Delhi District Court
State vs Sahdab on 15 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKASH JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
CNR No:- DLET-001737-2021
SC No:- 117/2021
FIR No : 457/2020
Police Station : Shakar Pur
Under Section (s) : 302 IPC
In the Sessions case of:-
State
versus
Shadab
S/o Mr. Mohd. Hanif
R/o E-412, Main Road,
Shastri Park, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 26.02.2021
Date of reserving Order : 20.12.2024
Date of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025
Appearances :-
For the State : Sh. Vineet Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP
For the accused persons : Mohd. Aakil and Mr. Danish
Ahmed, Advocates
JUDGMENT
1. In the present case, accused namely Shadab was sent
up for trial on the basis of report under Section 173 of Code of
Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) for
committing murder of his live-in-partner Nikita Tomar by hanging
her from a ceiling fan with the help of a saree on 28.10.2020 at
about 11:00 PM at C-612, Third Floor, Near Krishna Mandir,
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:06:44 +0530
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 1 of 35
Ganesh Nagar-2, Shakar Pur, Delhi within the jurisdiction of
Police Station Shakar Pur.
Factual Matrix
2. The brief case of prosecution, that unfolds in the
charge-sheet is that on 29.10.2020 at about 02:30 PM, duty officer
at Police Station Shakar Pur received an information from wireless
operator that a caller informed that a lady who was living in live-
in-relationship with the caller, had hanged herself. The duty officer
recorded the said information vide DD No. 35-A and the said DD
was handed over to SI Mahesh for further proceedings. Thereafter,
SI Mahesh reached at the place of occurrence i.e. Third floor,
C-612, near Krishna Mandir, Ganesh Nagar-II, Shakar Pur, Delhi
and found that there was an iron entry gate having net and central
lock and inside the said iron gate, a wooden gate was opened and
from the net of the iron gate, it was visible that a lady was hanging
from ceiling fan with a saree. Caller Shadab i.e. accused was
present at the spot from whom inquiries were made by SI Mahesh.
Accused informed him that the lady who had committed suicide
was living in live-in-relationship with him and was doing the work
of prostitution. He further stated that husband of deceased had
deserted her in January-February-2020. Thereafter, husband of the
deceased namely Hemraj Tomar was also called who informed that
deceased was very scared of accused as he used to beat her
frequently and threatened her to kill, if she tries to go back to her
home. During sustained interrogation, accused disclosed to police
that he was living with deceased in a live-in relationship for 7-8
months and that she used to regularly speak to her husband despite
his disapproval. On the date of incident i.e. 28.10.2020, both of
AKASH Digitally
AKASH JAIN
signed by
JAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:06:51 +0530
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 2 of 35
them had gone to Connaught place during evening time around
7:00 PM and also consumed liquor. Thereafter, deceased received
a call from her husband and he asked her to return back home on
‘Karvachauth’ festival, on which issue accused quarreled with
deceased on the street in front of their house. Consequently,
deceased proceeded towards her flat and locked the gate from
inside. She further told accused that she would not continue the
prostitution work anymore and would commit suicide if accused
forced her to continue the same. In order to threaten the accused
deceased tied a saree with a ceiling fan, wrapped it around her neck
and stood on a bucket and was not opening the door. Meanwhile,
accused entered the flat through balcony and back-door and pulled
the other end of saree which was hanging from the fan and kept on
pulling the same till deceased died. Thereafter, accused returned
back to his house in Shastri Park only to return on 29.10.2020
morning and made the PCR call.
3. SI Mahesh reached at the spot. In the meantime, Beat
staff HC Ritesh, Ct. Vikrant and Inspector Sanjeev Sharma SHO
Police Station Shakar Pur also reached there and crime team was
also called by SI Mahesh. HC Ritesh further brought one
locksmith namely, Imran to open the lock of the iron gate. The
Crime Team arrived and after inspection of spot, photographs
were clicked from various angles. Dead body of deceased was sent
to Subzi Mandi Mortuary through HC Ritesh. Accused Shadab
was taken to Police Station Shakar Pur and was subjected to
sustained interrogation. SI Mahesh made endorsement on DD no.
35A and the FIR of this case was got recorded through duty officer.
Case properties i.e. broken pieces of mobile phone of deceased
Digitally signed by AKASH
JAIN
AKASH JAIN Date: 2025.01.18 17:06:56
+0530
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 3 of 35
Nikita Tomar, one bucket of sky blue colour, four filled quarters
and one empty quarter, piece of saree were taken into possession
and sealed. Thereafter, seizure memos were prepared.
4. Investigation of this case was consequently handed
over to Inspector Sanjeev Sharma, SHO Police Station Shakar Pur
and he conducted further proceedings of the present case.
Pullandas of case properties which were seized by SI Mahesh,
were handed over to Inspector Sanjeev Sharma/IO and site plan
was prepared at the instance of SI Mahesh. Accused Shadab was
arrested and on 31.10.2020, accused led the police party to his
house i.e. E-412, main road, Shastri Park, Delhi and got recovered
the key of the central lock of the said flat and produced the same
before the IO which was sealed and seized.
5. On 02.11.2020, postmortem of the deceased Nikita
Tomar was conducted in Subzi Mandi Mortuary and thereafter, the
dead body was handed over to her husband Hemraj Singh Tomar,
IO seized the sealed exhibits of the deceased from the mortuary
after the postmortem vide seizure memo. On 16.12.2020,
draftsman Inspector Mahesh visited the spot and prepared the
scaled site plan. After completion of the investigation, collecting
documents and recording statements of other witnesses,
IO/Inspector Sanjeev Sharma prepared the charge-sheet in the
present case and filed the same before the Court.
6. Charge-sheet for the offences under Section 302 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC‘) was
accordingly filed against the accused namely, Shadab before the
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:07:03 +0530
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 4 of 35
Court of Ld. MM on 27.01.2021. After statutory compliance under
Section 207 IPC, present case was committed to the Court of
Sessions and assigned to this Court vide order dated 26.02.2021
passed by Ld. District & Sessions Judge, East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Charge
7. Vide order dated 11.03.2022, accused Shadab was
formally charged for committing murder of deceased Nikita
Tomar, by hanging her from a ceiling fan with the help of a saree.
Prosecution Evidence
8. In order to prove its case prosecution examined as
many as 25 witnesses. For the sake of convenience, I have
categorized those witnesses in following 3 categories:-
Public Witnesses
9. PW-2 is Ms. Dimple who was neighbor of deceased.
She did not support the case of prosecution and deposed that on
29.10.2020, she was present at her house and there was ladies
Sangeet programme at her house as her marriage was fixed for
31.10.2020. PW-2 further deposed that the said ladies Sangeet
programme continued till 12.00 midnight and on the next day
morning when police came to her building, she came to know that
a murder of a lady had been committed.
10. During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the
State, PW-2 denied the suggestion that inquiries were made from
her by the police that she saw accused and deceased quarreling,
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:07:08 +0530
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 5 of 35
while accused slapped the deceased. PW-2 further denied the
suggestion that she had stated to the police that considering a
matter between couple, she did not intervene and later on deceased
and accused went to the upper floor
11. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the
accused PW-2 deposed that she did not know deceased Nikita
Tomar as well as Hem Raj Tomar and that she did not see accused
Shadab on 28.10.2020 at 11:00 PM as well as on 29.10.2020. She
further deposed that she did not hear the sound of any shouting or
screaming on 28.10.2020 at the night.
12. PW-3 is Akash Deep i.e. brother of PW-2 Dimple
who deposed on similar lines of testimony of PW-2.
13. Similarly, PW-4 Smt. Sunita i.e. mother of PW-2 and
PW-3 deposed on the same lines and stated that she did not know
how deceased died and that she (deceased) was residing on next
upper floor of her house for last 20-25 days prior to the date of
incident.
14. PW-5 is Smt. Yashoda who was also the neighbor of
deceased. She did not support the case of prosecution and stated
that she did not hear any noise of shouting and quarrel from her
neighbourhood. She further failed to identify the accused in Court
as her neighbour.
15. PW-6 is Ajay Kumar who deposed that he was doing
the business of property dealer and House No. C-612, third floor,
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:07:13 +0530
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 6 of 35
Ganesh Nagar-II, Shakarpur, Delhi was let out to the accused
Shadab in September, 2020 and he started living there with his
wife Nikita i.e. deceased. PW-6 further deposed that on 29-
30.10.2020, he received a phone call from accused at night time
who told him that he had a quarrel with his wife and wanted to take
another house on rent on which he (PW-6) told him that he would
talk with him in morning. PW-6 further deposed that on the next
day, he was called by the police at Police Station Shakarpur and
was inquired about the tenancy. He further deposed that he did not
visit the house and returned home from the police station.
16. Since, PW-6 did not support the case of prosecution,
Ld. Addl. PP for the State, declared him hostile and cross-
examined him. During cross-examination, PW-6 denied the
suggestion regarding receiving a phone call from accused Shadab
again or that accused told him that Nikita bolted the door from
inside and was not opening the door or then PW-6 reached at his
house at about 11.00 am and in his presence Shadab tried to open
the door and he climbed to Chhajja and broke open the back door
and saw Nikita was hanging from ceiling fan with the help of saree
or that on seeing this incident, he was scared and returned home.
PW-6 further denied the suggestion that on the previous night
accused was telling him on phone that Nikita had hanged herself.
17. During cross-examination by ld. Counsel for the
accused persons PW-6 deposed that accused and deceased Nikita
were residing as husband and wife and Nikita had told him that her
husband had deserted her. PW-6 further stated that he had not seen
AKASH Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:07:18 +0530
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 7 of 35
both of them quarreling and never received any complaint from the
neighbours about quarrel between them.
18. PW-7 is Hemraj Singh, who deposed that he was
married to Nikita in the year 2005 at Mumbai and they were
having three children out of their marriage. In the month of
January, 2020, there was some altercation between them and she
left her matrimonial home stating that she was going to her
relatives at Delhi. Thereafter, she started living in Delhi and later
on he came to know that she started living with one person namely,
Shadab and was not inclined to return back to her matrimonial
home. PW-7 further deposed that he even received a phone call of
Shadab who stated that Nikita will not return to her matrimonial
home. PW-7 further deposed that on 27.10.2020, he received a
phone call of his wife and she told him that she was coming to him
on the occasion of Karwa Chauth and Diwali festival and she
intended to live with him and her children, but she did not come
and on 29.10.2020, he received a phone call about the death of his
wife. PW-7 further deposed that on receipt of the information from
the police, he came to Delhi and identified the dead body of his
wife vide Ex. PW7/A and after the postmortem, he received the
dead body of his wife vide memo Ex.PW7/B.
19. PW-7 partly resiled from his statement and stated that
his wife did not inform him anything about any compulsion from
the side of accused Shadab. During cross-examination by Ld.
Addl. PP for the State he stated that when his wife left her
matrimonial home, he made a missing report to MP police. He
denied the suggestion regarding stating to the police that his wife
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:07:22 +0530
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 8 of 35
used to tell him that Shadab used to force her to do illicit work but
she did not clarify as to what kind of work, she was forced to do.
During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, PW-7
stated that he never met with the accused Shadab. PW-7 denied the
suggestion that his wife never informed him about the person with
whom she was residing. He further stated that he never made any
complaint against accused Shadab.
20. PW-8 is Mohd. Shoaib who is brother of the accused
and deposed that accused started living in live-in relationship with
Nikita Tomar and he occasionally visited their house. He deposed
that on 29.10.2020, he got a call from Police Station Shakar pur
and was informed by the police that the aforesaid girl Nikita Tomar
had committed suicide. Thereafter, he visited the police station and
saw his brother in police custody. Since, PW-8 resiled from his
statement, he got cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
During cross-examination, PW-8 deposed that on the intervening
night of 28/29.10.2020, accused had come to their house and left in
the morning. PW-8 denied the suggestion regarding making a call
to him by accused and informing him about suicide committed by
Nikita Tomar.
21. PW-9 is Smt. Lajwanti who deposed that the keys of
her flat i.e. Third Floor, C-612, near Krishna Mandir, Ganesh
Nagar-II, Shakar Pur, Delhi were given by her to the agent Ajay
Kumar (PW-6) for giving the flat on rent and the agent used to give
the rent money to her every month. PW-9 further deposed that at
the time of incident, the above mentioned flat had been given on
rent by agent Ajay Kumar to a couple and all the paper work
AKASH Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:07:27 +0530
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 9 of 35
regarding police verification etc. was done by the said agent Ajay
Kumar and she could not identify the couple as she had not met
them.
22. PW-16 is Mr. Imran who deposed that in the year
2020, he was working as a key maker (locksmith) under the Laxmi
Nagar Metro Station and on 29th October, police officials of Police
Station Shakar Pur took him from his shop to Ganesh Nagar in a
flat which was locked from outside. He further deposed that he
made the key of the said lock at the spot and opened the lock.
Thereafter, he returned to his shop. Since, PW-16 partly resiled
from his statement, he got cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the
State.
23. During cross-examination, PW-16 deposed that the
above said incident took place in the year 2020 and he was taken to
the property at third floor C-612, Ganesh Nagar-II, Shakar Pur,
Delhi. He deposed that after opening the lock, he saw from the net
door of the flat that one girl was hanging with the saree on a ceiling
fan inside the said flat. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsels
for accused, PW-16 stated that after he opened the lock, he handed-
over the key to some police official who asked him to come to the
spot.
Police Witnesses
24. PW-10 is SI Santosh Kumar who deposed that on
29.10.2020, he was posted in Mobile Crime Team, East District as
Incharge and on receiving an information from Control Room he
along with SI Ravi Kant (Finger Print Expert) and HC Ved Prakash
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:07:32 +0530
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 10 of 35
(Photographer) reached at the 3rd Floor of the House No. C-612,
Gali no. 3, Ganesh Nagar-II, Shakar pur where IO/SI Mahesh
along with some other police officials were found. The entry gate
at 3rd floor was of iron having net and it was visible from the gate
that one lady had committed suicide by hanging from ceiling fan.
PW-9 deposed that on the instructions of IO/SI Mahesh, one Imran
opened the lock and after entering the flat, the photographer
clicked the photographs from different angles and he (PW-10)
along with SI Ravi Kant inspected the scene of crime. He found
broken parts of mobile phone, plastic bucket (sky blue colour),
three filled and one empty quarter bottle having slip of white and
blue premium whiskey, one black colour top and small brown
purse. Thereafter, IO/SI Mahesh seized the aforesaid articles along
with ligature material i.e. piece of saree and PW-10 prepared the
SOC visit report vide Ex.PW10/A and handed over to IO.
25. PW-11 is SI Ravi Kant who was also posted at Mobile
Crime Team, East district as Finger Print Expert on 29.10.2020. He
deposed on same lines of PW-10 SI Santosh Kumar and deposed
that upon inspection, no chance print could be lifted from there.
26. PW-12 is ASI Ved Prakash who was posted at Mobile
Crime Team, East District as photographer on 29.10.2020. He also
deposed on same lines of testimonies of PW-10 and PW-11 and
stated that he clicked 18 photographs of the spot from official
digital camera and proved the photographs vide Ex.PW12/A-1 to
Ex.PW12/A-18.
AKASH Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:07:36 +0530
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 11 of 35
27. PW-13 is ACP Mahesh Kumar, Draftsman, Crime
Branch, PHQ, Delhi. He deposed that on 16.12.2020, at the
request of Inspector Sanjeev Sharma, he reached at PS Shakar Pur
and from there, he along with SI Mahesh reached at the spot i.e.
House No. 612, 3rd floor, near Krishna Mandir, Shakar Pur, Delhi
and on the pointing out of SI Mahesh, he took the measurements of
scene of crime and prepared the rough notes. On the basis of same,
he prepared the scaled site plan on 12.01.2021 vide Ex.PW13/A in
his office and handed over the same to IO/Inspector Sanjeev
Sharma.
28. PW-14 is HC Ritesh. He deposed that on 29.10.2020,
he was posted at PS Shakar Pur and on that day when he was
present in his beat, he received a phone call from duty officer at
about 2:30 PM regarding DD no. 35-A. Thereafter, he reached on
the third floor of House No. C-612, Ganesh Nagar-II, Shakar Pur,
Delhi where SI Mahesh met him. The entry gate of third floor was
of iron having net and central lock was found on the said gate.
There was a wooden gate inside which was found opened. From
the net, it was visible that one lady was hanging with the help of
saari from a ceiling fan and the PCR caller namely Shadab i.e.
accused also met them there who was being inquired by SI
Mahesh. PW-14 further deposed that SI Mahesh instructed him to
bring some locksmith from the area for opening the central lock.
Thereafter, he reached near Ganesh Kachauri Chowk, where one
locksmith namely, Imran was found. He (PW-14) brought Imran to
the spot where Imran prepared a duplicate key of the lock. IO
noted down the name and address of the locksmith Imran and
thereafter, he was freed. AKASH Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:07:41 +0530
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 12 of 35
29. PW-14 further deposed that in the meanwhile, Crime
Team also reached at the spot and after opening the lock from
duplicate key, crime team inspected the scene of crime and
photographs were clicked. Thereafter, case property i.e. some parts
of broken mobile phone, copy of Aadhar Card, three filled quarter
bottles of liquor, one empty quarter bottle of liquor, one T-shirt and
one plastic bucket were also seized. Body of the deceased was
brought down after cutting the saari and the saari was seized vide
memo Ex.PW14/A. Thereafter, dead body was sent to Subzi
Mandi mortuary and was preserved for 72 hours. PW-14 identified
the case properties i.e. four quarter bottles vide Ex.P1 (colly),
aforesaid plastic bucket vide Ex.P2, the pieces of broken mobile
phone vide Ex.P3(colly), top vide Ex.P4 and Aaadhar Card vide
Ex.P5. PW-14 further, correctly identified the accused.
30. PW-15 is HC Sunil Kumar who deposed that on
30.10.2020, he was posted at PS Shakar Pur and on that day, he
joined the investigation along with Inspector Sanjeev Sharma and
SI Mahesh and went to the place of incident along with accused.
They inspected the said place and Inspector Sanjeev Sharma
prepared the site plan. SI Mahesh handed-over the sealed exhibits
to Inspector Sanjeev Sharma.
31. PW-17 SI Shalu is the duty officer who deposed that
on 29.10.2020 at about 2:30 PM, she received an information from
wireless operator that the caller informed that the lady who was
living with the caller in live-in relationship had hanged herself.
PW-17 recorded the said information vide DD no. 35-A and
AKASH Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:07:46 +0530
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 13 of 35
handed over the said DD to SI Mahesh for further proceedings. She
proved the same vide Ex.PW17/A.
32. PW-18 is HC Rahul who deposed that on 31.10.2020,
he was posted at Police Station Shakar Pur as Constable and on
that day, he along with Inspector Sanjeev Sharma and SI Mahesh
joined the investigation and reached at the house of accused
Shadab at E-412, Main Road, Shastri Park. At second floor of the
house, accused took out a key underneath of a mattress and handed
over the said key to SI Mahesh and disclosed that the said key was
the key of lock of his Flat i.e. C-612, 3 rd floor, Ganesh Nagar,
Delhi. Thereafter, the said key was sealed in a cloth pullanda and
seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/A by Inspector Sanjeev
Sharma. PW-18 identified the said key vide Ex.PW18/P1.
33. PW-19 is SI Krishan Kumar who deposed that on
30.10.2020, he was posted at Police Station Shakar Pur as duty
officer from 12:00 midnight to 8:00 AM. He proved his
endorsement on the rukka received by SI Mahesh Kumar vide
Ex.PW19/A and on the basis of the said rukka, he registered the
FIR of the present case as Ex.PW19/B. PW-19 also proved his
certificate under Section 65 B Evidence Act issued by him
regarding the print out of the present FIR as Ex.PW19/C.
34. PW-20 is Ct. Vaibhav who deposed that on
30.10.2020, he was posted at Police Station Shakar Pur and on that
day, at about 5:00-6:00 AM, he received three envelopes
containing the copy of FIR of the present case from Duty officer
ASI Krishan. He went to the residence of the Joint CP, Eastern
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:07:51 +0530
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 14 of 35
Range, DCP East and Ld. MM of the area and delivered the above
said envelopes to them.
35. PW-22 is HC Vikrant who deposed that on
29.10.2020, he was posted at Police Station Shakar Pur and on
being called by by SI Mahesh, he joined the investigation in the
present case. He further deposed on the same lines of testimony of
PW-14 HC Ritesh regarding seizure of articles/ case properties
found at the spot vide memo Ex.PW22/A. PW-22 stated that
accused Shadab was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW22/B.
PW-22 identified the case properties i.e. quarter bottles vide
Ex.P1, blue colour bucket vide Ex.P2, broken pieces of mobile
phone vide Ex.P3, female top vide Ex.P4, Aadhar card vide Ex.P5.
36. PW-24 is IO Inspector Sanjeev Sharma who deposed
on the same lines as that of PW-14 HC Ritesh regarding visiting
the spot of incident on 29.10.2020, opening of lock through lock-
smith Imran, finding deceased in hanging condition with a ceiling
fan inside the flat, proceedings conducted by Crime Team officials
at the spot. He further deposed that on 30.10.2020 at about 02:30
AM FIR in this case was registered and the investigation was
marked to him and thereafter, at about 02:30-02:45 AM, he along
with SI Mahesh, Ct. Vikrant and accused Shadab reached at the
spot and inspected the scene of crime. SI Mahesh handed over all
the documents prepared by him to PW-24. Meanwhile, Ct. Anil
reached at the spot and handed over copy of the FIR of this case
and original rukka to him. PW-24 prepared the Site Plan as Ex.
PW-24/A and interrogated accused Shadab who disclosed about
his involvement in the death of deceased Nikita Tomar and also
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:07:56 +0530
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 15 of 35
disclosed that he had kept the keys of lock of the iron gate at his
house situated in the Shastri Park area. PW-24 further deposed that
he arrested accused Shadab vide arrest memo Ex. PW-22/B and
also recorded his disclosure statement vide memo Ex. PW-24/B.
Thereafter, accused Shadab was produced before the Court and his
one day PC remand was granted by the Court. During PC remand,
accused Shadab led them to his house at Shastri Park, Delhi from
where one iron key was recovered below the mattress at his house
on the second floor situated at E-412, Main Road, Shastri Park.
Accused further disclosed that the said key was the key of central
lock of the iron gate where the dead body of Nikita Tomar was
found. PW-24 sealed the said iron key with the seal of MS and
seized the same.
37. PW-24 further deposed that on 02.11.2020, husband
of deceased namely, Hemraj came to the Police Station and he
(PW-24) made inquiries from him. Thereafter, he along with
Hemraj and SI Mahesh reached at mortuary Subzi Mandi where
doctor handed over a piece of saree to him before the postmortem
by saying that the said saree piece was not having any knot and the
same was seized and sealed in a cloth pullanda with the seal of MS
vide Ex.PW24/C. Thereafter, PW-24 prepared the inquest papers
vide Ex.PW24/D and recorded the statement of Hemraj regarding
identification of the dead body. PW-24 deposed that he also
recorded the statement of Virender regarding the identification of
the dead body vide Ex.PW24/E. PW-24 made request to the doctor
for postmortem and proved the same as Ex.PW24/F. After
postmortem, Autopsy Surgeon handed over viscera, clothes of the
deceased, blood sample of the deceased in sealed condition with
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:08:01 +0530
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 16 of 35
sample seal to him and he seized the same vide seizure memo
Ex.PW24/G. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to
Hemraj. Thereafter, they returned to the PS and he deposited the
seized articles in the malkhana and obtained the postmortem report
from the doctor. PW-24 further deposed that after completion of
investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet qua accused Shadab.
He correctly identified the accused as well as case property i.e. key
vide Ex.PW18/P1.
38. PW-25 is IO/ SI Mahesh Singh who deposed on same
lines of testimonies of PW-14 HC Ritesh Kumar and PW-24
Inspector Sanjeev Sharma regarding investigation conducted in
this case.
Expert witnesses
39. PW-1 is Dr. Sandeep Kumar Garg, who deposed that
on 02.11.2020, he conducted the postmortem of deceased Nikita
Tomar and the dead body was identified by her husband Hemraj
Singh and neighbour Virender Sen. He examined the body and
found following external injuries:-
(a) Ligature Mark: A brownish coloured, abraded, dried, hard
parchment like ligature mark is present around the neck of size
24 cm, situated 5 cm below the chin, 9 cm above sternal notch,
0.5 cm below right angle of mandible, 3.5 cm below left angle of
mandible and 3 cm below posterior hairline. Width of ligature
mark varies from 1.5 cm to 4.5 cm. The mark is absent on back
of right side of neck of size 3 cm. Total circumference of the
neck is 28 cm.
(b) Reddish abrasion of size 0.5cm x 0.2 cm, present over left angle
of mouth.
AKASH by AKASH JAIN
Digitally signed
JAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:08:05 +0530
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 17 of 35
(c) Reddish contusion of size 6cm x 4 cm, present over front of right
leg, 1 cm below knee joint.
(d) Reddish contusion of size 5cm x 3 cm, present over medial
aspect of left leg, 2 cm below left knee joint.
(e) Reddish contusion of size 3cm x 2 cm, present over medial
aspect of right ankle joint.
40. PW-1 deposed that after detailed postmortem
examination, cause of death was found to be asphyxia consequent
to ante-mortem ligature hanging via inured no. (a) and all injuries
were ante-mortem in nature and fresh in duration prior to death.
PW-1 further deposed that all injuries were suggestive of scuffle
prior to death and time since death was about four to five days.
41. PW-1 proved his detailed postmortem report bearing
no. 1398/2020 vide Ex. PW1/A and PW-1 proved subsequent
opinion no. 13/2021 vide Ex. PW1/B.
42. PW-21 is Dr. Kapil Dev Mudgal, Senior Scientific
Officer (Chemistry), FSL Rohini, Delhi. He deposed that on
03.02.2021, he was posted at FSL, Rohini and on that day, one
parcel was received in their office in sealed condition with sample
seal qua present case and the same was marked to him for
examination. He deposed that he found that the seal was intact and
tallied with sample seals and after opening the parcel, he found
stomach and piece of small intestine with contents kept in a sealed
jar and the same was marked by him vide Ex.1A. He further
deposed that the pieces of liver, spleen and kidney were kept in a
sealed jar and the same were marked by him as Ex.1B. He further
deposed that blood sample volume of 10 ml approximately was
AKASH Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:08:11 +0530
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 18 of 35
kept in a sealed container and the same was marked by him as
Ex.1C. He further deposed that he examined the above said
contents and gave his detailed report no. SFSLDLH/ 1103/
CHEM/ 429/21 dated 29.10.2021 vide Ex.PW21/A. On chemical,
microscopic, TLC and GC-HS examination, Ex.1A, Ex.1B and
Ex.1C were found to contain ethyl alcohol. PW-1 further deposed
that Ex.1C was found to contain ethyl alcohol 36.8 mg / 100 ml of
blood. After examination of the above said contents, he resealed
the same with the seal of KDM FSL Delhi.
43. PW-23 is Dr. Sarabjit Singh, Senior Scientific Officer
(Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi. He deposed that on 29.01.2021,
one polythene and one envelope were received in their office in
case FIR no. 457/2020 PS Shakar Pur for examination and the
same was marked to him for examination and he found the seals
were intact and tallied with the sample seal. He further deposed
that he examined the contents of the said polythene and envelope
and detected the blood on Ex.1 which was blood stained gauze
cloth piece and Ex.2a i.e. one jeans having blood stains of
deceased. He also detected semen on Ex.2c i.e. one underwear of
deceased and he gave his opinion that female DNA profile
generated from the source of Ex.1 is accounted in the mixed DNA
profile generated from the source of Ex.2c and the same was
preserved for future reference. He further deposed that after
examining the above said samples, he gave his detailed report
dated 13.09.2022 and proved the same as Ex.PW23/A.
44. All the witnesses were duly cross-examined by Ld.
Counsels for the accused. AKASH Digitally
AKASH JAIN
signed by
JAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:08:16 +0530
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 19 of 35
Final Arguments on behalf of Both Sides
45. Final arguments were heard on behalf of Ld. APP for
State and the accused persons. It is primarily argued by Ld. Addl.
PP for State that the present case is based on circumstantial
evidence and the prosecution has successfully established the
chain of circumstances which is consistent with the guilt of
accused and wholly inconsistent with the hypothesis of his
innocence. It is argued that the prosecution successfully
established the ‘motive’ of accused to commit murder of deceased
through the testimony of PW-7 as he deposed that on 27.10.2020,
he received a phone call of deceased wherein she informed that she
would be coming back to her matrimonial home on the occasion of
Karvachauth and Diwali festivals and that she intended to live
with him and with their children. It is further argued that besides
other oral testimonies the medical and scientific evidence
complete the chain of circumstances against the accused and
following chain of circumstances stood duly proved:-
(i) That accused had motive to murder the deceased as she
wanted to return to her matrimonial home despite
objection of the accused and both of them quarreled with
each other immediately before the incident;
(ii) That the deceased was residing in live-in relationship
with the accused and was last seen with him in the night
of 28.10.2020;
(iii) That the postmortem report of deceased shows that
besides injury received by the deceased in her neck due
to hanging, there were 4 other antemortem injuries on
her both the legs below knee joint, ankle joint and mouth
suggesting scuffle prior to her death;
Digitally signed
AKASH by AKASH JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2025.01.18
17:08:21 +0530FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 20 of 35
(iv) That the main door of the flat in question where deceased
was found dead was locked and the key of the lock was
later on recovered at the instance of accused from his
another house in Shastri Park.
46. It is thus, prayed that the accused be convicted for
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and be suitably
punished.
47. Per contra, it argued by Ld. Counsels for accused that
the case of prosecution suffers from material lapses and glaring
contradictions in the statements of witnesses. It is argued that there
is no eye-witness to the alleged incident in question and all the
material public witnesses have failed to support the case of
prosecution. It is argued that the circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution to draw the inference qua guilt of accused have not
been fully established and the entire story of prosecution is based
on disclosure statement of accused which is not admissible in the
eyes of law. It is further argued that neither the oral testimonies of
witnesses nor the scientific evidence adduced on record is
sufficient to prove the circumstances and to complete the chain so
as to return a finding of guilt against the accused.
Analysis and Findings
48. At the outset, there is no direct evidence to prove that
accused committed murder of deceased Nikita Tomar on
28.10.2020 and entire case of prosecution is based upon
circumstantial evidence. In Hanumant v. The State of Madhya
Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343, Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioned that
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:08:26 +0530
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 21 of 35
while dealing with circumstantial evidence the rules especially
applicable to such evidence must be borne in mind. In such cases
there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take
the place of legal proof.
49. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the celebrated judgment of
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC
116 has elaborately considered the standard necessary for
recording a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence as
under:-
“… 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 & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra(‘) where the
following observations were made:
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be
and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and
the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long
and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say. they
should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except
that the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all
human probability the act must have been done by the
accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so,
constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on
circumstantial evidence….”
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:08:31 +0530
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 22 of 35
50. It would be expedient here to also refer to the
observations of their lordship in the case of G. Parshwanath v.
State Of Karnataka, (2010) 8 SCC 593, where it was reiterated that
where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances
from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first
instance, be fully established. Each fact sought to be relied upon
must be proved individually. However, in applying this principle a
distinction must be made between facts called primary or basic on
the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them on the
other. In regard to proof of primary facts, the court has to judge the
evidence and decide whether that evidence proves a particular fact
and if that fact is proved the question whether that fact leads to an
inference of guilt of the accused person should be considered. In
dealing with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of
doubt applies. It was observed that:
“…. Although there should not be any missing links in the
cases, yet it is not essential that each of the links must
appear on the surface of the evidence adduced and some of
these links may have to be inferred from the proved facts. In
drawing these inferences, the court must have regard to the
common course of natural events and to human conduct and
their relations to the facts of the particular case. The court
thereafter has to consider the effect of proved facts.
24. In deciding the sufficiency of the circumstantial
evidence for the purpose of conviction, the court has to
consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts,
each one of which reinforces the conclusions of guilty and
if the combined effect of all these facts taken together is
conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the
conviction would be justified even though it may be that
one or more of these facts by itself or themselves is/ are not
decisive. The facts established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should
exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be
proved. But this does not mean that before the prosecution
can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence
alone. It must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested
by the accused. However, extravagant and fanciful it might
be. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAINJAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:08:36 +0530FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 23 of 35
leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all
human probability the act must have been done by the
accused where various links in chain are in themselves
complete, then the false plea or false defence may be called
into aid only to lend assurance to the court….”
51. Thus, in a nutshell, in a case of circumstantial
evidence, the judgment remains essentially inferential. Inferences
are drawn from established facts, as the circumstances lead to
particular inferences. The Court must draw an inference with
respect to whether the chain of circumstances is complete, and
when the circumstances therein are collectively considered, the
same must lead only to the irresistible conclusion, that the accused
alone is the perpetrator of the crime in question. All the
circumstances so established must be of a conclusive nature and
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. In
this backdrop, I shall now discuss the incriminating circumstances
relied upon by the prosecution against the accused to bring home
his guilt:-
52. Motive:-
52.1 Since, the case is based on circumstantial evidence, it
was incumbent upon the prosecution to establish that accused had
a strong motive to commit murder of deceased Nikita Tomar. It
was argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that deceased Nikita
Tomar wanted to return to her matrimonial home, which was
objected by the accused and both of them had quarreled with each
other on the street in front of their house immediately before the
incident. In support of his argument, Ld. Addl. PP for the State
relied upon the testimony of PW-7 Hemraj Singh who deposed that
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAINJAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:08:40 +0530FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 24 of 35
on 27.10.2020 i.e. one day prior to the incident, he received a
phone call of his wife i.e. deceased who informed him that she
wanted to come back to her matrimonial home on the occasion of
Karwachauth and Diwali and intended to live with him and their
children. Ld. Addl. PP for the State further stated that while, PW-2
Dimple and PW-3 Akashdeep resiled from their statements
regarding seeing the quarrel of deceased and accused on the date of
incident, the accused Shadab himself admitted the fact of
quarreling with deceased on the date of incident immediately
before the death of deceased in his statement recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C.. Thus, it is prayed that the first link in the chain
of circumstances with respect to motive to commit alleged offence
stands duly established by the prosecution.
52.2 This argument though lacks merit as the entire case of
prosecution is primarily based on disclosure statement of accused
which is not admissible in the eyes of law. The IO further failed to
collect CDR of deceased to corroborate its version that both
deceased and her husband spoke to each other on 28.10.2020 or
27.10.2020. For the sake of arguments, even if it is assumed that
deceased talked to her husband Hemraj Singh i.e. PW-7 and told
him that she intended to reunite with him, it was categorically
stated by the witness that deceased did not inform him about any
compulsion from the side of accused. The witness was further
cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and he denied the
suggestion that his wife i.e. deceased used to tell him that accused
was forcing her to do illicit work. Moreover, during cross-
examination by Ld. Counsels for accused, PW-7 stated that he used
to speak with deceased on telephone on several occasions and
AKASH Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:08:46 +0530
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 25 of 35
asked her to come to her matrimonial home but she used to tell him
that she did not wish to return back home. PW-7 further admitted
that he never made any complaint against accused before any
authority.
52.3 Thus, it was admitted by PW-7 himself that deceased
was residing with accused willingly and no force or pressure was
put upon her by the accused. The entire theory of ‘motive’
proposed by prosecution therefore, fell flat. Mere fact that
deceased had quarreled with accused in the evening on the date of
incident is not sufficient to deduce that the accused had any strong
motive to commit her murder.
53. Last Seen Evidence:-
53.1 It is the case of prosecution that both accused and
deceased Nikita Tomar were residing together in a live-in
relationship at C-612, 3rd Floor, near Krishna Mandir, Ganesh
Nagar-2, Shakarpur, Delhi. This fact is corroborated by PW-6 Ajay
Kumar and PW-8 Mohd. Shoaib and was also affirmed by accused
himself in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. None
of the material prosecution witnesses inter alia PW-2, PW-3, PW-4
and PW-5, who were also the neighbors of deceased, though
supported the case of prosecution regarding seeing the accused
with deceased on the intervening night of incident. All of them
resiled from their statements and claimed that they did not see
accused in the company of deceased. While, accused himself
admitted in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that
on the date of incident i.e. 28.10.2020, he went to Connaught Place
in the evening along with deceased, consumed liquor there and
AKASH Digitally signed
by AKASH JAINJAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:08:50 +0530
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 26 of 35
returned back to their home on the same day, no investigation was
carried out by the IO to corroborate the said version.
53.2 However, even assuming that accused was present
with the deceased in the late evening of 28.10.2020 when the
deceased was alive, it cannot be said that the victim died soon after
when she lastly remained alive in the company of accused. The
dead body of deceased was discovered on 29.10.2020 at about
02:26 PM when PCR call was made by the accused informing
police about the hanging of deceased.
53.3 Admittedly, none of the public witnesses i.e.
neighbors of deceased had seen accused in the company of
deceased on the date of incident i.e. 28.10.2020. Moreover, no
specific time could be brought on record as to when accused last
remained with deceased. Going by the admission of accused
himself that both he and deceased had gone to Connaught place in
the evening and returned back on the same day when a quarrel
broke between them outside their home on street and he went back
to his parental house at Shastri Park, there was a gap of more than
14-15 hours when accused last remained in the company of
deceased and when the dead body of deceased was discovered. The
exact time of death of deceased could not be ascertained in the
postmortem report Ex. PW 1/A. The postmortem report was
prepared on 02.11.2020 at about 02:55 PM and time since death
was reported as 4-5 days in the said report. Therefore, it is evident
that the said report was not conclusive to ascertain exact time of
death of deceased so as to reach the conclusion that the victim had
died soon after she was alive in the company of accused.
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:08:56 +0530
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 27 of 35
53.4 The legal position in this regard was explained by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U. P. v. Satish,
(2005) 3 SCC 114, as under:
“…. The last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap
between the point of time when the accused and the
deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is
found dead is so small that possibility of any person other
than the accused being the author of the crime becomes
impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively
establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused
when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons
coming in between exists. In the absence of any other
positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the
deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to
come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases….”
53.5 In State of Karnataka v. Chand Basha, (2015) 3 ACR
3439, the Supreme Court explained:
“…. This Court has time and again laid down the ingredients
to be made out by the prosecution to prove the „last seen
together theory. The Court for the purpose of arriving at a
finding as to whether the said offence has been committed or
not, may take into consideration the circumstantial evidence.
However, while doing so, it must be borne in mind that close
proximity between the last seen evidence and death should
be clearly established….”
53.6 In view of ratio of aforesaid judgments, fact that none
of the public witnesses saw accused in company of deceased on the
date of incident, inconclusive scientific evidence regarding exact
time of death of deceased and huge time gap between the
discovery of dead body and the time when deceased lastly
remained in the company of accused, the prosecution has failed to
establish cogently the circumstances of last seen against the
accused.
Digitally signed
AKASH by AKASH JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2025.01.18
17:09:01 +0530FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 28 of 35
54. Injuries received by the deceased prior to her death:-
54.1 It is argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that in terms
of Postmortem report Ex. PW 1/A, the deceased had received
following external ante-mortem injuries:-
(a) Ligature Mark: A brownish coloured, abraded, dried, hard
parchment like ligature mark is present around the neck of
size 24 cm, situated 5 cm below the chin, 9 cm above
sternal notch, 0.5 cm below right angle of mandible, 3.5
cm below left angle of mandible and 3 cm below posterior
hairline. Width of ligature mark varies from 1.5 cm to 4.5
cm. The mark is absent on back of right side of neck of size
3 cm. Total circumference of the neck is 28 cm.
(b) Reddish abrasion of size 0.5cm x 0.2 cm, present over left
angle of mouth.
(c) Reddish contusion of size 6cm x 4 cm, present over front
of right leg, 1 cm below knee joint.
(d) Reddish contusion of size 5cm x 3 cm, present over medial
aspect of left leg, 2 cm below left knee joint.
(e) Reddish contusion of size 3cm x 2 cm, present over medial
aspect of right ankle joint.
54.2 It is argued that while injury no. (a) could be
attributed to the hanging of deceased by neck, remaining four
injuries on both legs below knee joints, ankle joint and mouth of
deceased reflect that she had a scuffle prior to her death. This fact
is further affirmed by PW-1 Dr. Sandeep Kumar Garg during his
examination.
54.3 It is argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the
accused took a defence that on the date of incident i.e. 28.10.2020
when he along with deceased came back from Connaught Place in
late evening, they had a quarrel outside their house on street and
deceased came back to her flat and bolted the same from inside. It
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:09:06 +0530
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 29 of 35
is contended that if the version of accused is to be taken on its face
value, then no suitable explanation could be afforded by him as to
how did the deceased suffer ante-mortem injuries no. (b) to (e) as
above. It is thus, argued that accused committed murder of
deceased and conveniently left the flat after locking it with a key
which was later on recovered from his house at Shastri Park.
54.4 The aforesaid argument of Ld. Addl. PP for the State
though lacks substance and is bereft of any logic. All the material
prosecution witnesses have failed to support its case and not a
single witness deposed that he/ she had seen any quarrel or scuffle
between accused and deceased on the date of incident. PW-2 to
PW-5 further stated that they did not hear any noise of shouting or
screaming from the flat of deceased in the night of 28.10.2020. The
entire case of prosecution is thus, purely based on disclosure
statement of accused that on the intervening night of 28.10.2020 he
entered his flat through balcony and back-door and saw deceased
standing on a bucket with a saree tied with a ceiling fan wrapped
around her neck and in a fit of rage, he pulled the other end of saree
which was hanging from the fan and kept on pulling the same till
deceased died. This disclosure statement though cannot be relied
upon in the absence of any corroborative piece of evidence
adduced by the prosecution. When dead body of deceased was
discovered on 29.10.2020 and all the police officials met caller i.e.
accused Shadab at his flat, the main iron gate of the flat was
admittedly locked which was later on opened with the help of a
duplicate key made by a lock-smith. No investigation could be
carried out by the IO to the effect that in the eventuality of main
gate being locked, the flat could have been accessed by a person
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:09:11 +0530
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 30 of 35
from the balcony and back-door. No proper photographs or
videography was carried out or placed on record by the IO in
support of the argument of prosecution that the accused had
entered the flat through the balcony and back-door.
54.5 It is well settled in the case of Sri. Sujit Biswas v.
State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 3817 that suspicion, however grave
it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large
difference between something that `may be’ proved, and
something that ‘will be proved’. It was further observed by their
lordships that:
“…. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong,
cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This
is for the reason that the mental distance between `may be’
and `must be’ is quite large, and divides vague conjectures
from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a
duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take
the place of legal proof. The large distance between `may be’
true and `must be’ true, must be covered by way of clear,
cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the
prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict,
and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases,
while keeping in mind the distance between `may be’ true
and `must be’ true, the court must maintain the vital distance
between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived
at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny,
based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of
all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility
of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure,
that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and
circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt
must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a
reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely
probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason
and common sense. (Vide: Hanumant Govind Nargundkar &
Anr. v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343; State through CBI v.
Mahender Singh Dahiya, AIR 2011 SC 1017; and Ramesh
Harijan v. State of U.P., AIR 2012 SC 1979)…..”
Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
AKASH Date:
JAIN 2025.01.18
17:09:15
+0530
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 31 of 35
54.6 In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973
SC 2773, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was pleased to hold as
under:
“…. Another golden thread which runs through the web of
the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two
views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one
pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his
innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused
should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in
cases where in the guilt of the accused is sought to be
established by circumstantial evidence….”
54.7 The scientific evidence relied upon by the
prosecution regarding ante-mortem injuries received by the
deceased prior to her death does not conclusively suggest that
those were inflicted by accused. For the sake of arguments, even it
is assumed that the said injuries were caused by the accused,
nothing substantial is brought on record to show that the hanging
of the deceased was carried out by accused. Mere suspicion, no
matter how strong, cannot take place of proof and in the absence of
clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence, the prosecution has
failed to cover the large distance between ‘may be’ prove and
‘must be’ prove.
55. Recovery of key from the house of accused:-
55.1 One final incriminating circumstance against accused
as relied upon by the prosecution was the fact that the key of the
flat where deceased was found hanging was later on recovered at
the instance of accused from his house at E-412, Main road,
Shastri Park, Delhi. It is argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that
the flat i.e. C-612, 3rd Floor, Ganesh Nagar, Delhi where deceased
was discovered hanging on 29.10.2020 was locked from inside and
AKASH Digitally signed
by AKASH JAINJAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:09:20 +0530FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 32 of 35
no keys were found inside the flat when the main gate was opened
with the help of a lock-smith. It is argued that the said key was later
on recovered on 31.10.2020 from the house of accused in Shastri
Park at his instance, which corroborates the version of prosecution
that the accused entered the flat at Ganesh Nagar along with
deceased on 28.10.2020 and after murdering the deceased, he left
the said flat by locking the same and kept the key at his house in
Shastri Park.
55.2 There are though glaring chinks in the version of
prosecution in as much as the key allegedly recovered from the
house of accused Shadab at Shastri Park on 31.10.2020 was seized
and sealed on the same date by the IO vide Ex. PW 18/A and IO
failed to take due care by checking whether the lock of main gate
of flat no. C-612, 3rd Floor, Ganesh Nagar, Delhi could be opened
with said key.
55.3 It is duly established during trial as also deposed by
PW-16 lock-smith Imran and PW-14 HC Ritesh that a duplicate
key of main gate of flat no. C-612, 3rd Floor, Ganesh Nagar, Delhi
was made on the spot by PW-16. In terms of testimony of PW-16,
he handed over the said duplicate key to the police official who
asked him to come to the spot i.e. PW-14 HC Ritesh, while PW-14
stated in his testimony that the duplicate key was handed over by
PW-16 to IO SI Mahesh. Be that as it may, the duplicate key
admittedly prepared at the spot by the lock-smith was not seized by
the IO on 29.10.2020 for the reasons best known to him, which
casts serious doubts on the case of prosecution. The recovery
proceedings of key from the house of accused Shadab at Shastri
AKASH AKASH JAIN
Digitally signed byJAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:09:25 +0530
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 33 of 35
Park were not carried out in the presence of any independent
public witness. Thus, the possibility of planting the aforesaid
duplicate key upon the accused by the IO cannot be ruled out. As
such, the alleged incriminating circumstance of recovery of key
from the house of accused is without any consequence.
Decision
56. It is a settled principle of criminal law jurisprudence
that more serious the offence, stricter the degree of proof, since a
higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused.
Though it is neither possible nor prudent to have a straight- jacket
formula or principle which would apply to all cases without
variance and every case has to be appreciated on its own facts and
in light of the evidence led by the parties. It is for the Court to
examine the cumulative effect of the evidence in order to
determine whether the prosecution has been able to establish its
case beyond reasonable doubt or that the accused is entitled to the
benefit of doubt.
57. In view of totality of facts, material on record and
observations as above, it is held that circumstantial evidence relied
upon by the prosecution is incoherent and insufficient in form,
continuity and content and falls short of the legally prescribed
standards to return a finding of guilt on the basis thereof. All the
material prosecution witnesses resiled from their statements and
did not support its case. Moreover, there were several missing
links in the chain of evidence and lapses on the part of
investigating agency which afford benefit of doubt to the accused.
The circumstances brought forth by the prosecution could not be
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.01.18
17:09:30 +0530
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 34 of 35
proved beyond reasonable doubt and evidence adduced in the case
is not consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of accused.
Accused Shadab S/o Mr. Mohd. Hanif is accordingly acquitted of
the offences under Section 302 IPC as alleged against him. Bail
bonds furnished by accused under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. are
extended for a period of 6 months from today.
58. File be consigned to record room after due
compliance.
Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
AKASH Date:
JAIN 2025.01.18
17:09:35
+0530
DICTATED AND (AKASH JAIN)
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN ASJ-04, EAST DISTRICT
COURT ON 15.01.2025 KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHI
This judgment contains 35 pages and each paper is signed by me.
Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
AKASH Date:
JAIN 2025.01.18
17:09:39
+0530
(AKASH JAIN)
ASJ-04, EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHI
FIR No:- 457/2020 State v. Shadab Page No. 35 of 35
[ad_1]
Source link