the
standards requisite for conviction on the basis of circumstantial
evidence.”
123. In view of the above authority, there can be no doubt that
since the accused persons have failed to set up any good
PRANJAL
ANEJA defence and have not offered any reasonable explanation to
Digitally signed
by PRANJAL discharge their burden of proof u/s 106 of Indian Evidence
ANEJA
Date: 2025.07.11
18:40:42 +0530 Act, it becomes an additional link completing the chain of
already proved circumstances.
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 74 of 83
124. Apart from the above proven circumstances, prosecution
tried to bring out the motive behind the incident in this case.
As per the prosecution, the mother and sisters of accused
Pawan i.e. accused Dharamwati, Rinki and Preeti wanted
the remarriage of accused Pawan to fetch more dowry and a
better match since Pawan was having matrimonial disputes
with his wife Smt. Lokesh, however the girl child Kinjal @
Guddo was a hindrance to the re-marriage of accuseed
Pawan and also that the accused perons did not want to
share the burden of the marriage of Kinjal @ Guddo at a
later stage, therefore for these reasons all the accused
persons hatched a conspiracy and killed the girl child Kinjal
@ Guddo pretending it to be an accident by fall from the
bed.
125. The prosecution also alleged that accused Pawan was
entangled with a lady namely Neelam and wanted to get re-
married. It is further alleged that the accused Pawan use to
talk with said Neelam by making calls on her mobile
multiple times in a day and even dring late night hours.
Prosecution relied upon CDR with respect to mobile
telephonic talks between accused Pawan and the said lady
Neelam and examined PW 9 Nodal Officer from Vodafone
in this regard who exhibited the CAF, CDR, Location chart,
PRANJAL forwarding letter & certificate u/s 65B IEA of two mobile
ANEJA
numbers 8588070662 and 9643044967 as Ex. PW9/A to Ex.
Digitally signed
by PRANJAL
ANEJA
Date: 2025.07.11 PW 9/G. While the CAF (cutomer identification form) of the
18:40:47 +0530
mobile number 8588070662 is found to be of accused
Pawan, the other mobile number 9643044967 is found to be
in the name of one ‘Shila Pramod’ as per the CAF Ex. PW
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 75 of 83
9/B. There is no material on record to show that the mobile
number 9643044967 belonging to or registered in the name
of ‘Shila Pramod’ was being used by said Neelam.
Furthermore, PW7 Neelam also did not suppport the case of
prosecution with respect to the attempts of accused Pawan to
befriend her. She deposed that she is originally resident of
Maharashtra and used to reside alongwith my four years son,
in the house of Umesh at 4/7 Indira Vikas Colony, Nirankari
Colony, Delhi and used to work as a maid for household
work and had met the accused Pawan once only. She also
deposed that she used to collect the rent from the tenants of
10/12 rooms of Umesh on daily basis and from her the
accused Pawan used to collect rent on day to day basis at
night as per the directions of landlord/owner Umesh and
therefore for this purpose Pawan used to call her on phone in
the night hours for getting the information in respect of
collection of rent and on his direction she used to pay the
rent to the person deputed by him on the very same day of
collection of rent late night as well as early morning.
126. Prosecution also examined the said Umesh as witness
PW8, but he also did not support the prosecution case. He
deposed that accused Pawan is his friend to whom he
Digitally
signed by
PRANJAL
PRANJAL
ANEJA
authorized to collect the rent through one Neelam who used
ANEJA Date:
2025.07.11
18:40:55 to collect the same from the tenants on daily basis and they
+0530both had telephonic calls with respect to the collection of
rent.
127. It is thus seen that both these witnesses i.e Neelam /PW7
and Umesh / PW8 did not support the prosection case.
128. However, it is undisputed that due to quarrrels between the
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 76 of 83
complainant and accused Pawan Kumar, the complainant
left the matrimonial house. It is alleged by the prosecution
that the mother and sisters of accused Pawan wanted to get
him re-married for which all accused persons killed the girl
child considering her as an hindrance. As already observed
under discussion of circumstance no.1, the matrimonial
discord between the accused Pawan and his wife Lokesh
were grave as she took the bold step of leaving the
matrimonial house and going to her parents’ house with her
brother. It is also worth noting that neither did she return
back nor was there any effort for calling her back to the
matrimonial house despite both children having been
retained by her husband Pawan Kumar with him for last
about 6 months prior to the death of the girl child Kinjal @
Guddo. This reflects the gravity of the dispute between
them. It is further fortified by the fact that information about
the incident i.e. death of her infant daughter was not given
to her being mother. It is the case of defence that the
information was given to complainant’s sister Savita.
However, death of a 2½ years girl child in mysterious
circumstance is a very serious matter and not informing the
same directly to the mother of the deceased child cannot be
viewed lightly in the given facts and circumstances of the
PRANJAL case. This not only brings out the conduct of accused
ANEJA persons relevant u/s 8 of Indian Evidence Act on surface but
also hints at the motive behind the crime. This situation
Digitally signed
by PRANJAL
ANEJA reminds a famous quote by Shakespeare who wrote in the
Date:
2025.07.11
18:40:59 +0530 play Hamlet, “Something is rotten in the State of
Denmark” ! In the manner the complainant resiled in her
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 77 of 83
testimony from her complaint without offering any
explanation when confronted with the relevant portions of
her complaint by Ld. Addl. PP during her cross-examination,
does makes this Court cautious and believe the allegations
of her complaint to be credible. However, owing to the
practical circumstances of life, she, being the wife of the
accused Pawan and mother of the deceased, would also
might have to suffer in case had she sustained on her
complaint version fully and truly. There are serious
allegations in the complaint that her husband Pawan used to
beat her and her children and once her ear also got damaged
in the beatings. However, simply denying them in the court
testimony does not displace those facts fully especially in
the given facts and circumstances of the case. However,
there is no further material with regard to the allegation of
re-marriage of accused Pawan. Though prosecution has not
been able to fully establish the motive, the same is also not
necessary in a criminal case.
129. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Parshwanath Vs. State
of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 2914 under para 22 observed as
follows:
“In a case when the motive alleged against accused is
fully established, it provides foundational material to
connect the chain of circumstances. It afforts a key on a
PRANJAL
ANEJA pointer to scan the evidence in the case in that perspective
and as a satisfactory circumstance of corroboration.
Digitally signed
by PRANJAL
ANEJA
However, in a case based on circumstantial evidence
Date: 2025.07.11
18:41:05 +0530 where proved circumstances complete the chain of
evidence, it cannot be said that in absence of motive, the
other proved circumstances are of no consequence. The
absence of motive, however, puts the court on its guard to
scrutinize the circumstances more carefully to ensure thatFIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 78 of 83
suspicion and conjecture do not take place of legal proof.
There is no absolute legal proposition of law that in the
absence of any motive an accused cannot be convicted
under section 302 IPC. Effect of absence of motive would
depend on the facts of each case.”
130. As regards contention of the Ld. Counsel for defence that
there is an inordinate delay in lodging FIR, it has already
been observed from the sequence of event in this case that
initially a police personnel of the rank of ASI was assigned
to attend the PCR call of the incident on 16.04.2020, who at
that time took possible steps in collection of the material
relevant to the case such as by calling the mobile crime
team, taking of photographs of the house / scene of crime
and most importantly sending the body for post-mortem.
The post-mortem report was collected on 02.05.2020 and
thereafter a proper IO of Inspecctor rank was assignedd to
the case whereupon the FIR came to be registered on
25.05.2020. It may not be forgotten that tjose were the
covid-19 days particularly the 1st lockdown when the entire
country was at a jerk and business was not moving as in a
usual course. Moreso, the opinion that Pawan, Dharamwati,
Rinki and Preeti i.e. family members were foind to be
accused was formed only upon receiving the post-mortem
report which opined the death as homicidal. Therefore, in all
these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is an
inordinate delay in lodging FIR. The delay, whatsoever, is
also not seen fatal to the case of prosecution.
PRANJAL
ANEJA
131. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Arvind @ Chhotu
Digitally signed
(supra) has observed as under:
by PRANJAL
ANEJA
Date: 2025.07.11
18:41:09 +0530
“28. As observed in the decisions reported as (2002) 6
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 79 of 83
SCC 715 Mohibur Rahman Vs. State of Assam, there may be
cases where a single circumstance is of a kind that a rational
mind is persuaded to reach an irresistible conclusion that
either the accused should explain how and in what
circumstances the deceased suffered death or should own the
responsibility for homicide.
29. Thus, at the heart of the matter of a circumstantial
evidence is the principle of a rational mind being persuaded
to reach an irresistible conclusion qua the guilt of the
accused.
30. It is the quality of evidence and not the number which
matters. A criminal trial is not a race at which the winner is
determined with reference to the length run by the
prosecution or the defence. It is also not a number game
where the number of circumstances would determine the
guilt or otherwise.
31. We can do no better other than to refer to an
illustration, aptly illustrated in the decision reported as 2000
(8) SCC 382 State of W.B. Vs. Mir Mohammad Omar &
Ors.
32. Debating on the issue whether the sole evidence of an
accused being last seen in the company of the deceased
would be sufficient to sustain a conviction, the Supreme
Court held that the presumption of fact is an inference as to
the existence of one fact from the existence of some other
facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved.
Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact
otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved
facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of
proved facts, the Court exercises a process of reasoning and
reaches a logical conclusion as the most probable position.
PRANJAL
ANEJA 33. The legislative foundation to the said rule of inference
was located in Section 114 of the Evidence Act which
Digitally signed
by PRANJAL
empowers the Court to presume the existence of any fact
ANEJA
Date: which is likely to have happened. In that process, the Court
2025.07.11
18:41:14 shall have regard to the common course of natural events,
+0530
human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case.”
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 80 of 83
132. In Rama Nand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1981 AIR
738, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while enunciating the law
relating to circumstantial evidence through Hon’ble Mr.
Justice Sarkaria famously remarked that :
“Perfect proof is seldom to be had in this imperfect
world, and absolute certainty is a myth. That is why
under Section 3, Evidence Act, a fact is said to be
“proved”, if the Court, considering the matters before
it, considers its existence so probable that a prudent
man ought, under the circumstances of the particular
case to act upon the supposition that it exists. The
corpus delicti or the fact of homicidal death, therefore,
can be proved by telling and inculpating circumstances
which definitely lead to the conclusion that within all
human probability, the victim has been murdered by
the accused concerned.”
Conclusion :
133. It is noted that out of four accused persons in this case, the
circumstances do not form a complete chain qua accused no.
3 & 4 i.e. Rinki and Preeti as circumstance no. 2 is not
established against them and they have been given benefit of
doubt as to their presence at the spot at the time of incident.
Therefore, invocation of sec. 106 of Indian Evidence Act,
1872 stricto sensu does not apply qua these two accused
PRANJAL
ANEJA
persons even though the discussion under the said provision
Digitally signed
has been generally made common for all accused persons.
by PRANJAL
ANEJA
Date:
2025.07.11
134. To sum up, the circumstances establishing guilt of the
18:41:20
+0530
accused no.1 & 2 i.e. Pawan Kumar and Dharamwati,
respectively, have been fully established. The facts
established on record are consistent only with the hypothesis
of their guilt. All the circumstances, as proved by
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 81 of 83
prosecution, are conclusive in nature. The circumstances
proved on record exclude every possible hypothesis and are
not explainable on any except the guilt of accused no. 1 & 2.
The chain of evidence in the present case is so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of these two accused persons.
The circumstances proved on record in this case show that in
all human probability it were the accused no.1 & 2 who had
committed the murder girl child. In my considered view, the
aforesaid circumstances are sufficient to form a complete
chain which unerringly points towards the guilt of accused
no.1 & 2 i.e. Pawan Kumar and Dharamwati, respectively,
as regards the offence of committing murder of the 2½ year
old girl child namely Kinjal @ Guddo punishable u/s 302
IPC, 1860 in common intention with each other as per sec.
34 IPC, 1860. The accused persons no.3 and 4 namely Rinki
@ Meenakshi and Preeti are given benefit of doubt in this
case.
135. As regards charge u/s 201 IPC, 1860 the same remains not
proved as there is only a mention in the chargesheet about a
danda by which allegedly the deceased child was beaten and
which has not been recovered. No prosecution witness has
uttered anything about the danda during the evidence.
Merely that the IO has stated so in the chargesheet is not
PRANJAL
ANEJA
sufficient to return a finding of guilt for the offence of
causing disappearance of evidence punishable u/s 201 IPC,
Digitally
signed by
1860. Notably, the charge u/s 201 IPC was framed by
PRANJAL
ANEJA
Date:
2025.07.11
18:41:24
+0530
alleging that the accused persons had pretended that the girl
child expired due to falling from the bed on the floor andFIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 82 of 83
tried to give color of accident to the murder in order to cause
disappearance of evidence with the intention to screen
themselves from legal punishment for the murder of the girl
child Kinjal @ Guddo. However, it is noted that no
‘Evidence’, as defined u/s 3 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, has been caused to be disappeared so as to attract
liability under u/s 201 IPC. The statement Ex. PW 14/A to
Ex. PW 14/D of accused persons recorded by ASI Prem
Ram on the date of incident when he reached there in
response to PCR call cannot be relied upon in evidence as
already observed in the foregoing paras of this judgment.
Therefore, the latter portion of this provision i.e. sec. 201
IPC as to giving false information concerning an offence is
also not applicable. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove the
offence punishable u/s 201 IPC against the accused persons.
136. Accordingly, accused no.1 and 2 i.e. Pawan Kumar and
Dharamwati are convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and are acquitted
for the offence punishable U/s 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860.
137. Accordingly, accused no.3 and 4 i.e. Rinki @ Meenakshi
and Preeti are acquitted for the offence punishable U/s
302/201/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860.
138. Be heard on the point of sentence of accused no.1 and 2
i.e. Pawan Kumar and Dharamwati separately.
Digitally signed
Announced in Open Court
PRANJAL by PRANJAL
ANEJA
On 11th of July, 2025 ANEJA Date: 2025.07.11
18:32:54 +0530
(PRANJAL ANEJA)
ASJ (SC-RC), South-East District,
Saket Court, New Delhi/11.07.2025
FIR No.213/2020 PS Wazirabad State Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Page 83 of 83
[ad_2]
Source link