[ad_1]
Delhi District Court
State vs Gaurav @ Sunny on 21 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS.SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05, WEST,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. DLWT01-005963-2016
Sessions Case No. 58004/2016
FIR No. 278/2016
PS - Patel Nagar
Under Section 302/201 IPC
State
Vs.
Gaurav @ Sunny,
S/o Late Sh. Gulab Singh,
R/o H. No. 648, Baba Farid Puri,
West Patel Nagar, Delhi.
Also at: H. No. 205, 3rd Floor, Gali No. 9,
Jain Road, Mohan Garden, Dwarka More,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
Date of Institution 23.07.2016
Date of Committal 24.08.2016
Charge framed Under Section 302/201 IPC
Date of conclusion of final 08.04.2025
arguments and reserving
judgment
Date of Pronouncement of 21.04.2025
Judgment
Final Judgment Accused Gaurav @ Sunny is
convicted for the offence under
Section 302/201 IPC.
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 1 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts of the case:
1. Accused Gaurav @ Sunny has been facing trial of the Charge
under Section 302/201 IPC for committing murder of Ms. Nikita
D/o Sh. Amar Singh with knife on 22.03.2016 between 03:30 PM
and 07:36 PM at H.No. T-398, Second Floor, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi
and thereafter, he had concealed the material evidence i.e. weapon
of offence, so that he may avoid prosecution and had also attempted
to burn the face of deceased, so that her identification may not be
established.
Case of the Prosecution; registration of the FIR and investigation
conducted:
2. As per the prosecution, on 22.03.2016, on receipt of DD no.
47A, SI Kishore Kumar alongwith Ct. Deepak went to the spot i.e.
H.no. T-405, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi where they came to know that one
dead body was lying in H.No. T-398, 2nd Floor, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi.
Thereafter, they went to the spot where they found one dead body of
a girl aged about 19-20 years, soaked in blood. The face of dead
body was upside, her head was in North direction and feet were in
South direction. Two sharp injuries on the stomach of dead body;
injuries on her neck as well as on her left side shoulder and palm
were found. There were burn injuries also on stomach, back and on
the right hand of the dead body. The blood was scattered in the
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 2 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
room. The dead body was found to be worn Jeans/Pants of blue
colour and one top which was also semi burnt. One Student Identity
Card of National Institute of Open Schooling on which her name as
Nikita, her parents name as Amar Singh & Rajwati, her date of birth
as 07.10.1997 and address 642-C, Baba Faridpuri, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi alongwith one photograph was lying near the dead body.
Thereafter Senior officers came at the spot and Crime team was
called. Ct. Deepak called the father of deceased Nikita, who reached
the spot and identified the dead body as of his daughter Nikita.
Crime team reached the spot and the spot was photographed by the
photographer. Exhibits were lifted by the crime team on the
instructions of the Investigating Officer, which were taken into
possession by him. Thereafter, the dead body was sent to the
Mortuary, DDU hospital through Ct. Deepak.
3. Thereafter, statement of father of deceased namely Sh. Amar
Singh was recorded, wherein he has stated that he is doing the work
of Plumber and having two daughters namely Anju & Nikita and
one son namely Ajay. His elder daughter Anju got married and his
son Ajay is doing the work of Technician. His younger daughter
Nikita was studying in 12th class. He has further stated that on
22.03.2016, at about 08:00 AM, his daughter Nikita went to Uttam
Nagar for giving 12th class examinations but she did not return. At
about 03:00/03:30 PM, he made a call to his son Ajay and asked him
to call Nikita. Ajay made a call to Nikita on phone number
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 3 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
9711433616 and Nikita informed him that she is coming back after
giving her exams. But when Nikita did not return to house till 05:00
PM, Ajay again made a call to Nikita but she did not pick up the
phone. He again made a call to Nikita but the phone was ‘switched
off’. Thereafter, they made search for Nikita. He has further stated
that at about 08:30 PM, police informed him that some incident had
happened with his daughter. He alongwith police staff reached at H.
No. T-398, 2nd Floor, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi, where he found the dead
body of his daughter Nikita, smeared with blood in a room. Injury
marks were found on her stomach, neck, left side shoulder and
palm. There were also burn marks on the stomach, back and right
hand of the dead body. Blood was also scattered in the room.
4. He has further stated that about six months ago, his daughter
Nikita had friendship with one boy namely Sunny and 4-5 months
prior to the incident, Sunny had abducted Nikita and he had reported
the same at PS Anand Parbat. Thereafter, he Counseled Nikita and
while agreeing, she made distance from Sunny. When Nikita did not
talk to Sunny on phone, he used to make call on their phone and
harassed Nikita. Nikita told her sister Anju many times that Sunny
had threatened Nikita to kill her and stated that ” अगर तू मेरी नहीं हुई तो
किसी की भी नहीं होगी व तुझे जान से मार दूंगा.” He has further stated that
accused Sunny had also followed Nikita a day prior to the incident
and Anju had witnessed the same and therefore, she made Nikita sit
in her office.
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 4 of 101
5. On the statement of complainant, the present case bearing FIR
no. 278/2016, u/s 302 IPC was registered and investigation was
conducted. During investigation, IO prepared site plan at the
instance of complainant Sh. Amar Singh. Exhibits were lifted from
the spot, out of which one mobile phone make Nokia without
battery was also found on the spot.
6. Thereafter, during investigation, statement of one Sh. Hemant
who was also present at the spot, was recorded wherein he has
stated that he is residing on rent with Naveen and Sunder Singh,
who belonged to his native place and he is doing a private job in
‘Book a bus travels’. On 21.03.2016, Naveen did not return to his
room. On 22.03.2016, at 11:00 AM, he and Sunder Singh went to
their job and at about 03:00 PM, Sunny who was residing
somewhere in Baba Farid Puri, made a call to him (Hemant) from
mobile number 7053242002 and asked him as to where he is. He
responded that he is in the office. Sunny informed him that his girl
friend Nikita alongwith her one friend would come at Shadi Pur
Metro Station and asked him to come there so that he would make
friendship with them however, he refused for the same. Sunny asked
to call him later. Thereafter, at about 03:45 PM, Hemant made a call
to Sunny and asked him as to which is the metro station prior to
Rithala Metro Station, as he has to deliver tickets of Tour and
Travels there. Sunny informed that there is Rohini Metro Station
prior to Rithala Metro station.
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 5 of 101
7. He has further stated that thereafter, at about 07:00 PM, after
completing his duty, he reached at his room and found the lock at
the gate on ground floor, however, he locked his room with the said
lock in the morning. He inquired from the neighbours as to who had
locked the gate but they told that they do not know about the said
lock. Thereafter, he broke open the said lock with the help of
hammer; went to 2nd floor and found the door of his room unlocked
however the same was slightly closed. He entered in the room and
saw that one girl was lying in a pool of blood on the floor and there
were injury marks on her body. Thereafter, he identified her as the
girl friend of Sunny namely Nikita. He made a call to the police,
who made inquires from him and conducted the investigation. He
has further stated that except all three of them i.e. Hemant, Naveen
and Sunder Singh, only accused Sunny had knowledge about the
keys of the room. Accused Gaurav @ Sunny had also brought Nikita
to his room prior to this incident, while he was alone and a scuffle
had taken place between Gaurav @ Sunny and Nikita on the issue of
talking with some other girl. He checked his room and his one
T.shirt was found missing.
8. During further investigation, dead body was sent to mortuary
for postmortem examination. Dead body of deceased got identified
and handed over to her father Sh. Amar Singh. The postmortem
proceedings got photographed by photographer Sanjay. The vaginal
swab, clothes and blood in gauge piece of the deceased was sealed
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 6 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
and taken into possession vide seizure memo. Statements of other
witnesses were also recorded.
9. During further investigation, Investigating Officer came to
know that accused Gaurav @ Sunny is in J.C. in case FIR No.
636/2015 PS Anand Parbat u/s 363 IPC. Thereafter, after seeking
due permission of the concerned Jail Supdt., accused Gaurav @
Sunny was arrested from Tihar Jail in the present case and his
disclosure statement was recorded, wherein he disclosed his
involvement in the present case. He also disclosed in his disclosure
statement that he after committing murder of Nikita, he also tried to
set her on fire so that she could not be identified. After his
disclosure statement, section u/s 201 IPC was added in the present
FIR.
10. Thereafter, during further investigation, on the basis of
disclosure statement of accused Gaurav, he led the police party to
Ramjas Ground and from the bushes adjacent to the wall of Ramjas
Ground, he got recovered one polythene and on checking the same,
one knife and one shirt of light yellow and sand colour containing
blood stains were recovered. IO took measurement of the knife,
prepared sketch of the same; sealed it and took into possession vide
seizure memo. Pointing out memo was also prepared by the IO at
the instance of accused. Thereafter, accused led the police party to
parking of Railway station and got recovered one motorcycle
bearing no. DL-10S-E-2012, Pulsar 220, black colour and disclosed
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 7 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
that he had used the said motorcycle while commission of the
present offence. Thereafter, medical examination of accused got
conducted; his blood in gauge and blood in liquid was taken into
possession. The subsequent opinion of the doctor qua the nature of
injury was obtained, wherein the doctor had mentioned that injury
no. 1 to 7 mentioned in the postmortem report no. 434/16 are
possible by the examined weapon i.e. knife. The knife was deposited
with the malkhana. Exhibits were sent to the FSL for expert opinion.
Thereafter, on completion of investigation, charge-sheet for the
offences punishable under Section 302/201 IPC was filed against
accused Gaurav @ Sunny before the concerned Court.
Charge:
11. Charge for the offences punishable under Sections 302/201
IPC was framed against accused Gaurav @ Sunny by the Ld.
Predecessor Court on 13.10.2016, to which he pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.
The Trial
Prosecution evidence :
12. To prove its case against the accused, the prosecution had
examined 32 witnesses in total, which are PW-1 Sh. Amar Singh
(father of deceased), PW-2 HC Balbir (Spl. messenger), PW-3 Ct.
Arun Kumar (Photographer, crime team), PW-4 HC Udaiveer Singh
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 8 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
(duty officer), PW-5 Sh. Ajay (brother of deceased), PW-6 Smt.
Anju (sister of deceased), PW-7 Dr. Jatin Bodwal (conducted the
postmortem examination of deceased), PW-8 Ct. Deepak (witness of
investigation), PW-9 Hemant (public witness/tenants of the spot),
PW-10 Naveen Singh Bisht (public witness/tenants of the spot ),
PW-11 Ct. Sachin Kumar (witness of investigation); PW-12
Sh.Rajesh Vashisht (Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel), PW-13 Sh.
Naveen Kumar Singh (Public witness), PW-14 Sh. Lokesh Kumar
(public witness/cousin of accused), PW-15 Sh. Pawan Singh
(Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea ), PW-16 Sh. Surender
Singh Bisht, (Assistant Manager, Aircel Ltd.), PW-17 SI Kishore
Kumar (witness of investigation), PW-18 L/HC Indu Bala (DD
Writer), PW-19 SI Ummed Singh (proved the PCR form), PW-20
Insp. Pankaj Kumar (witness of investigation), PW-21 Sh. Manish
Gupta (Chemical Examiner, FSL), PW-22 Sh. Santosh Tripathy
(Scientific Officer, Chemistry, FSL, Rohini), PW-23 Insp. Mahesh
Kumar (Draughtsman), PW-24 Insp. Joginder Singh (Witness of
investigation), PW-25 Ct. Pawan Kumar (witness of investigation),
PW-26 W/Ct. Som Lata (witness of investigation), PW-27 Ct. Vipin
Kumar (witness of investigation), PW-28 HC Rajesh Kumar
(witness of investigation), PW-29 Ct. Manoj Kumar (witness of
investigation), PW-30 Sanjay Kumar (Private photographer), PW-31
Insp. Nitesh Singh (filed the supplementary charge sheet), PW-32
retired Insp. Ranjeet Dahiya (Investigating officer), PW-33 ASI
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 9 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
Ashok Kumar (proved the copy of FIR). The relevant portion of
their testimony is discussed in the following paragraphs.
13. PW-1 Sh. Amar Singh, father of deceased had deposed that he
is working as a plumber and often visits Mumbai in relation to his
work. He is married and blessed with three children. His eldest
daughter namely Anju is presently about 31 years old. His son
namely Ajay is about 29 years old and his another daughter namely
Nikita (since expired) was aged about 19 years. At the time of her
death, his daughter Nikita was pursuing class 12th Examination
through National Open School. She was murdered by accused
Sunny, on 22.03.2016. On the date of incident, his daughter Nikita
had left home at about 08:00 AM for appearing in examination
scheduled, to be held in Uttam Nagar. She had not returned till
03:00 PM, therefore, he told his son Ajay to contact Nikita and find
out as to where she is. His son Ajay informed him that he had
spoken to Nikita and she is on her way back to home. At that time,
Ajay was at his work place in Vasant Kunj. He had given a missed
call to Ajay as balance in his phone was not sufficient. Till 05:00
PM, Nikita had not returned. He again tried to contact Nikita
through his son Ajay by making a missed call on his phone. Ajay
informed him that Nikita’s phone was responding “Switched off”.
Thereafter, they initiated searching Nikita.
13.1. This witness has further deposed that at about 08:00 or 08:30
PM, on the same day i.e. 22.03.2016, police came to him at his
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 10 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
house and informed that his daughter had met with an incident. He
accompanied police officials to PS Patel Nagar, from where he was
taken to H.No. 398, Second floor, Baljit Nagar, Delhi, where he
found his daughter Nikita lying dead in a room. Her body was lying
in pool of blood. She was having burning signs on her arms, hands
and hairs. She was apparently murdered with knife, as she was
having deep wounds on her stomach and other parts of the body. He
identified body of his daughter Nikita and informed the police that
accused Gaurav @ Sunny was regularly calling his daughter Nikita.
He further informed the police that in the year 2015, accused
Gaurav @ Sunny had kidnapped his daughter Nikita. A case FIR
regarding kidnapping of his daughter Nikita was also registered in
PS Anand Parbat. His daughter Nikita was recovered by the police
in that case and was subjected to counseling Sessions thereafter.
Eventually she stopped meeting Gaurav @ Sunny but accused
continued trying to contact his daughter Nikita. On some occasions,
accused Gaurav @ Sunny had called his daughter Nikita which is
within his knowledge. At his instance, Nikita had told Gaurav on
phone that she is not interested in continuing with any sort of
relations with him, but Gaurav was adamant and continued calling
and following Nikita. His daughter Anju informed him that a day
before the incident, accused was following Nikita. Anju further
informed him that she (Anju) had made Nikita to sit in her office in
Patel Nagar, as to avoid further complications. He informed the
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 11 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
police that Gaurav @ Sunny had killed his daughter Nikita. Police
had recorded his statement. He has further deposed that at the spot,
where his daughter was found lying, one mobile phone was found
lying which was not of his daughter. He later on came to know that
the phone covered from the spot, was of accused Gaurav @ Sunny.
His daughter’s (Nikita) phone had been taken by the accused and
was not found near the dead body of his daughter Nikita. Police had
got conducted postmortem examination of the body of his daughter
Nikita. Before that, he had identified her body vide statement,
proved as Ex.PW-1/A. His daughter Nikita was using mobile phone
number 9711433616. PW-1 has identified the case property i.e.
clothes of deceased as Ex.P.1/1; mobile phone of deceased as
Ex.P.1/4 and carbon copy of receipt vide which the dead body of
deceased was handed over to him as Ex.PW-1/C. This witness has
also correctly identified the accused Gaurav @ Sunny before the
Court.
14. PW-2 HC Balbir/Spl. messenger has deposed that on
23.03.2016 at about 01:30 AM, duty officer HC Udaibeer had
handed over to him print outs of FIR no. 278/2016 PS Patel Nagar
for serving a copy to Ld. Magistrate and Superior Officers. He had
delivered the print outs of FIR to Ld. Magistrate as well as Superior
Officers including DCP and ACP.
15. PW-3 Ct. Arun Kumar, Photographer of Crime Team has
deposed that on 22.03.2016, he had accompanied Crime Team
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 12 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
Incharge, SI Pankaj to H.No. T-398, Second Floor, Baljeet Nagar,
Delhi for inspecting the crime scene. One lady namely Nikita was
found murdered at the spot. At the directions of Incharge Crime
Team, he had clicked 35 photographs, using his official Camera,
which are marked as Mark PW-3/P.1 to Mark PW-3/P.35. The said
photographs were not proved on record for want of negatives.
However, PW-3 specifically deposed that the Camera was having
film which were got developed in the official Lab and no
photographic trick was applied, so as to cause any error in the
images clicked in the photographs. He further deposed that the
negatives were handed over to Ct. Sachin by him.
15.1. During cross-examination, PW-3 deposed that he handed
over the negatives to Ct. Sachin on 02.07.2016 and obtained
receiving from him at the time of handing over the negatives.
16. PW-4 HC Udaiveer Singh, Duty officer has proved the print
outs of present FIR as Ex.PW-4/A; Certificate U/s 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act as Ex.PW-4/B; DD no. 2A as Ex.PW-4/C; DD No. 5A
as Ex.PW-4/D and his endorsement on the Tehrir at red encircled
portion as Ex.PW-4/E.
17. PW-5 Sh. Ajay, brother of deceased has deposed that he is
working in a private firm for last 08 years and was having two
sisters namely Anju and Nikita (present deceased). He further
deposed that his sister Nikita had expired on 22.03.2016. On that
day, she left the house in the morning for appearing in the
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 13 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
Examination for 12th class as she was pursuing her studies from
National Open School. Nikita had carried her mobile phone bearing
no. 9711433616 with her while leaving the home in the morning at
about 08:00 AM. Her examination was expected to be over by 01:30
PM hence, he called her at around 02:00 PM to ask about her status.
Nikita told him that she had taken the exam and was proceeding
towards her study Centre situated at Shadi Pur. After some time, he
was informed by his father that Nikita had not returned home, so he
attempted to call her again on her mobile phone but the same was
found ‘switched off’ after one bell. He alongwith his father started
searching for Nikita and went to Patel Nagar Metro Station and
Shadi Pur Metro Station but could not find her. In the evening at
about 08:00 PM, he received call from his father, who informed him
that police had visited their house and stated that Nikita had met
with an accident. He returned home and he alongwith his father
accompanied police to H.No. T-398, Second Floor, Baljeet Nagar,
Delhi. He further deposed that his father had gone upstairs and told
him that Nikita has been murdered. However, he did not enter the
said room as he could not gathered courage to see his sister in such a
condition.
17.1. PW-5 has correctly identified accused Sunny @ Gaurav in the
Court while stating that he is residing in the vicnity of their
residence. His deceased sister Nikita was having friendship with
accused Gaurav @ Sunny, who had kidnapped his sister about 8-9
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 14 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
months prior to her death. In this regard, a case was registered at PS
Anand Parbat. They had made Nikita understand about her welfare
and accordingly she decided not to continue her relations with
accused Gaurav @ Sunny. Deceased Nikita had stopped talking to
the accused but the accused continued to contact Nikita. His
deceased sister Nikita informed him that the accused was torturing
her on phone and also follows her when she goes to her study
Centre. Even his other sister namely Anju had informed him that on
21.03.2016, accused had followed Nikita till the office of Anju in
Patel Nagar. Therefore, Anju was compelled to escort her till her
house.
17.2. During his cross-examination, he deposed that he got a
complaint registered in PS Anand Parbat regarding torture given to
his deceased sister by the accused, however, he does not have copy
of the same but he informed the same to the Investigating Officer of
the present matter.
18. PW-6 Smt. Anju, Sister of deceased has deposed that Nikita
was pursuing Class 12th from Open School. On the day of incident
i.e. 22.03.2016, Nikita had visited her house in the morning at 08:30
AM and from there she proceeded to take her practical exams at
Uttam Nagar. At about 05:00 AM on the same day, her brother
Ajay informed her over telephone that Nikita was not picking her
mobile call. She also made a call on the mobile phone of Nikita but
the phone of Nikita got switched off after two rings, therefore, she
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 15 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
could not talk to her. Even her brother was not able to talk to Nikita
therefore, she made a call to her friends to inquire about her but
could not know her whereabouts. At about 08:30 PM, her father
told her over telephone that police had come to their house and
informed him that some incident had happened with Nikita. After
15 minutes, she reached at her parental house where she came to
know that her father had gone to PS Patel Nagar. She also reached at
PS Patel Nagar where she was informed that her sister Nikita had
been murdered at Baljeet Nagar.
18.1. She further deposed that about 8-9 months ago from the date
of incident, accused Sunny had taken away her sister, for which a
report was lodged at PS Anand Parbat. They counseled Nikita
whereupon she agreed not to have any kind of relation ship with
accused Sunny. Still accused Sunny used to call Nikita on her
mobile phone and whenever Nikita did not attend his phone call, he
used to call on the mobile phone of other family members and used
to harass them. Accused Sunny used to follow her sister whenever
she went to her classes. Her deceased sister used to share/confide
things with her and hence, she told her that accused Sunny had
threatened to kill her. Nikita also told her that accused had
threatened her specifically “अगर तू मेरी नहीं हुई तो मैं तुझे किसी और की
नहीं होने दूंगा”.
18.2. PW-6 further deposed that a day prior to the murder of her
sister Nikita, Nikita had come to her office at West Patel Nagar after
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 16 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
her coaching classes. The accused had followed her and was found
present outside her office on his motorcycle. As soon as she came
out from her office, accused Sunny ran away after seeing her.
Therefore, she took Nikita with her to her parental house and left
her there at 06:00 PM. She has revealed her mobile number used at
that time as 9958xxxx80 and used by deceased Nikita as
9711xxxx16. (The entire mobile number is not mentioned to secure
privacy of the witness).
18.3. During cross-examination, PW-6 deposed that she knows
accused Sunny for the last two years as he had become friends with
her deceased sister Nikita from her school time. She further deposed
that she suggested Nikita that accused Sunny is not upto her
standard. She further deposed that Nikita was not insisting to marry
accused Sunny, however she told her family members that she
wanted to marry him. She admitted that family members had made a
complaint to Police at PS Anand Parbat regarding elopement of
Nikita by accused Sunny. However, she deposed that no complaint
was lodged with the police regarding threats given by the accused to
Nikita. She voluntarily stated that Nikita had told her that accused
Sunny was forcing her for marriage but she refused. She even
volunteered that she can produce the date sheet of examination
which were taken by deceased Nikita during the period of said
incident.
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 17 of 101
19. PW-7 Dr. Jatin Bodwal, Specialist Department of Forensic
Medicine, DDU hospital has deposed that on 23.03.2016, he had
conducted postmortem examination on the body of Nikita, a lady
aged about 19 years. Her body was sent by Insp. Ranjeet Singh and
was identified by Amar Singh, her father and Ajay, her brother. As
per PW-7, the following external injuries were observed on the body
of deceased:
(1) Wedge shaped stab wound of size 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 2
cm, was present on the left side of front of neck, 4 cm from
mid line and 4 cm above clavicle. Both the edges of the
wound were sharp, one angle of the wound was sharp and
other angle was blunt. On dissection of the wound a track
was found which traverse through skin, subcutaneous tissue
and neck muscle. Effusion of blood was present underlying
neck structures. The track of wound was directed to
downwards, backwards and towards right.
(2) Incised wound of size 4 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm was present
on the front of left shoulder, 5 cm below acromion process.
Both the edges of the wound were sharp.
(3) Incised wound of size 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm was
present on the inner aspect of left arm, 3 cm below injury
no.3. Both the edges of the wound were sharp.
(4) Wedge shaped stab wound of size 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 3 cm
was present on the left side of front of chest, 6 cm belowCase No. 58004/2016 Page 18 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
injury no.3. Both the edges of the wound were sharp, one
angle of the wound was sharp and other angle was blunt. On
dissection of the wound a track was found which traverse
through skin, subcutaneous tissue and muscle. Effusion of
blood was present in the underlying chest muscles. The track
of wound was directed to downwards, backwards and
towards right.
(5) Wedge shaped stab wound of size 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 5 cm
was present on the left side of front of chest, 4 cm below
injury no.5. Both the edges of the wound were sharp, one
angle of the wound was sharp and other angle was blunt. On
dissection of the wound a track was found which traverse
through skin, subcutaneous tissue, 4th intercostals space and
enter into the pleural cavity where it injured left lung, track
terminates here. Effusion of blood was present in the entire
track. About 500 ml of blood was present in the left pleural
cavity. The track of wound was directed to upwards,
backwards and towards right.
(6) Wedge shaped stab wound of size 2 cm x 2 cm x 2.5 cm
was present on the left side of front of abdomen, 2 cm from
mid line. Both the edges and angles of the wound were sharp.
On dissection of the wound a track was found which traverse
through skin, subcutaneous and abdominal muscles. Effusion
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 19 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
of blood was present in the entire track. The track of wound
was directed to upwards, backwards and towards right.
(7) Wedge shaped stab wound of size 1.8 cm x2 cm x 2 cm
was present on the right side of front of abdomen, 2 cm
below umblicus. Both the edges and angles of the wound
were sharp. On dissection of the wound a track was found
which traverse through skin, subcutaneous and abdominal
muscles. Effusion of blood was present in the entire track.
The track of wound was directed to upwards, backwards and
towards left.
19.1 PW-7 further deposed that the cause of death was
haemorrhagic shock via Injury no.5, which is sufficient to cause
death in ordinary course of nature. All the injuries are antemortem in
nature and fresh in duration. Time since death was 12 hours prior to
postmortem examination. PW-7 has proved his detailed PM report
as.
19.2. PW-7 has further deposed that after the P.M. examination, he
had handed over all the documents pertaining to the PM
Examination to the IO after signing the same i.e. P.M. report proved
as Ex.PW-7/B, brief facts, proved as Ex.PW-7/C, Carbon copy of
application preserving the dead body, proved as Ex.PW-7/D, Form
no. 25.35, proved as Ex.PW-7/E, Identification statements of the
dead body, proved as Ex.PW-7/F (already exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A).
After the P.M. examination, he had sealed a separate pullanda blood
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 20 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
in gauze, clothes of deceased, her Vaginal swab. The seal of hospital
was of PM DDUH, its sample was also handed over to the IO.
19.3. PW-7 has further deposed that on 03.06.2016, Insp. Ranjeet
Singh from PS Patel Nagar had submitted an application for seeking
subsequent opinion along with sealed Weapon of offence, copy of
Seizure Memo of Knife and copy of Sketch of Knife. He had found
the seal of RSD intact on the Pullanda of the weapon of offence. He
opened it and examined it. Blood stains were present at places on
the Knife. He had opined that injuries no.1 to 7 in P.M.Report,
proved as Ex.PW-7/A were possible with that Knife. The Knife was
re-sealed with the seal of PM DDUH and was handed over to the IO
with Sample seal. He has proved his subsequent opinion as
Ex.PW-7/G. He had also signed on the photographs of the knife,
Mark PW-1/1, at point A. PW-7 has also identified the case property
i.e. the Gauze as Ex.P.7/2 and knife Ex.P.7/3.
20. PW-8 Ct. Deepak has deposed that on 22.03.2016, at about
07:36 PM, DD No. 47A was received at PS regarding lying of dead
body of a girl in House No. T-405, Baljeet Nagar. Thereafter, he
alongwith SI Kishore went to the spot where it was revealed that the
house number was not T-405 but it was T-398, where the dead body
of a girl was lying. They reached at House no. T-398, Baljeet Nagar.
The dead body of a girl was lying inside the room of the above
house and she was wearing blue coloured jeans and top. There were
injuries on her abdomen and other parts of the body. There were
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 21 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
some Card. As per the photo affixed on the I. Card, the face of dead
body was appearing similar to that photo. The address of Baba Farid
Puri, Baljeet Nagar was appearing in the I. Card. However, the
witness not able to recollect the house number mentioned in the I.
Card. He has further stated that on the directions of IO, he went to
the address mentioned in the I.Card and returned to the spot with
father of deceased. One mobile phone, one vegetable cutting knife,
some clothes, shoes, bag etc were lying at the spot. About 12-13
articles were lying at the spot including of above said articles and
blood. IO prepared parcels of these articles and sealed the parcels.
The father identified the dead body as of his daughter Nikita. Senior
police officials also came at the spot. Then on the directions of IO,
he took the dead body to the Mortuary of DDU Hospital.
20.1. He further deposed that on the next day, IO/SHO PS Patel
Nagar and SI Kishore came to Mortuary, where he was already on
duty at the Mortuary of DDU Hospital. SHO P.S Patel Nagar
conducted the inquest proceedings and got conducted the
postmortem examination on the dead body of Nikita. The doctor
handed over 3-4 sealed exhibits to the IO after the postmortem
examination and the same were seized by the IO vide seizure memo,
proved as Ex.PW-8/A. After the postmortem examination, the dead
body of Nikita was handed over to the relatives. He came to PS and
his statement was recorded by the IO/SHO. This witness has also
identified the articles seized by the IO vide seizure memo
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 22 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
Ex.PW-8/B. He has also identified the case property i.e. Shoe as
Ex.P.8/1; blood on gauze as Ex.P.8/2; Knife as Ex.P.8/3; I.Card
issued in the name of deceased Nikita as Ex.PW-9/2; one Metro
Card as Ex.PW-8/4 (earlier marked as Mark PX); one Lock
Ex.PW-9/1; Jeans/ Pant as Ex.PW-8/5; one white colour mobile
phone make Nokia, having two Sim Cards as Ex. PW-1/4; ladies
shoe as Ex.PW-8/6 (earlier marked as P.1/2); bed sheet as
Ex.PW-8/7; one broken bottom part of pet Plastic water bottle as
Ex.PW-8/8; one partially burnt single Gents shoe with blue & white
strip design and red colour laces as Ex.PW-8/9; ladies shoe (Belly)
as Ex.PW-8/10 (earlier marked as Mark P.1/3); container having hair
strand as Ex.PW-8/11.
21. PW-9 Sh. Hemant, tenant of the spot/premises, has deposed
that he used to reside on the second floor of the premises i.e. H.No.
398, T Point, Shadipur, Delhi, which is the spot of crime. He further
deposed that he and Naveen were working with ‘Tour & Travels
Company’. On 21.03.2016, Naveen left the house for his work and
did not return that night. On the day of incident, i.e. on 22.03.2016,
he and his other roommate Surender left the house at around
10/11:00 AM for their work. On that day, in the afternoon, he
received a call on his mobile number 705xxxx002 (number withheld
to protect the privacy of the witness) from Sunny from his mobile
number 8586906533. He knew Gaurav @ Sunny who is the present
accused and was correctly identified by the said witness in the
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 23 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
Court, as he was residing on the upper floor of H.No. 398, T.Point,
Shadipur, Delhi, prior to his coming to Delhi i.e. about two months
from the date of incident and had met him once or twice when he
came to their house. He further deposed that during the conversation
on mobile phone, accused Gaurav @ Sunny told him that he is
coming to Shadipur Metro Station with his friend Nikita (deceased).
He also informed him that one girl who is friend of Nikita is also
with them, therefore, accused asked him to come at the Metro
Station so that he can introduce him to the friend of Nikita for
friend-ship. However, he informed the accused that since he is in
office, he is not in a position to come to the Metro Station.
21.1. He further deposed that on the same day, his employer Mr.
Ranjeet Jha instructed him to go to Rithala Metro Station to deliver
tickets to some customer and therefore, he made a call on the mobile
number of accused Gaurav to inquire about the location of Rithala
Metro Station. After knowing the location, he disconnected the
phone of accused Gaurav @ Sunny. He went to Rithala Metro
Station and after handing over the tickets, he returned to his office.
21.2. He further deposed that in the evening at about 07:00 PM, he
returned to his house and found the main door at the ground floor of
the premises locked. Normally the main gate remained open but that
day, it was found locked with the same lock which they used to put
on their flat at the second floor. Despite inquiry from
neighbourhood, he could not gathered any clue as to who had locked
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 24 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
the door, therefore, he went to the house of his landlord namely Mr.
Chawla. The Landlord told him that he had not locked the door and
asked him to break it open. While he was breaking open the lock,
the resident of third floor of the premises also returned from his
duty. He entered the premises and when had reached at the second
floor, he found the door of his flat was closed but not bolted. On
opening the door, he found a girl lying on the floor and under shock,
he came downstairs. Then he made a call at number 100 and
proceeded to the police station, however, he met the police on the
way. He also informed Naveen over call. He then went inside his
flat alongwith the police and found that the girl had already died.
He identified the girl as Nikita who had come to their flat once with
accused Gaurav, He informed the police about the call made by the
accused to him in the afternoon and that Nikita was with the accused
alongwith one of her friends. He asked police to make call on the
mobile number of accused Gaurav but his mobile phone was
switched off. One Identity Card of deceased Nikita was also lying
near her dead body. In the meantime, his friend Naveen also came
at the spot.
21.3. He further deposed that on earlier occasion, when accused
came to their flat with Nikita, he objected to the same. Then he
asked accused to call his flat mate Naveen to talk over the said issue
and accused spoke to Naveen. However, on asking of Naveen, he
left the flat for 5-10 minutes so that accused could talk to Nikita.
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 25 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
However, he heard some loud voices of accused and Nikita from his
room.
21.4. He admitted that on the day of incident, he found that his
T.shirt was missing from his room. He identified the lock put on the
main door of the premises on 22.03.2016 as Ex.PW-9/1 and the
Identity Card issued in the name of deceased Nikita by National
Institute of Open Schooling which was found lying near the dead
body on 22.03.2016 as Ex.PW-9/2. However, he could not identify
the Metro Card hence it was marked as Mark PX. He lastly deposed
that the mobile Sim used by him at the time of incident was
purchased on the I/D of his friend Naveen having number as
705xxx002.
21.5. During his cross-examination by the defence, he deposed that
there was only one set of Keys of the lock Ex.PW-9/1 which used to
remain in the bathroom of the said flat, which was outside the said
room/flat. In the Court observation, it has been mentioned that the
lock Ex. PW-9/1 can be opened without help of Key. The witness
also proved the scaled site Plan prepared by the draftsman as Ex.
PW-9/DA.
22. PW-10 Sh. Naveen Singh Bisht has deposed that in the year
2016, he was residing at H.No. 398, 2nd Floor, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi
which is the spot of Crime. He further deposed that he used to
reside in the above flat alongwith Mr. Hemant and Mr. Surender.
Accused Gaurav @ Sunny was residing on the upper floor in the
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 26 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
same premises. He correctly identified the accused Gaurav @ Sunny
in the Court.
22.1. PW-10 further deposed that at the time of incident, he was
working in a Tour & Travels Company at R.K.Ashram, Palika
Bazar, Delhi. On 22.03.2016, between 07:00 to 07:30 PM, he
received a call of Hemant who informed him that some incident had
taken place in their flat. However, he could not explain the details
of the incident over phone. When he reached at the flat, the police
was already present alongwith Hemant. He did not go inside the flat
but could see from outside that some one was lying in the flat. He
came to know the name of deceased as Nikita. He further deposed
that Nikita was girl friend of accused Gaurav @ Sunny and on some
occasions, he had seen accused Gaurav taking Nikita to his flat. He
further deposed that there was only one set of Key of the lock which
they used to put on the door of their flat, which used to be kept in
the bathroom and accused Gaurav @ Sunny knew about the same.
22.2. During his cross-examination by defence, he deposed that
none other than him, Surender, Hemant and accused Gaurav @
Sunny knew about the Keys kept in the bathroom.
23. PW-11 Ct. Sachin Kumar has deposed that on 27.04.2016, he
took accused Gaurav @ Sunny to Lady Hardinge hospital for his
medical examination. The blood sample of accused was taken by the
doctor in the hospital and handed over the same in sealed condition
to him. Thereafter he alongwith accused returned to PS and handed
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 27 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
over the sealed parcel containing the blood sample of accused and
MLC to the IO/Insp. Ranjeet Singh Dahiya. The blood sample of
accused was seized by the IO vide seizure memo, proved as Ex.
PW-11/A. This witness has correctly identified the accused before
the Court.
24. PW-12 Sh. Rajeev Vashisht, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd.
has proved the original Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence
Act, as Ex.PW-12/A alongwith the attested CDR of Mobile number
8527846928 for the period from 01.10.2015 to 31.03.2016 running
into five pages, Ex.PW-12/B alongwith Location Chart, as
Ex.PW-12/C and attested copy of Customer Application Form as
Ex.PW-12/D as well as ID Proof of the customer as Ex. PW-12/E.
He has further deposed that the said mobile number was issued in
the name of Om Bahadur S/o Sh. Shashi Bahadur.
25. PW-13 Sh. Naveen Kumar Singh @ Shashi Bhushan has
deposed that he is working as attendant in parking located at
Railway Station, Samai Pur Badli. That on 23.03.2016, one
motorcycle make Pulsar having number xxxx2012 was parked by
one person regarding which he made entry in the register maintained
by him. The copy of the said record seizeed vide memo is proved as
Ex.PW-13/A.
25.1. He further deposed that on 27.04.2016, police with one person
came to the said parking and the accused Gaurav (correctly
identified in the Court) pointed towards motorcycle having number
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 28 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
xxxxx2012 stating that the motorcycle belongs to him. He also
proved four pages annexed in the Court file which is record of
vehicle parked in the said parking lot, proved as Ex.PW-13/B to
Ex.PW-13/B.4. He also proved two documents of the register
(partially smudged as per Court observation) as Ex.PW-13/C.1 and
Ex.PW-13/C.2. He lastly deposed that the said vehicle no. xxxx2012
was taken by the police from the parking lot at about 01:00 PM on
27.04.2016.
25.2. During cross-examination of PW-13, he deposed that the
register entry of only those vehicle is made which remained parked
during night. He further deposed that he did not inform local police
or any other authority that the vehicle in question was parked in the
parking lot for 34 days.
26. PW-14 Sh. Lokesh Kumar/cousin of accused has deposed that
accused is son of his Paternal uncle and correctly identified him. He
further deposed that on 22.03.2016, accused Sunny came at his
work place situated at CNG Station- II, Rohini, Delhi on a Pulsar
motorcycle and it was the day near Holi festival. Thereafter, accused
went to his house with him and stayed there overnight. On the next
day, i.e. on 23.03.2016, accused left his house on the same
motorcycle. After almost a month, he was called to Police station
Patel Nagar vide a telephonic call and he informed the entire facts to
the police. He further deposed that the motorcycle used by accused
was of black colour of make Pulsar.
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 29 of 101
27. PW-15 Sh. Pawan Singh, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone
Idea Limited has proved the certified copy of CDR of mobile
number 8447337227 for the period from 01.03.2016 to 31.03.2016
as Ex.PW-15/A; certified copy of CAF as per which this number
was issued in the name of Smt. Rajwati Devi w/o Sh. Amar Singh as
Ex.PW-15/B; certified copy of I. Card proof of Smt. Rajwati Devi as
Ex.PW-15/C and Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as
Ex.PW-15/D.
27.1. PW-15 has also proved the certified copy of CDR of mobile
number 9711433616 for the period from 01.03.2016 to 31.03.2016
as Ex.PW-15/E; certified copy of CAF as per which this number
was issued in the name of Smt. Rajwati Devi w/o Sh. Amar Singh as
Ex.PW-15/F; certified copy of I. Card proof of Smt. Rajwati Devi as
Ex.PW-15/G and Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as
Ex.PW-15/H.
27.2. PW-15 has also proved the certified copy of CDR of mobile
number 8586906533 for the period from 01.03.2016 to 31.03.2016
as Ex.PW-15/I; certified copy of CAF as per which this number was
issued in the name of Sh. Thakur Singh S/o Sh. Bakhtawar Singh, as
Ex.PW-15/J; certified copy of I.Card proof of Sh. Thakur Singh as
Ex.PW-15/K and Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as
Ex.PW-15/L.
28. PW-16 Sh. Surender Singh Bisht, Assistant Manager, Aircel
Ltd. has deposed that he could not produce the summoned record
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 30 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
i.e. CDR of mobile no. 7053242002 for the period from 01.03.2016
to 31.03.2016 as the company was declared bankrupt and the record
is not available in the office of the company. However, he has
proved the signatures of Sh. Shishir Malhotra, the then Nodal
Officer on the certified copy of CDR of abovesaid mobile number
alongwith its Location, Ex.PW-16/A; copy of CAF (as per which
this number was issued in the name of Sh. Naveen Singh Bisht S/o
Sh,. Bahadur Singh Bisht), Mark PW-16/1 and certificate u/s 65B of
the Indian Evidence Act at point A, Ex.PW-16/B, which were
already on record, as Sh. Shishir Malhotra had resigned from the
company in the year of 2019. He has further deposed that he can
identify the signatures of Dr. Shishir Malhotra as he had seen him
writing and signing during his official course of duty. He has also
proved the D/L of Sh. Naveen Singh as Mark PW-16/2.
29. PW-17 SI Kishore Kumar has deposed that on 22.03.2016, he
was posted at PS Patel Nagar and was on emergency duty. At about
07:40/07:45 PM, he received a telephonic information about DD no.
47A that one girl was lying dead in the house number T-405, Baljeet
Nagar. Accordingly, he alongwith Ct. Deepak proceeded towards
the said flat, however, on reaching there, public gathered at the spot
informed that incident had taken place at Flat No. T-398, 2 nd Floor,
Baljeet Nagar, Delhi. He went to the spot and saw that dead body of
a girl was lying in the room of said flat. Blood was scattered near
the dead body; head of the dead body was towards North direction
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 31 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
and her foot were towards South direction; face of the dead body
was towards the roof; some wounds on the body were apparent to be
caused with sharp object; there were injuries on neck, left shoulder
and left palm of the deceased; there were also burn marks on the
hand & abdomen on the dead body; the deceased was wearing blue
colour Jeans and top having burnt marks; one Identity Card of Open
School was found lying near the dead body reflecting the name as
Nikita, her father’s name as Amar Singh and address as C-642, Baba
Farid Puri, West Patel Nagar, Delhi. The photo appearing on the
Identity Card was matching with the face of deceased. Meanwhile,
SHO/Insp. Ranjeet Dahiya, Insp. Joginder Singh and Ct. Pawan also
reached at the spot. Insp. Joginder Singh informed the crime team
through wireless set and PW-17 sent Ct. Deepak to the address
mentioned on the I.Card.
29.1. He further deposed that after some time, Ct. Deepak came to
the spot with the father of deceased namely Sh. Amar Singh, who
identified the dead body of his daughter Nikita. The crime team
comprising of Incharge/SI Pankaj and photographer reached at the
spot and while inspecting the scene of crime and lifting the exhibits
from the spot, certain photographs were also clicked. As per
directions of Incharge/SI Pankaj, he also lifted a Metro card, the
Identity Card of Open School and one passport photo of the
deceased lying near the dead body. There were blood stains on the
abovesaid Cards. A parcel of these Cards and photos was prepared,
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 32 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
which was sealed with the seal of KK and it was given serial
number S1.
29.2. PW-17 also deposed to have lifted one plastic bottle partially
burnt lying near the dead body and having yellow colour label
mentioning the words “कच्ची घानी का तेल”. Parcel of this bottle was
also prepared and sealed with the seal of KK and it was given serial
number S2.
29.3. PW-17 also deposed to have lifted blood in gauze from the
spot and kept it in transparent plastic Jar, parcel of which was sealed
with the seal of KK while giving it serial number S3.
29.4. PW-17 also deposed to have lifted gents shoe partially burnt
from the spot which were of red & white colour having blue colour
strips. Parcel of same was prepared and sealed with the seal of KK
while giving it serial number S4.
29.5. PW-17 also deposed to have lifted female belly shoe from the
spot and Parcel of same was prepared and sealed with the seal of
KK while giving it serial number S5.
29.6. PW-17 also deposed to have lifted another gents shoe from
the spot which were of red & white colour having blue colour strips.
Parcel of same was prepared and sealed with the seal of KK while
giving it serial number S6.
29.7. PW-17 also deposed to have lifted female belly shoe from the
spot which was lying under the bed and Parcel of same was
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 33 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
prepared and sealed with the seal of KK while giving it serial
number S7.
29.8. PW-17 also deposed to have lifted one bed sheet, partially
burnt which was spread on the bed from the spot and Parcel of same
was prepared and sealed with the seal of KK while giving it serial
number S8.
29.9. PW-17 also deposed to have lifted a blue colour Jeans with
logo ‘Hilfiger Denim’ lying on the bed from the spot and Parcel of
same was prepared and sealed with the seal of KK while giving it
serial number S9.
29.10. PW-17 also deposed to have lifted Lock of black colour
having yellow colour strip having key hole on its bottom from the
spot and the lock appeared broken. Parcel of same was prepared and
sealed with the seal of KK while giving it serial number S10.
29.11. PW-17 also deposed to have lifted mobile phone without
battery of Nokia company having dual Sim from the spot and
Parcel of same was prepared and sealed with the seal of KK while
giving it serial number S11.
29.12. PW-17 also deposed that there was hair strand in the left
hand of the dead body, which was photographed by the Crime team
and was kept in a transparent Jar. Parcel of same was prepared and
sealed with the seal of KK while giving it serial number S12.
29.13. PW-17 also deposed to have lifted vegetable cutting knife,
which was slightly bend from the spot and Parcel of same was
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 34 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
prepared and sealed with the seal of KK while giving it serial
number S13. However, during his cross-examination by the defence,
he deposed and clarified that a knife was recovered at the instance
of accused from the bushes of Ramjas Ground vide seizure memo,
proved as Ex.PW-17/G. He even identified the said knife as already
exhibited as Ex. PW-7/3.
29.14. He further deposed that all the 13 exhibits were seized by
him vide seizure memo already proved as Ex.PW-8/B. The dead
body of Nikita was sent to mortuary of DDU hospital through Ct.
Deepak. He proved the statement of Sh.Amar Singh recorded by
him which is already exhibited as Ex.PW-1/B and his endorsement
on the same as Ex.PW-17/A. He then handed over rukka to Ct.
Pawan for registration of the FIR. Further, investigation of this case
was then taken up by the then SHO/Insp. Ranjeet Singh Dahiya.
Thereafter, the 2nd IO/Insp. Ranjeet Singh Dahiya prepared the site
plan at the instance of complainant Sh.Amar Singh and in the
meanwhile, Ct. Pawan returned to the spot with the copy of FIR and
original rukka. Thereafter, search for accused Gaurav was started
but he could not be traced.
29.15. He further deposed that on 23.03.2016 in the morning, he
alongwith the second IO went to the mortuary, DDU hospital where
father of deceased identified the dead body of Nikita and second IO
prepared the Inquest proceedings, after which postmortem
examination of the body of deceased was conducted. Thereafter, the
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 35 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
dead body was handed over to the relatives vide receipt already
proved as Ex.PW-1/C. The doctor handed over three sealed parcels
containing vaginal swab, clothes of deceased and blood sample of
deceased alongwith specimen seal which were seized by the IO vide
seizure memo already exhibited as Ex.PW-8/A.
29.16. He further deposed that he again joined the investigation of
the present matter with Insp. Joginder Singh on 25.04.2016 and he
went with the IO to Central Jail as accused Gaurav was arrested in
another case registered with PS Anand Parbat. IO interrogated the
accused in Jail no.7 and arrested him vide Arrest memo, proved as
Ex.PW-17/B and recorded his disclosure statement, proved as
Ex.PW-17/C. The witness correctly identified the accused in the
Court.
29.17. He further deposed to have joined further investigation of
the present case on 27.04.2016 alongwith Insp. Ranjeet Singh, when
accused Gaurav was already in police custody and was kept in lock-
up of PS Patel Nagar. The accused was taken out from the lock-up
and after interrogation, his second disclosure statement was
recorded, proved as Ex.PW-17/D. Thereafter, he alongwith the IO,
Ct. Mehtab and accused Gaurav left the police station for further
investigation in the official vehicle in which driver and operator
were also present. Accused Gaurav took them to the parking of
Samai Pur Railway Station and pointed out towards one black
colour Pulsar 220 CC Motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-10S
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 36 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
E-2012 parked in the parking of abovesaid railway station and stated
that this motorcycle was used by him in fleeing away from the spot
after committing the offence. This motorcycle was seized by the IO
vide seizure memo, proved as Ex.PW-17/E. IO prepared site plan of
place of recovery of this motorcycle. There was a parking attendant
namely Naveen, who met them in the parking. He checked the
record and informed that said motorcycle was parked on 23.03.2016
in the said parking and till then, no one came to take that
motorcycle. IO took copy of relevant record, proved as
Ex.PW-13/B1 to Ex.PW-13/B4, maintained by the parking attendant
and seized the same vide seizure memo, proved as Ex.PW-13/A.
Thereafter, they visited to house of accused situated near Dwarka
Mor and also visited the place where uncle of accused was allegedly
working i.e. a petrol pump located in Rohini, to make inquiry from
uncle of accused as accused disclosed that he had stayed overnight
in the house of his uncle after committing the offence. However, the
uncle of accused was not available at his work place. Thereafter,
they came to the place of incident i.e. T-398, where accused pointed
out the place of incident. IO prepared pointing out memo, proved as
Ex.PW-17/F.
29.18. He has further deposed that accused disclosed that he had
thrown knife and his wearing clothes (worn up by him at the time of
incident) in Ramjas Ground, Anand Parbat. He led us to the Ramjas
Ground. He took out a polythene lying in the bushes of above
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 37 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
ground. IO checked that polythene which was found to contain one
knife and one shirt. IO prepared sketch of the knife after taking its
measurement. Total length of knife was 29 cms. Length of its blade
was 16 cms and length of its handle was 13 cms, which was of
purple (Baingani) colour of plastic. There were some blood stains
appearing on the blade of knife. IO prepared two parcels of this
knife and shirt and marked it as A-1 and A-2, sealed both the parcels
with the seal of RSD and seized vide memo, proved as Ex.PW17/G.
There was a label sticked on the shirt. There were some words
perhaps same were “L HUMAN BEING”. There was a black colour
stripe on the front, its collar and its cuff. IO prepared the site plan
of the place of recovery of shirt and knife. Thereafter, they returned
to PS and accused was got medically examined through Ct. Sachin
in Lady Hardinge Hosptal. Ct. Sachin produced one sealed parcel
containing the blood gauze of the accused. IO seized the same vide
seizure memo, proved as Ex.PW-11/A. This witness has identified
the case property i.e. Knife having brown colour handle as Ex.
PW-7/3. This witness has deposed that the colour of handle of knife
as per his knowledge is ‘Baingani’ and it was the same knife which
was recovered at the instance of accused. However, in Court
Observation, it has surfaced that there are some brown stains
appearing on the knife. Towards sharp end of the blade, stains
appears to be of rust whereas towards middle and non-sharp end of
the blade, they appears to be blood. He has also identified the shirt
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 38 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
which was got recovered by accused by stating that it was worn by
him at the time of incident as Ex.P.17/1; photographs of motorcycle
as Ex.PW-17/G (colly.) and motorcycle as Ex. P.17/2.
30. PW-18 L/HC Indu Bala, DD writer has proved the DD No.
47A, copy of which is proved as Ex.PW-8/DA, which was recorded
by her on 22.03.2016 at about 07:36 PM and the same was received
through wireless operator to the effect that one girl was lying dead
in H.No. T-405, Baljeet Nagar.
31. PW-19 SI Ummed Singh has deposed that on 13.07.2016, on
the request of IO/Insp.Ranjeet Dahiya, he obtained the print out of
PCR form dated 22.03.2016 by which call received at 07:35:47 PM
was received i.e. one girl was lying dead in room of H.No. T-405,
Baljeet Nagar, Patel Nagar. He handed over the PCR form alongwith
his certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, proved as Ex.
PW-19/A and Ex.PW-19/B respectively.
32. PW-20 Insp. Pankaj Kumar has deposed that on 22.03.2016, a
call regarding the present case was received at about 8.30 PM from
control room. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Arun, photographer and
ASI S.M. Pandey, Finger Prints Expert, went to the spot i.e. Flat No.
T-398, Second Floor, Baljeet Nagar, Patel Nagar, Delhi. SI Kishore
from PS Patel Nagar, SHO and other staff from the PS met them at
the spot. Dead body of one girl was lying in the above-said flat.
There were injuries on the body of the deceased. There were some
burn injuries on the right hand and back portion of right side of the
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 39 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
deceased. The injuries in detail are mentioned in his report. There
was one hair strand in the finger grips of left hand of the deceased.
Several articles like mobile phone, I-card, metro card, shoes, bed-
sheet in burnt condition etc. were found lying at the spot. The
photographer took photographs of the crime spot. No chance prints
could be lifted from the spot. After inspecting the spot, he prepared
his detailed report, proved as Ex.PW-20/A and handed over the
same to SI Kishore. During late night hours in the night of
22/23.3.2016, he and photographer Ct. Arun were called in the PS
by IO/Insp. Ranjit Dahiya. His statement was recorded by IO in the
PS.
33. PW-21 Sh. Manish Gupta, Jr. forensic Chemical Examiner,
FSL, Rohini, Delhi has deposed that on 27.6.2016, 13 sealed parcels
in connection with the present case were received in the office of
FSL from PS Patel Nagar and same were marked to him for
examination. The seal of parcels was tallying with the specimen seal
and it was intact. All the parcels were opened and examined by him.
Blood was detected on all the parcels except parcel at serial No. 6
and 8, containing hair collected from the spot and vaginal swab of
deceased Nikita. Semen could not be detected on Ex.Nos. 8, 9a, 9b,
9c and 9d (vaginal swab and clothes of deceased Nikita). DNA was
isolated from all other exhibits on which blood was detected. The
DNA could not be isolated from Ex.1A (photograph), 1c (ID card),
9a, 9b, 9d (clothes of the deceased) and 13b (gauze cloth piece of
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 40 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
accused). After examination, he opined that the alleles from the
source of exhibits 1b (metro card), 2 (gauze cloth piece from the
spot), 3 (shoe), 4 (jeans), 5 (mobile phone), 7 (knife), 9c (jeans
pant), 11 (knife), 12 (shirt of accused) are accounted in the alleles
from the source of Ex. 10 (gauze cloth piece of deceased). He
prepared his detailed report dated 01.05.2017, proved as Ex.
PW-21/A (comprising of 2 pages). He also gave details of genotype
analysis of allelic data comprising of two pages, proved as Ex.
PW-21/B and Ex.PW-21/B1.
34. PW-22 Sh. Santosh Tripathy, Sr. Scientific Officer
(Chemistry), FSL, Rohini has deposed that on 10.06.2016, four
sealed parcels in connection with the present case were received in
the office of FSL from PS Patel Nagar and same were marked to
him. All the parcels were opened and same were containing one
partially burnt plastic bottle, partially burnt shoe, partially burnt
ladies’ footwear and partially burnt multi coloured bed sheet. On
chemical TLC and GC examination, no inflammable substance like
petrol, diesel or kerosene could be detected on any of the exhibit. He
prepared his detailed report, proved as Ex.PW-22/A.
35. PW-23 Insp. Mahesh Kumar, Draftsman has proved the scaled
site plan as Ex.PW-9/DA, which was prepared at the instance of
IO/Insp. Ranjeet Singh on 09.05.2016 at the spot i.e. 2 nd Floor of
H.No. T-398, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi.
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 41 of 101
36. PW-24 Insp. Joginder Singh/ arresting officer has deposed
that on 22.04.2016, on his directions, ASI Hari Bhushan had moved
an application before the concerned Court for production of accused
Gaurav @ Sunny as he was arrested in case FIR No. 636/2015 PS
Anand Parbat, which was allowed. He has further deposed that on
25.04.2016, he alongwith SI Kishore had visited Jail no. 7, Tihar
Jail, Delhi and had shown order of Ld. Court and requested to Jail
Staff to allow him to interrogate accused Gaurav @ Sunny and
accused was produced before him at Tihar Jail. He made inquiries
from accused and during interrogation, he disclosed about his
involvement in the present case. He had proved the arrest memo of
accused as Ex.PW-17/B and his disclosure statement as Ex.
PW-17/C. Thereafter, he had moved an application to the Jail
Superintendent and informed him about the arrest of accused
Gaurav @ Sunny and requested him to produce him before the
concerned Court. This witness has correctly identified the accused
before the Court. He has further deposed that on 26.04.2016, the
investigation of the present case was handed over to SHO/Insp.
Ranjeet Dahiya and case file was handed over to him.
37. PW-25 Ct. Pawan Kumar has deposed that on 22.03.2016, he
was present at his beat and in the meantime, he had received an
information that one girl has been murdered in the area of Baljit
Nagar and he was directed to reach at the spot. After receiving the
said information, he reached at the spot i.e. T-398, Second floor,
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 42 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
Baljeet Nagar, Delhi, where SI Kishore Kumar, Ct. Deepak and
Insp. Jogender Singh alongwith other staff were present there. He
had noticed that body of one lady aged about 19-20 years, smeared
with blood, was lying in the room. The back portion of the body of
said lady was on the floor. (सीधे पीठ के बल पड़ी थी). SI Kishore had
asked him to control the gathering of the public and not to allow to
anyone to enter in the said room. SI Kishore had prepared rukka and
handed over the same to him at about 11:55 PM for getting
registration of the FIR. He went to PS and handed over rukka to
duty officer HC Udaibir Singh for getting registration of the FIR.
After registration of the FIR, the duty officer handed over copy of
FIR and original rukka to him to hand over the same to Insp.
Ranjeet Singh. Thereafter, he returned back to the spot alongwith
copy of the FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to
Insp. Ranjeet Singh.
38. PW-26 W/Ct. Som Lata has deposed that on the directions of
the IO, she had collected 13 sealed pullandas and FSL form from the
MHC(M) HC Rajesh through RC no. 71/21/16 to deposit the same
in FSL, Rohini. She went to FSL, Rohini and deposited the same
against receipt. She had handed over copy of RC and
acknowledgment to the MHC(M). No alteration or addition had
taken place in the exhibits and FSL form during her possession.
39. PW-27 Ct. Vipin Kumar has deposed that on 03.06.2016, on
the direction of IO, he had handed over sealed pullanda of recovered
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 43 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
knife duly sealed with the seal of RSD to the IO/Insp. Ranjeet
Dahiya. IO took the same to the subsequent opinion from the DDU
hospital and after getting subsequent opinion, IO/Insp. Ranjeet
Dahiya had deposited the said pullanda of knife duly sealed with the
seal of ‘PM DDUH’ with him at malkhana and made entry in
register no. 19.
40. PW-28 HC Rajesh Kumar has deposed being MHC(M) (CP)
that on 23.03.2016, SI Kishore Kumar deposited 13 sealed pullandas
duly sealed with seal of KK through seizure memo, which is
mentioned in register no.19 at Srl.no. 2737/16 and copy of same is
proved as Ex.PW-28/A (OS&R).
40.1. He further deposed that on the same day i.e. 23.03.2016, Insp.
Ranjeet Singh Dahiya, the then SHO PS Patel Nagar had deposited
03 sealed pullandas duly sealed with the seal of ‘PMDDUH’
through seizure memo. He had mentioned the same in register no.
19 at srl.no. 2738/16, copy of the same is proved as Ex.PW-28/B
(OS&R).
40.2. He further deposed that on 27.04.2016, Insp. Ranjit Singh
Dahiya, the then SHO PS Patel Nagar had deposited 02 sealed
pullandas duly sealed with the seal of ‘RSD’ and 01 pullanda duly
sealed with the seal of ‘CMO LHMC & SSK Hospital’ through
seizure memo. Insp. Ranjit Dahiya had also deposited one
motorcycle of black colour Pulsar bearing registration no. DL-10-
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 44 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
SE-2012. He had mentioned the same in register no. 19 at srl.no.
2906/16, copy of the same is proved as Ex.PW-28/C (OS&R).
40.3. He further deposed that on 10.06.2016, he had handed over
04 sealed pullandas duly sealed with the seal of KK to Ct. Manoj to
deposit the same to FSL, Rohini through RC no. 42/21/16, copy of
the same is proved as Ex.PW-28/D (OS&R). He had also mentioned
the same in register no.19 at point X against entry no. 2737. After
depositing the same, Ct. Manoj had handed over copy of RC and
acknowledgment of FSL Rohini to him. The copy of
acknowledgment of FSL, Rohini is proved as Mark PW-28/A.
40.4. He further deposed that on 27.06.2016, he had handed over 13
sealed pullandas alongwith FSL form to W/Ct. Som Lata to deposit
the same to FSL, Rohini through RC no. 71/21/16, copy of the same
is proved as Ex.PW-28/E (OS&R). Out of said 13 sealed pullandas,
07 pullandas were sealed with the seal of KK and four pullandas
duly sealed with the seal of PMDDUH and one pullanda duly sealed
with the seal of RSD and another one pullanda duly sealed with the
seal of CMO LHMC & SSK HOSPITAL. He had also mentioned
the same in register no. 19 at point Y against entry no. 2737. After
depositing the same, W/Ct. Som Lata had handed over the copy of
RC and acknowledgment of FSL, Rohini to him. Copy of
acknowledgment of FSL, Rohini is proved as Mark PW-28/B.
41. PW-29 Ct. Manoj Kumar has deposed that on 10.06.2016, on
the directions of the IO, he had collected four sealed exhibits along
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 45 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
with FSL form from MHC(M) HC Rajesh vide RC no. 42/21/16 to
deposit the same at FSL, Rohini. He went to FSL, Rohini and
deposited the same there. He had collected receiving from FSL and
returned to PS Patel Nagar and handed over the copy of RC and
acknowledgment to the MHC(M). No alteration or addition had
taken place in the said exhibits and FSL form during his possession.
42. It is pertinent to mention here that PW-30 Insp. Joginder
Singh was earlier examined as PW-24 in the present case and
inadvertently, he was again examined as PW-30. Therefore, vide
order dated 14.03.2022 of the Ld. Predecessor of the Court, his
evidence as PW-30 was cancelled.
43. PW-30 Sh. Sanjay Kumar has deposed that he is running a
photo studio in the name & style of M/s Sanjay Studio at his
residence. On 23.03.2016, he was called by the IO/Insp. Ranjeet
Dahiya at mortuary DDU hospital for taking photographs of
postmortem proceedings, postmortem no. 443/16 in the present
case. He had clicked 42 photographs of the postmortem on the body
of a woman, proved as Ex.PW-30/A (Colly.). After developing the
same, he had handed over the same to the IO/Insp. Ranjeet Dahiya.
44. PW-31 Insp. Nitesh Singh has deposed that in the present
case, the main charge sheet was filed by Insp. Ranjeet Dahiya and at
that time, FSL result was pending. He has further deposed that on
19.01.2017, FSL result (Chemistry), FSL No. 2016/C-4412 dated
12.07.2016 was received at PS and he had prepared supplementary
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 46 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
charge sheet regarding filing of FSL result (Chemistry) and filed
before the concerned Court. He has further deposed that on
03.05.2017, another supplementary charge sheet was filed by him
after receiving another FSL result (Biology), FSL no. 2016/B-4861
dated 01.05.2017. He had prepared supplementary charge sheet
regarding filing of abovesaid FSL result (Biology) and filed before
the concerned Court.
45. PW-32 retired Insp. Ranjeet Dahiya, the Investigating Officer
has deposed that on 22.03.2016, one DD no. 47A, proved as Ex.
PW8/DA was registered at PS on the basis of PCR call and same
was assigned SI Kishore. The said PCR call was related to death of
a lady at T-405, Baljeet Nagar Delhi. After receiving said DD SI
Kishore alongwith Ct. Deepak reached there. He also reached to the
spot for the verification of DD no. 47A and on verification, it was
revealed that the correct address of the spot is T-398, second floor,
Baljeet Nagar Delhi. Sl Kishore, Ct. Deepak alongwith Insp
Joginder were also found present there, when he reached. The body
of one lady was found at the spot whose face was upside and was in
pool of blood. On verification, the name of deceased was revealed
as Nikita D/o Sh. Amar Singh. He had noticed two stabbing wounds
on the stomach of deceased. He had also noticed injuries on
shoulder, neck, arms etc. The wearing clothes of the deceased were
found partially burnt. The blood was scattered in the room. Near
the body of deceased, one card of National Institute of open School
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 47 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
in the name of deceased Nikita, one metro card and one passport
photo of the deceased were found. One pair of blood-stained gents
sports shoes, one pair of blood-stained ladies belly (sandal), one
blood-stained kitchen knife, one empty bottle having label of Kachi
Gani, one blood-stained blue jeans pant, one blood-stained bed
sheet, one hair stand in the left hand of the deceased, one NOKIA
mobile phone of black and white colour without battery were
recovered from the spot. Thereafter, Ct. Deepak was sent to the
house of deceased and Insp. Joginder called the crime team on the
spot. In the meantime, Ct. Pawan reached at the spot. Father of the
deceased namely Amar Singh alongwith Ct. Deepak also reached at
the spot. Crime team also reached at the spot. The body of the
deceased was identified by Amar Singh as his daughter Nikita.
Crime team had inspected the spot and photographs were clicked.
The above said exhibits were lifted from the spot and separately
sealed with the seal of KK and taken into possession through seizure
memo by SI Kishore Kumar. The pullanda of the said exhibits were
given Sr. no. S1 to $13. The seal was handed over to Ct. Pawan after
its use. The other senior officials also reached at the spot.
45.1. He further deposed that the body of the deceased was shifted
to mortuary DDU hospital through Ct. Deepak. SI Kishore Kumar
had made inquiry from Amar Singh and recorded his statement
proved as Ex.PW-1/B and rukka was prepared after making
endorsement by SI Kishore Kumar. The rukka was handed over to
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 48 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
Ct. Pawan for getting FIR registered and had also directed to hand
over the investigation to me after registration of FIR. He made call
to duty officer and asked him about the registration number of the
present case and same was informed by him. He had prepared site
plan at the instance of complainant Amar Singh, proved as Ex.
PW-17/DD. In the meantime, Ct. Pawan returned to the spot
alongwith copy of FIR, proved as Ex.PW-4/A and original rukka,
proved as Ex.PW-1/B and Ex.PW-17/A.
45.2. He further deposed that SI Kishore had handed over sealed
exhibits and seizure memos of the same which were seized by him,
proved as Ex.PW-8/B to him. SI Kishore had also handed over SOC
report to him, proved as Ex.PW-20/A. He had mentioned FIR
number in the seizure memo, Ex.PW-8/B. Sh. Hemant, in whose
room murder was committed, was also present there and he also
joined the investigation. Thereafter, he alongwith police staff and
Sh. Hemant returned to PS Patel Nagar. The member of the crime
team also reached at PS and joined the investigation. He recorded
the statement of SI Pankaj (I/C crime) and Ct. Arun (Photographer
crime team) and thereafter, they were relieved. He made inquiries
from Hemant and during inquiry, it was revealed that on 22.03.2016,
at about 03:00 PM, he had received a telephone call from accused
Gaurav @ Sunny and revealed the mobile number of accused
Gaurav as 8586906533. The mobile number of Hemant was
7053242002. Hemant also informed him during interrogation that
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 49 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
while making call, accused Gaurav told him that Nikita (deceased)
came to Shadipur Metro Station with him. Accused Gaurav called
him there in order to make him meet with Nikita, to which, Hemant
replied that he is busy in his office and cannot come there to meet
them. Hemant also informed him that accused Gaurav was
previously residing in the same premises at third floor and accused
Gaurav alongwith deceased Nikita had come to his room about 1-
1½ months prior to the date of incident. Hemant also told that due to
the said reason, he knew deceased Nikita. Accused Gaurav was
aware about the fact that Hemant and his room-mates used to keep
the keys of their room in the bathroom under the staircase. After
receiving the said information and other surrounding evidence and
circumstances, accused Gaurav @ Sunny was considered as the
prime suspect. Thereafter, he left Hemant at the PS Patel Nagar and
he alongwith other police staff had conducted raid at the house of
accused Gaurav @ Sunny at H.No. 648, Baba Farid Puri, West Patel
Nagar, Delhi, but accused Gaurav @ Sunny was not found there. On
local inquiry there, it was revealed that Gaurav had shifted at H.No.
205, Third floor, gali no.9, Jain Road, Mohan Garden, Dwarka Mor,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi. Thereafter, they returned to PS and recorded
the statement of Hemant u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, he was
relieved.
45.3. He further deposed that father of deceased namely Amar
Singh also came to PS Patel Nagar and joined the investigation. He
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 50 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
recorded his supplementary statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and thereafter,
he was relieved by giving directions to reach at mortuary, DDU
hospital at about 11:00 am to join the PM proceedings. The exhibits
which were handed over to him by SI Kishore Kumar were
deposited in the malkhana.
45.4. He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith SI Kishore
Kumar, driver and operator went to mortuary, DDU hospital by
govt. vehicle, where Amar Singh and his son Ajay Singh were
present and they had joined the investigation. They had identified
the body of deceased and their identification statements were
recorded, proved as Ex.PW-7/F and Ex.PW-1/A. He had prepared
inquest papers, proved as Ex.PW-7/B, Ex.PW-7/C and Ex.PW-7/E
and requested the doctors for postmortem on the body of deceased.
After the postmortem, the body of deceased was handed over to
Amar Singh ad Ajay through handing over memo, proved as
Ex.PW-1/C.
45.5. He further deposed that after the postmortem, doctor had
handed over three sealed parcels alongwith one sample seal to SI
Kishore, who handed over the same to him and were seized through
seizure memo, proved as Ex.PW-8/A. Thereafter, they returned to
PS alongwith Ct. Deepak and other police staff and exhibits were
deposited in the malkhana and recorded statement of Ct. Deepak,
Ct. Balbir and SI Kishore Kumar u/s 161 Cr.P.C. As the mobile
numbers of deceased and accused were made available to him
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 51 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
during investigation, he made call on those mobile phone numbers
but both numbers were found “switched Off”. Request for CDR of
mobile phones of accused Gaurav @ Sunny, Hemant and Nikita
(deceased) were sent to service provider by email of senior officers.
The mobile phone of Nikita was 9711533616.
45.6. He further deposed that on the same day, i.e., on 23.03.2016,
the uncertified CDR of abovesaid mobile numbers were received via
email from service providers. He had gone through the said CDRs
and analyzed the same. During analysis of said CDRs, it was
revealed that there were approximately 15-16 calls between 08:00
am to about 04:30 pm between accused and deceased. It was also
revealed from the said CDR that accused Gaurav had also made call
to Hemant which corroborated the version of Hemant regarding
receiving call from accused Gaurav @ Sunny.
45.7. He further deposed that on 24.03.2016, he prepared raiding
team in the supervision of SI Arun Kumar to conduct the raid of all
possible hide out places of accused Gaurav @ Sunny. The said
raiding team had conducted various raids but accused Gaurav @
Sunny was not found on 24.03.2016. He has further deposed that on
26.03.2016, he again prepared raiding team in the supervision of SI
Prahlad to conduct the raid of all possible hide out places of accused
Gaurav @ Sunny. The said raiding team had conducted various raids
but accused Gaurav @ Sunny was not found on 26.03.2016. Efforts
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 52 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
were continuously made to trace accused Gaurav @ Sunny but he
could not be traced.
45.8. He has further deposed that on 01.04.2016, he alongwith SI
Kishore Kumar, Ct. Rakesh alongwith staff went to outstation in the
search of accused Gaurav @ Sunny after obtaining permission from
the senior officers and conducted the raid in Sonepat, Karnal,
Panchkula, Dehradoon, Haridwar etc. which were possibly the hide
out of accused Gaurav @ Sunny. Even pamphlets of search of
accused Gaurav @ Sunny were also affixed. On 09.04.2016, they
returned to Delhi from outstation and during the said period,
accused Gaurav @ Sunny could not be traced. Continuous efforts
were made to trace accused Gaurav @ Sunny. On 20.04.2016, he
collected the PM report, proved as Ex.PW-7/A and copy of the said
PM report was handed over to the father of deceased.
45.9. He has further deposed that on 21.04.2016, information was
received that accused Gaurav @ Sunny had surrendered before the
Ld. MM in case FIR no. 636/2015, u/s 363 IPC, PS Anand Parbat
which was an earlier instituted FIR regarding kidnapping of
deceased/victim Nikita and accused Gaurav was sent in J.C. in the
said FIR. He has further deposed that since 22.04.2016 till
25.04.2016, he was on leave, the investigation during the said period
was conducted by Insp. Joginder Singh, who had arrested accused
Gaurav @ Sunny at Tihar Jail on 25.04.2016 in the present case
after obtaining permission of the Ld. ACMM. He has further
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 53 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
deposed that on 26.04.2016, he moved an application before the Ld.
ACMM for obtaining PC remand of accused and two days PC
remand of accused was allowed in the present case. Thereafter, he
obtained the custody of accused Gaurav @ Sunny and went to PS
Patel Nagar after his medical examination. Accused was
interrogated and thereafter, he was sent to lock-up. He recorded the
statements of the witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
45.10. He has further deposed that on 27.04.2016, accused was
taken out from the lock up and was again interrogated and his
supplementary disclosure statement was recorded, proved as
Ex.PW-11/D. During the disclosure statement, accused had
disclosed his involvement in the present case and also disclosed that
the motorcycle which was used by him in the commission of offence
was hidden by him in the railway parking of Samai Pur Badli and
weapon of offence and his blood stained wearing clothes were
hidden by him at Ramjas ground, Anand Parbat, Delhi. Thereafter,
he prepared the raiding team including SI Kishore Kumar, Ct.
Mehtab and other police staff to conduct the raid. Accused Gaurav
@ Sunny, who was correctly identified by the witness, had led the
police party to railway parking, Samai Pur Badli from where
accused Gaurav @ Sunny got recovered motorcycle bearing
registration no. DL-10SE-2012 make Pulsor of black colour and
stated that this is the motorcycle on which he took the victim to the
spot of occurrence and thereafter, after commission of offence,
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 54 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
escaped from the spot on the said motorcycle. The said motorcycle
was seized vide seizure memo, proved as Ex.PW-17/E. The
contractor of the said parking namely Naveen had also joined the
investigation and his signatures were also obtained on the said
seizure memo of the motorcycle. The parking register was also
checked and entry of the said motorcycle was found in the said
parking register. He seized the copy of said parking register, proved
as Ex.PW-13/B.1 to Ex.PW-13/B.4 and the entry of the said
motorcycle is made at point X in the said register, vide seizure
memo, proved as Ex.PW-13/A. He had also obtained a certificate
from the parking contractor Naveen to keep the original records
with him and produce before the Court as and when required. The
said certificate is exhibited as Ex.PW-32/A. He had also prepared
site plan of the recovery of said motorcycle which is exhibited as
Ex.PW-32/B. Thereafter, accused led them to his house, i.e. at H.No.
205, third floor, gali no.9, Jain Road, Mohan Garden, Dwarka Mor,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi, where mother of the accused was found
present. She was informed about the present case and purpose of the
visit. During inquiry, mother of the accused disclosed that after the
incident, accused had not visited his house and came for the first
time after the incident with the police. Nothing was recovered from
the house of accused. Thereafter, accused led them to CNG Pump
station, Sector-25, Rohini, Delhi and informed that after the
execution of crime, he went to his uncle who was working at the
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 55 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
said CNG Pump and from there, he went to the house of his uncle
alongwith him. His uncle was not found present on the said CNG
Pump as he was on leave. The mobile number of uncle of accused
was collected from the CNG Pump and IO made call to him and
directed him to reach at PS Patel Nagar. Thereafter, accused led
them to the place of incident where accused had pointed out the
place of incident. IO had prepared the pointing out memo at the
instance of accused which is already exhibited as Ex. PW-17/F.
Thereafter, accused led them to Ramjas ground, Anand Parbat, Delhi
and from where, he had taken out one white colour polythene from
the bushes of the Ramjas ground and handed over the same to him.
IO had checked the same and said polythene bag was found
containing one knife and blood-stained clothes of accused. Accused
had disclosed that this is the knife by which he had committed the
murder of deceased Nikita and at that time, he was wearing the said
recovered clothes. Thereafter, IO took the measurement of
recovered knife by putting the same on a white paper and prepared
sketch of the same, which is exhibited as Ex.PW-32/C. IO prepared
separate pullandas of recovered knife and wearing clothes of
accused and sealed the same with the seal of RSD. The pullanda of
knife was marked as Ex.Al and pullanda of cloth was marked as
Ex.A2. Both the said exhibits were taken into possession through
seizure memo already exhibited as Ex.PW. 17/G. IO had also
prepared site plan of the recovered knife and clothes which is
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 56 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
exhibited as Ex. PW-32/D. Thereafter, they alongwith recovered
case property returned to PS, where uncle of accused namely
Lokesh Kumar was found present. The exhibits were deposited in
the malkhana of PS Patel Nagar. IO recorded the statement of
Lokesh Kumar u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Accused was sent to Lady Hardinge
hospital with Ct. Sachin for his medical examination. After the
medical examination of accused, Ct. Sachin alongwith accused
returned to PS and handed over the MLC of accused and one sealed
parcel containing blood in gauze of the accused to him. IO had
seized the same vide seizure memo already exhibited as
Ex.PW-11/A and the same was also given mark B1 and deposited in
the malkhana. IO recorded the statements of the witnesses u/s 161
Cr.P.C.
45.11. PW-32 further deposed that on 28.04.2016, accused was
taken out from the lock up and produced before the concerned Court
and remanded to JC. On 09.05.2016, IO called Insp.Mahesh,
draftsman for preparing scaled site plan. He came to PS and join the
investigation. Thereafter, IO alongwith Insp.Mahesh went to the
spot where Insp.Mahesh had taken notes and measurements and
prepared rough notes. Thereafter, they returned to PS. IO recorded
the statement of Insp.Mahesh in this regard. On 03.06.2016, parcel
of the recovered knife was taken out by him from the MHC(M) for
obtaining subsequent opinion and IO went to DDU hospital and
handed over the same to Dr. Jatin Bodwal ( who had conducted the
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 57 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
postmortem examination on the body of deceased), for subsequent
opinion. Dr. Jatin Bodwal had examined the knife and medical
documents and had given subsequent opinion which is already
exhibited as Ex.PW-7/G. Doctor had also re-sealed the said knife
with the seal of “PM DDUH” and handed over the same to him.
Thereafter, IO returned to PS and deposited the said sealed knife
with the MHC(M). No addition or alteration took place in the said
knife/pullanda, during his possession. IO had recorded the statement
of the then MHC(M) Ct. Vipin u/s 161 Cr.P.C. On 10.06.2016, four
exhibits of the present case were sent to FSL through Ct. Manoj for
examination through RC no. 42/21/16. IO had recorded the
statement of Ct.Manoj and MHC(M) u/s 161 Cr.P.C. On 27.06.2016,
thirteen exhibits of the present case were sent to FSL through L/Ct.
Som Lata for examination through RC no.71/21/16. IO had recorded
the statement of L/Ct.Som Lata and MHC(M) u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
45.12 PW-32 further deposed that on 16.07.2016, brother and sister
of the deceased came to PS and again joined the investigation of the
present case. IO had recorded their statements u/s 161 Cr.PC.
On 17.07.2016, Naveen and room-mate of Hemant namely Sunder
had joined the investigation and IO recorded their statements u/s
161 Cr.P.C. IO had also recorded the statement of Sanjay (private
photographer) who had clicked the photographs of the postmortem
proceedings. On 21.07.2016, IO had collected scaled site plan
prepared by Insp. Mahesh Kumar, draftsman which is already
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 58 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
exhibited as Ex.PW-9/DA. IO had also collected certified copy of
CDR and CAF of mobile phones of accused, deceased Nikita and
Hemant from service providers. IO had also collected PCR form
from control room dated 22.03.2016 which is exhibited as Ex.
PW-19/A alongwith certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act,
exhibited as Ex.PW-19/B. IO had also collected copy of FIR no.
636/2015, PS Anand Parbat which was registered against the
accused for the offence punishable u/s 363 IPC for kidnapping the
deceased, which is exhibited as Ex.PW-32/E. IO had also collected
photographs from photographer of mobile crime team which are
exhibited as Ex.PW-17/DA.1 to Ex.PW-17/DA.35. The photographs
of postmortem proceedings are exhibited as Ex. PW-30/A (colly./42
photographs). After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was
filed before the concerned Court of ld. MM. At the time of filing of
the charge-sheet, FSL result was pending and same was filed
subsequently by other Ios.
45.13 PW-32 identified one I-card of IGNOU having photograph
of deceased as Ex.PW-9/2; one metro card as Ex.PX; photograph as
Ex.MO-1; one shoe having dark brown stains as Ex.P.8/1; one Jeans
Pants having dark brown stains as Ex.PW-8/5; one mobile phone
having dark brown stains as Ex. PW-1/4; one bend knife having
dark stains as Ex.P-8/3; one ladies top, one inner, one jeans Pants,
one bra & one underwear as Ex.P1/1; one knife as Ex.PW-7/3; one
shirt of accused Gaurav @ Sunny worn by him at the time of
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 59 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
incident as Ex. PW-17/1; one partially burnt and melted piece of
plastic bottle as Ex. PW-8/8; one partially burnt shoe of right foot as
ExPW-8/9; one partially burnt lady foot wear of right foot as Ex.
MO-2; one partially burnt multi coloured bed sheet as ex PW-8/7;
one black colour ladies shoe of left foot as Ex.PW-8/6; one black
colour lock made in China as Ex.MO-3; photograph of motorcycle
as Ex. PW-17/G and motorcycle as Ex. P.17/2.
46. PW-33 ASI Ashok Kumar has produced the original FIR
register containing the FIR no. 636/2015 dated 10.09.2015, PS
Anand Parbat u/s 363 IPC alongwith the copy and copy of the same
is proved as Ex.PW-33/A.
47. It is pertinent to mention here that on 01.02.2019, the Ld.
Prosecutor had dropped the witness listed at srl.no. 6 in the list of
witnesses as PW-10 has deposed on the same facts and on
08.08.2019, the Ld. Prosecutor had also dropped the witness listed
at srl.no. 30 i.e. Ct. Amit as IO/Insp. Ranjeet Dahiya informed that
his name has been inadvertently cited in the list of witnesses.
48. Prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 05.09.2024
on submissions of Ld. Addl. PP for the State that all the prosecution
witnesses have been examined.
Statement of accused Under Section 351 of BNSS (earlier Section
313 Cr.P.C.)
49. After prosecution evidence was over, on 15.01.2025, accused
Gaurav @ Sunny was examined under Section 351 of BNSS
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 60 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
(Earlier Section 313 Cr.PC), wherein he reiterated his innocence and
deposed that he did not kidnap Nikita and also she was not
recovered from his company. When she was recovered, she neither
stated anything about him nor she alleges that he kidnapped her.
Her father is lying because he had motive to falsely implicate him.
In the past also, he lodged false FIR against him and in that case, he
was acquitted by the Court as deceased Nikita stated that she was
not kidnapped by him. He has further stated that PW-1 had not seen
him committing any offence therefore, his identification as an
accused by him is irrelevant. Naveen and Sunder were present in the
house on the date of incident. He has further stated that since he
had house there, there was no point for him to call Nikita at
Hemant’s room. Neither Nikita nor her friend was with me and if
Nikita was with him then why there are phone calls. There are
phone calls with Nikita on the date of incident which clearly shows
that she was not with me. There is no evidence that he ever
accompanied Nikita to the room of Hemant. He is innocent and
have been falsely implicated in the present case just to solve these
kinds of cases. However, accused chose not to lead evidence in his
defence.
Final Arguments :
50. The Court has heard the final arguments as advanced by Sh.
Shiv Kumar, Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State and Sh.Akhil Sharma, Ld.
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 61 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
Counsel for accused and has gone through the entire material
available on record including written submissions.
Arguments on behalf of the Prosecution by Sh. Shiv Kumar,
Ld.Addl. P.P. for the State :
51. At the thresh-hold, it is argued by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the
State that the present matter is based upon the circumstantial
evidence and the prosecution has been able to prove on record, the
connection of accused with the present crime and his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, with the help of ocular evidence; medical
evidence; the scientific evidence in the form of FSL result and
electronic evidence in the form of CDRs of the mobile phones used
by the accused, deceased, brother of deceased and public witness
PW-9 Hemant along with the Location Chart. Ld. Prosecutor has
argued topic wise which is referred in detail in succeeding
paragraphs.
Call details of PW-5, PW-9, accused and deceased:
51.1. He has further argued that as per the testimony of PW-5, he
made a call to the deceased being his sister soon before the incident
and the same has been proved by his CDR on record. The relevant
time is 15:19 hours i.e. when the last call was connected by PW-5 to
the deceased and thereafter, the phone could not respond being
switched off and corroborates the entire testimony of PW-5.
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 62 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
51.2. He further argues that accused made a call to PW-9 and vice
versa soon before the incident on the said date itself at around
11:38:47 hours, 15:12:49 hours and 15:39:26 hours which is proved
by Ex.PW-16/A and corroborates the entire testimony of PW-9.
51.3. He further argued that as per the CDR of accused and
deceased, there were exchange of 18 calls between them i.e. 16 calls
were made by accused to the deceased and 2 calls were made by the
deceased to him on the date of incident between 08:31 AM to 04:17
PM. The mobile phone which was used by the deceased has been
proved by CAF which is in the name of her mother. The CAF of
mobile phone used by accused was in the name of fictitious person
namely Thakur Singh which surfaced in the investigation and
proved by the IO.
51.4. It has been further argued that the PCR calls were made by
PW-9 which is also reflected in the CDR and corroborates his
testimony.
Location Chart:
52. It is further argued that the Location Chart of PW-9 has been
filed on record which corroborates his testimony. However,
Location chart of accused and deceased could not be filed on record
for want of certified copy but it is a part of police file, as per which
the last location of accused and deceased was at/near the spot. The
oral testimony of witnesses proved the same alongwith recovery of
dead body.
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 63 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
Recovery of weapon of offence and blood-stained clothes of
accused:
53. It is further argued that as per testimonies of PW-17 SI
Kishore and PW-32 Insp. Ranjeet Dahiya, blood-stained knife and
blood-stained shirt of accused were recovered which were sent to
FSL. It is further argued by the Ld. Prosecutor that after DNA
finger printing, the blood sample of deceased matched with the
exhibits lifted from the spot as well as with the knife and blood-
stained shirt of the accused i.e. Ex.11 and Ex.12 respectively.
54. It is further argued that as per opinion of the doctor the
injuries inflicted upon the deceased are possible with the recovered
knife.
Subsequent conduct of accused:
55. It is further argued by the Ld. Prosecutor that after the
incident accused did not return to his house but stayed overnight in
the house of his relative examined as PW-14 Sh. Lokesh and left on
the motorcycle from his house. Thereafter, he parked his motorcycle
at Badli Railway Station and absconded for almost one month. After
one month of the incident, he surrendered in the matter which was
previously registered for kidnapping the deceased bearing FIR No.
636/2015 at PS Anand Parbat. Subsequently, he was arrested in the
present matter and at his instance, motorcycle was recovered from
Badli Railway Station.
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 64 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
Concluding arguments:
56. Ld. Prosecutor has argued that the admitted relation-ship
between accused and deceased; his previous conduct of kidnapping
the deceased; his preparation on the day of offence proved by PW-9;
the subsequent recovery of weapon of offence & blood stained
wearing apparels of the accused; electronic evidence in form of
CDR and Location Chart and subsequent conduct of the accused
form a complete chain of circumstances. Hence, in the present
matter, on the basis of circumstantial evidence which completes the
chain, proved on record by the prosecution, the accused is proved
guilty for the charge. Thus, it is prayed by the Ld. Addl. PP for the
State that accused be convicted for all the offences for which he has
been charged.
Arguments on behalf of accused Gaurav @ Sunny:
57. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that prosecution has
not been able to prove its case against the accused at all as there is
no eye witness and it is entirely based upon circumstantial evidence.
Even there is no evidence on record to prove the presence of
accused at the spot at the time of commission of offence.
57.1. Reliance is placed upon the FIR which is argued to be based
on presumptions only. The FIR is argued to be concocted and the
name of accused was suggested by witness Hemant which was over
heard by the complainant. The spot was not the house of accused
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 65 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
and he had no occasion to be present there. The Ld. Counsel for
accused has also argued point wise which is as under:
Testimony of material witness i.e. PW-9:
57.2. As per testimony of PW-9 Hemant, accused called him and
told him that he is coming to Shadipur metro station alongwith his
girl friend Nikita and one of her friend, which shows that the
deceased was in company of the accused. The said phone call was
made by accused to PW-9 at 03:00 PM however, as per the CDR of
Nikita, she has been continuously exchanging phone calls with the
accused from 02:00 PM till 04:17 PM. ( rebuttal by the prosecution
that she was in exchange of calls with accused since 08:00 AM till
04:17 PM). This falsifies the testimony of PW-9.
57.3. As per CDR of PW-9 Hemant, no phone call was made by the
accused to PW-9. (rebuttal by prosecution well assisted with the IO
that there are three calls exchanged between PW-9 and accused on
the date of incident i.e. 11:38:47 hours (incoming call), 15:12:49
hours (incoming call) and 15:39:26 hours (outgoing call) as per the
CDR of PW-9).
Recovery of weapon of offence:
57.4. No public person was made a witness at the time of alleged
recovery of alleged weapon i.e. knife that too recovered in the dayCase No. 58004/2016 Page 66 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
light from a place which was accessible to public, hence, it is
planted one.
57.5. The knife was allegedly recovered on 27.04.2016 but was sent
to FSL as lately as on 03.06.2016. Therefore, the custody was mis-
handled and the delay has not been explained by the IO. Case Laws
on the said point has been filed.
57.6. The Knife was never sent to Finger Prints Expert deliberately
to connect the accused with the crime, since the prosecution was
aware that the accused is innocent. Hence, the chain of
circumstances has been broken.
Recovery of motorcycle:
57.7. It is argued that the place from where the motorcycle was
recovered was 15 Kms. away from the spot. However, it is admitted
that the motorcycle was left by the accused at Samai Pur Badli
Railway station and he stated to have gone to some relative
thereafter while taking the train but it is argued that this does not
prove his involvement with the present case.
Absence of Location Chart for proving presence of accused at the
spot:
57.8. It is submitted that location/presence of the accused at the
spot has not been proved by the prosecution since admittedly the
location chart is not part of Judicial record and it is withheldCase No. 58004/2016 Page 67 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
deliberately as the Location of accused was never at the spot at the
time of incident.
FSL result :
57.9. It is further argued that the FSL of the exhibits lifted from the
spot did not match. In rebuttal, Ld. Prosecutor submits that the FSL
of knife and blood stained clothes of accused have matched with the
blood of deceased.
57.10. However, Ld. defence counsel has stated that knife and
blood stained clothes were recovered from open space and they are
planted.
No eye witness:
57.11. It is further argued by the Ld.defence counsel that the spot is
a residential colony where public persons were available but no
witness was examined by the prosecution qua the presence of
accused at the spot or in the vicinity. No eye witness has been
examined to prove the entry or exit of accused and deceased at the
spot premises.
Previous enmity :
57.12. It is further submitted that in the matter of kidnapping
registered against the accused at the instance of present
complainant, the accused was acquitted on the basis of statementCase No. 58004/2016 Page 68 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
made by the victim (present deceased) that she went with the
accused on her own with free will and consent because her parents
were forcibly marrying her with some other person. Therefore, in
the present matter, the accused has been falsely implicated by the
complainant due to this previous enmity.
Cordial relations between accused and deceased :
57.13. It is lastly submitted that deceased was in constant touch with
the accused hence, torturing her is ruled out. On the date of
incident, it was the deceased herself who called the accused to meet
but the accused showed his inability and that is why the deceased
might have gone to the spot in order to check the presence of
accused however, the accused never visited the spot and since the
deceased was his girl friend, he was falsely implicated by PW-9
Hemant.
57.14. In rebuttal, Ld. prosecutor well assisted by the IO/Insp.
Ranjeet Dahiya has stated that on 01/02/03.03.2016, there have been
calls to the deceased by the accused only which is reflected in the
CDR and there are total 34 calls, which corroborates the version of
PWs that accused used to call the deceased for torturing her. He
further submits that on the day of incident, 16 calls were made by
the accused to the deceased and the first call in the morning was
made by the accused to the deceased and not vice-versa i.e. at 08:31
AM.
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 69 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
Rebuttal final arguments by the Ld. Prosecutor :
58. Ld. Prosecutor has placed reliance upon the subsequent
conduct of the accused that soon after the murder, his phone was
found switched off and thereafter, he absconded for about a month
and did not return to his home. Further, there is no occasion to
falsely implicate him as there was no enmity between PW-9 and
accused, so it cannot be said his testimony is motivated.
59. Lastly the prosecutor has argued that as per the Location chart
which is in police file, the Location of accused was at/near the spot
at 04:17 PM on the date of incident and the location of deceased
was also found at/near the spot at the same time at 04:17 PM. The
same could not be filed on record for want of certified copies of the
same.
Appreciation of facts and relevant law:
60. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is
established principle of law that a witness may lie but the
circumstances do not lie. In the present case, there is no eye witness
of the alleged incident. The guilt of the accused can only be proved
through the circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence
has to be appreciated as per the established principles of law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi. The standard of proof required for conviction in case
of circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances relied upon in
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 70 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
support of conviction must be fully established and the chain of
evidence proved by the prosecution must be so complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused.
61. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Sharad
Bridhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra cited as (1984) 4 SCC
116 has laid down the five golden Principles for appreciation of
circumstantial evidence and has termed the same as Panchsheel of
the Proof of Case based on circumstantial evidence. The said 5
golden principles are as follows: –
(i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt
is to be drawn should be and not merely ‘may be’ fully
established.
(ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with
the hypotheses of the guilt of accused, that is to say, they should
not be explainable on any other hypotheses except that the
accused is guilty.
(iii) The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and
tendency.
(iv) They should exclude every possible hypotheses except
the one to be proved.
(v) 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
probability the act must have been done by the accused.
62. Thus, before recording the conviction of any accused the
aforesaid five condition must be satisfied. The prosecution has to
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 71 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
establish its case on the basis of aforesaid five golden Principles
and to secure conviction of any accused, the prosecution must fulfill
the following requirements: –
(i) The circumstances from which the inference of the guilt
of the accused is to be drawn must be firmly established.
(ii) The established circumstances must be of such definite
tendency that points out towards the guilt of accused.
(iii) The chain of the circumstances must be so complete and
there should not be any snap in the chain of circumstances.
(iv) The chain of circumstances must be so complete and
incapable of any other hypotheses then that the guilt of the
accused and same should also be inconsistent with the innocence
of the accused and must exclude every other possible hypotheses
except with the hypotheses pointing out towards the guilt of the
accused.
63. Now coming to the present case, the Prosecution has to prove
following circumstances to secure conviction in the present matter
for the accused Gaurav @ Sunny:
(a) Relation-ship between accused and deceased;
(b) Previous conduct of accused qua kidnapping,
torturing and stalking the deceased;
(c) Preparation prior to the incident by the accused;
(d) Presence of accused at the spot at the time of
offence;
(e) Death of deceased Nikita caused by murder;
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 72 of 101 State v. Gaurav @ Sunny (f) Recovery of weapon of offence and blood stained shirt of accused at instance of the accused; (g) Subsequent conduct of absconding by the accused; (h) Medical and Scientific Evidence to connect the accused with the crime. (i) Motive behind the commission of crime;
64. Now it’s important to establish every circumstance against the
accused to complete the chain, hence discussing each and every
circumstance separately in the preceding paragraphs.
65. The first and foremost ingredient which has to be proved by
the Prosecution is the :
(a) Relation-ship between accused and deceased :
65.1. It has been putforth by the Prosecution that the accused and
deceased were having love-affair and when the deceased
discontinued the relation-ship with the accused, the accused started
harassing her, threatened to kill her and eventually murdered her.
The friendly relation-ship with the deceased has not been denied by
the defence and the accused has specifically admitted the same in
his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. However, still in a criminal
trial, the prosecution has to prove on its own and for the same,
Prosecution has examined many witnesses for proving the same.
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 73 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
65.2. In order to prove the love-affair between the accused and
deceased, the family members of the deceased examined as PW-1
Sh. Amar Singh (father of deceased), PW-5 Sh. Ajay (brother of
deceased) and PW-6 Smt. Anju (sister of deceased) have
specifically deposed that in the year of 2015, accused kidnapped the
deceased and she was recovered by police. The deceased was given
counseling Sessions and thereafter, eventually, she stopped meeting
the accused however, the accused continued contacting the
deceased. PW-1 has further deposed that at his instance, the
deceased had told accused over phone that she is not interested in
continuing with any sort of relations with him but the accused was
adamant and continued calling and following the deceased. PW-5
and PW-6 have specifically deposed that the deceased was having
friendship with the accused but when they counseled her about her
welfare, she decided not to continue her relation-ship with the
accused and stopped talking to him but the accused continued to
contact her.
65.3. Even the friends of accused examined by prosecution PW-9
Mr. Hemant and PW-10 Sh. Naveen Singh Bisht have deposed
specifically that deceased Nikita was girl-friend of accused and the
accused used to come with the deceased to his flat. Therefore, with
these testimonies proved on record and not denied by the defence, it
is proved that the accused Gaurav @ Sunny and the deceased Nikita
were having love-affair, which was discontinued by the deceased.
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 74 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
Therefore, the first circumstance of relation-ship between accused
and deceased is proved by the prosecution beyond any iota of
doubt.
66. Now coming to the second circumstance that is,
(b) Previous conduct of accused qua kidnapping, torturing and
stalking the deceased:
66.1. It has been putforth by the prosecution that since there was a
love-affair between the accused and the deceased, the accused
kidnapped her and took her away in the year of 2015 and since she
was of age of minority, an FIR was registered against the accused
bearing FIR no. 636/2015 PS Anand Parbat, Delhi. The deceased
was recovered by the police and Counseling Sessions were given to
her. After she understood her welfare, she broke up with the
accused but the accused tortured her by making continuous phone
calls to her and her family members and also stalked her.
66.2. PW-1 Sh. Amar Singh, father of deceased has proved the
same while deposing that an FIR of kidnapping of his deceased
daughter was registered in PS Anand Parbat against the accused and
his daughter was recovered by the police and she was given
counseling Sessions thereafter. Eventually, she stopped meeting the
accused but the accused continued trying to contact his
daughter/deceased Nikita. At his instance, the deceased had told
accused over phone that she is not interested to continue with anyCase No. 58004/2016 Page 75 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
sort of relation-ship with him but the accused was adamant and
continued calling and following her.
66.3. PW-5 Sh. Ajay, brother of deceased has proved while
deposing that his deceased sister was having friend-ship with
accused, who had kidnapped her about 8-9 months prior to her
death and a case was registered in Police Station Anand Parbat. Her
sister was counseled by them about her welfare and accordingly,
she decided not to continue her relations with the accused. Her
deceased sister had stopped talking to the accused but the accused
continued to contact her.
66.4. PW-6 Smt. Anju, sister of deceased has specifically deposed
that about 8-9 months ago from the date of incident, the accused
had taken away her deceased sister and a report was lodged at
Police Station Anand Parbat. They all counseled the deceased
whereupon she agreed not to have any sort of relations with the
accused but still accused used to call the deceased on her mobile
phone and whenever the deceased did not respond to his calls, he
used to call on the mobile phones of other family members and
used to harass them. Whenever her deceased sister used to go to
attend her study classes, accused used to follow her. Even her
deceased sister told her that accused had threatened to kill her as
she used to confide things with her. The deceased also informed
her that accused had threatened her by saying that “अगर तू मेरी नहीं
हुई तो मैं तुझे किसी और की भी नहीं होने दूंगा”. PW-6 even deposed thatCase No. 58004/2016 Page 76 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
one day prior to her murder, the deceased had come to her office at
West Patel Nagar after her coaching classes and accused had
followed her and was found present outside her office on
motorcycle. As soon as she came out from the office, accused ran
away on seeing her and she dropped the deceased at her parental
house at 06:00 PM. During her cross-examination, she volunteered
and deposed that the deceased had told her that accused was forcing
her to marry him for which she had refused.
66.5. The defence had admitted the factum of registration of FIR
against accused for kidnapping the deceased on earlier occasion
however, it is argued that the accused had been acquitted in that
matter and certified copy of the Judgment has been filed alongwith
written synopsis.
66.6. As per record, admittedly, FIR was registered against accused
Gaurav @ Sunny under section 363 IPC for kidnapping the
deceased on 10.09.2015, on the basis of complaint made by father
of the victim (present deceased). In the said case, the father of
deceased has deposed that after three days of kidnapping, his
daughter was recovered from Sonepat/Panipat, Haryana and he
accompanied the police at time of recovery of his daughter while
the mother of accused was also with them at the time of said
recovery. The mother of deceased examined as PW-2 has deposed
that accused was their neighbour who used to tease her daughter
and threatened her for which complaints were made to parents ofCase No. 58004/2016 Page 77 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
accused many times. Accused used to chase her on way to her
school as she was studying in 12 th class at that time. Her daughter
was 17½ years of age at the time of kidnapping by the accused.
However, the victim/present deceased could not be examined in that
matter since she was already murdered before recording her
evidence. Reliance was placed by the Court on the statement of
victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she deposed that she had
gone out of house of her parents on her own and out of her will, as
appearance wanted to forcibly marry her. Therefore, it is clear from
this record that the deceased eloped with the accused and as per
law, a case of kidnapping was registered against the accused.
66.7. The version of family members of the deceased finds
corroboration with the record of the case of kidnapping against the
accused as they have themselves deposed that the deceased was
having friendship with the accused and after she was recovered by
the police, she was counseled about her welfare and thereafter, she
discontinued her relation-ship with the accused and broke up.
However, the family members that is, PW-1, PW-5 and PW-6 have
also emphatically deposed on Oath that after the deceased
discontinued her relation-ship with the accused, the accused used to
contact and stalk her. The sister of deceased has narrated the entire
stalking incident of a day prior to the murder of deceased and also
deposed that being sisters, the deceased used to confide things with
her and told her that accused was forcing her to marry him else he
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 78 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
will kill her. Even PW-1 and PW-6 have deposed about accused
trying to contact the deceased despite her refusal for continuing the
relation-ship. With these facts proved on record, it is clear that
prosecution has been able to prove the second circumstance also
with regard to kidnapping/elopement, torturing and stalking the
deceased which shows that previous conduct of the accused.
67. Now coming to the third circumstance that is,
(c) Preparation prior to the incident by the accused:
67.1. PW-15 has proved the CDRs of the mobile phones used by
the accused and the deceased at the time of incident. The mobile
phone having number 9711433616, which was used by the
deceased has been proved by CAF which is in the name of her
mother and the CDR from 01.03.2016 till 31.03.2016 has been
proved as Ex. PW-15/E. It has been argued by the prosecution that
though the mobile phone having number 8586906533 used by
accused was in the name of fictitious person namely Thakur Singh
which surfaced in the investigation, however the CDR filed on
record and proved as Ex. PW-15/I is of some other number and not
of the mobile number used by the accused. The same is found to be
rightly pointed out as per record. As per the CDR of deceased,
there were exchange of 18 calls between them i.e. 16 calls were
made by accused to the deceased and 2 calls were made by the
deceased to him on the date of incident between 08:31 AM to 04:17
PM. The first call was made by the accused to the deceased in theCase No. 58004/2016 Page 79 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
morning at 08:31:40 hours and thereafter, there were continuous
calls made by the accused to the deceased i.e. at 08:40:35, 08:40:01,
09:27:02, 09:49:03, 12:14:24, 12:46:02, 12:48:19, 12:55:22,
13:19:08, 13:25:14, 13:37:40, 13:45:18, 15:04:22 and 15:05:02
hours, that means from 08:31 AM in the morning till 03:05 PM, the
accused made continuous calls to the deceased which are 15 in
number. Thereafter, the deceased made a call to the accused at
16:11:40 hours and 16:17:22 hours for 03 and 14 seconds
respectively. In between, the two calls made by the deceased, a call
is also reflected to be made by accused at 16:11:53 hours for 225
seconds. This clearly points out towards only one fact that the
accused was continuously pursuing the deceased to meet him that
day as after the last call made by deceased to the accused at
16:17:22 hours from last Cell ID 404110014902573, there is no
further call and as per the testimony of PW-5 and PW-6 (brother
and sister of deceased), the mobile phone of deceased was
‘switched Off’ and soon after that the deceased was found dead.
Therefore, it is clear that the accused made preparation in
convincing the deceased to meet him that day.
67.2. PW-9 has deposed that on the day of incident, in the
afternoon, he received a call from the accused and during the
conversation, accused Gaurav @ Sunny told him that he is coming
to Shadipur Metro Station with his friend Nikita (deceased).
Therefore, he was with the deceased or was to meet the deceased
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 80 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
soon after this conversation in order to reach the said metro station
together. The spot is the room of PW-9, which is near to the
Shadipur metro station.
67.3. PW-10 has deposed that there was only one set of Keys of the
lock which they used to put on the door of their flat, which used to
be kept in the bathroom and accused Gaurav @ Sunny knew about
the same. Therefore, the accused had access to the room/spot. Both
PW-9 and PW-10 have specifically deposed that accused used to
come to the spot on earlier occasion(s) also with the deceased.
Therefore, the accused chose a place where he has taken deceased
earlier also as to gain confidence of the deceased.
67.4. Hence, both the electronic evidence and ocular evidence,
point towards the preparation and circumstance that the accused
called the deceased to meet him that day and went to the room/spot
with her.
68. Now coming to the next circumstance, which is
(d) Presence of accused at the spot at the time of offence;
68.1. The present matter is based only circumstantial evidence and
there is no eye witness available with the prosecution as to the
presence of accused on the spot at the time of commission of
offence however, there is scientific and documentary evidence to
prove the same.
68.2. The weapon of offence i.e. Knife and the blood stained shirt
of the accused have been recovered at his instance which were
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 81 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
hidden in bushes of Ramjas ground and the place and knowledge of
the accused for the same are relevant facts admissible under section
27 of Indian Evidence Act.
68.3. The weapon of offence i.e. knife and blood stained shirt of
accused have been sent to FSL and as per the FSL result proved as
Ex. PW-21/A, on Biological examination, blood was detected on
the said knife and shirt of the accused and as per DNA examination,
the alleles from the source of Exhibit ’11’ (the knife) and Exhibit
’12’ (shirt of accused) are accounted in the alleles from the source
of exhibit ’10’ (gauze cloth pieces of deceased), which proves that
the blood of the deceased was found on both the recovered articles
at the instance of accused i.e. the knife and blood stained shirt of
the accused.
68.4. It has been argued by the defence that the blood of deceased
was planted upon the knife and the shirt of the accused however, as
per record both the said articles were recovered almost after a
month of the murder of the deceased and as per medical sciences,
the putrefaction of blood gauze starts maximum after 72 hours and
it gets decomposed. Hence, there is no possibility of planting the
blood gauze of the deceased upon the knife and shirt of the accused,
moreso when the blood gauze of deceased along with other exhibits
were not preserved as to rule out any decomposition. Therefore, the
arguments of defence is without any basis and the FSL result is
relied upon by the Court.
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 82 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
68.5 At this juncture, reliance is placed by this court in Kamti Devi
(Smt.) and Anr. Vs. Poshi Ram reported in (2001) 5 SCC 311,
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that
“The result of a genuine DNA test is said to be
scientifically accurate.”
68.6 The same view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. State through CBI, Crl. Appeal No.
87/2007, decided on 06.10.2010 and held that “We must, therefore,
accept the DNA report as being scientifically accurate and an exact
science as held by this court in Kamti Devi (Smt.) and anr. Vs. Poshi
Ram.”
68.7 All the witnesses of prosecution have categorically deposed
that so long as the parcels remained in their custody they were not
tampered with in any manner and remained intact.
68.8 The knife and shirt of the accused were recovered at his
instance, the burden to prove its possession shifted to the accused as
per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the accused
miserably failed to discharge his burden to explain the same. The
abovesaid Section is reproduced as under:
‘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.’
68.9 Accordingly, as per the scientific evidence, the blood of the
deceased was found on the knife and shirt of the accused but he
failed to explain the presence of blood of the deceased on his shirt
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 83 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
specifically and also on the knife which was recovered at his
instance. This points towards only one inference that the accused
was present at the spot when the deceased was murdered.
69. Now dealing with the next circumstance which is,
(e) Death of deceased Nikita caused by murder:
69.1 As per the testimony of PW-7 Dr. Jatin, the following external
injuries were observed on the body of deceased during post mortem:
(1) Wedge shaped stab wound of size 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 2
cm, was present on the left side of front of neck, 4 cm
from mid line and 4 cm above clavicle.
(2) Incised wound of size 4 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm was
present on the front of left shoulder, 5 cm below acromion
process.
(3) Incised wound of size 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm was
present on the inner aspect of left arm, 3 cm below injury
no.3.
(4) Wedge shaped stab wound of size 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 3
cm was present on the left side of front of chest, 6 cm
below injury no.3.
(5) Wedge shaped stab wound of size 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 5
cm was present on the left side of front of chest, 4 cm.
(6) Wedge shaped stab wound of size 2 cm x 2 cm x 2.5
cm was present on the left side of front of abdomen, 2 cm
from mid line.
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 84 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
(7) Wedge shaped stab wound of size 1.8 cm x2 cm x 2
cm was present on the right side of front of abdomen, 2
cm below umblicus.
69.2 PW-7 Dr. Jatin opined that the cause of death was
haemorrhagic shock via Injury no.5, which is sufficient to cause
death in ordinary course of nature. He had further opined that
injuries no.1 to 7 in P.M.Report, proved as Ex.PW-7/A were
possible with the weapon of offence recovered by police which the
Knife.
69.3 In view of the aforesaid medical evidence proved on record,
the death of the deceased Nikita was caused by multiple stabbing
resulting in her death, which is nothing but death caused by murder
since the intention to cause the same is clear from multiple stabbing
on the vital parts of the body ie neck, chest and abdomen. Hence
this circumstance, that the death of the deceased was caused by
murder also stands proved.
70. Now discussing the next circumstance,
(f) Recovery of weapon of offence and blood stained shirt of
accused at instance of the accused :
70.1 At the thresh-hold, it is important to discuss the Law. The Law
on the point of recovery is very clear which is reproduced below:
Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act is an exception to Section 25 and
Section 26 of the said act. Section 27 is based on the doctrine of
confirmation by subsequent events. The principle under Section 27
of Indian Evidence Act is based on the principle that if any fact isCase No. 58004/2016 Page 85 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
discovered on the basis of disclosure statement of accused, the
discovery of said fact is a guarantee that the information given by
the accused in his disclosure statement is true. Such information
may be confessional or non-inculpating in nature but if any new fact
is discovered from such information, it will be considered as a
reliable information.
70.2 The fact discovered on the basis of disclosure of statement of
accused must be relevant facts. Such information must be given by
the person who is accused of an offence and the recovery of article
or discovery of fact must be based upon the information given by
such accused.
70.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as
Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal vs State Of U.P. & Anr reported in
2015 (7) SCC 148, has held that “The “fact discovered” as
envisaged under Section 27 of the Evidence Act embraces the place
from which the object was produced and the knowledge of the
accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to
that effect, but information given must relate distinctly to that effect
and hence if the accused are denying their role without proper
explanation as to the knowledge about the incriminating material
recovered on the basis of their statements in police custody, would
justify the presumption drawn by the Courts below as to the
involvement of the accused in the Crime.
70.4. In the instant case, the weapon of offence i.e. Knife and blood
stained shirt worn by the accused at the time of offence wasCase No. 58004/2016 Page 86 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
recovered at his instance and the recovery memo has been proved as
Ex.PW-17/G, as per which the knife and blood stained shirt was
recovered from the bushes at Ramjas ground.
70.5. As per the opinion of PW-7 Dr. Jatin, the knife recovered at
the instance of accused is possibly the weapon of offence by which
injuries as mentioned in the PM report have been inflicted. Since it
is an expert opinion therefore, the expert cannot say with 100%
accuracy but it has been opined by the doctor that the injuries are
possible with this weapon of offence i.e. knife recovered.
70.6. It is the Law of the land that the recovery of case property at
instance of accused is relevant as to the place and his knowledge
about the same, as stated above. The place of recovery is the bushes
at Ramjas ground which is argued by defence to be open space
however, though the ground itself is open space and accessible to
public but the articles hidden in the bushes cannot be stated to be at
open space which are visible and accessible to public at large. The
hiding of the knife and blood stained shirt at such a place was within
the knowledge of accused and has been recovered at his instance.
The accused has not tendered any plausible explanation for the same
and has generally denied to be planted. Hence, adverse inference is
drawn against the accused.
70.7. Accordingly, the present circumstance of recovery of weapon
of offence and blood-stained shirt worn by the accused at the time of
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 87 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
offence at the instance of accused is proved by the prosecution and
to be circumstance which shall be read against him.
71. Coming to next circumstance, which is
(g) Subsequent conduct of absconding by the accused;
71.1. It is well settled proposition of Law that the prosecution may
corroborate its case from the conduct of accused also. The previous
and subsequent conduct of accused is relevant under Section 8 of
Indian Evidence Act. A fact can be proved by the conduct of
accused and surrounding circumstances. The conduct of accused in
absconding after the commission of offence, in destroying the
evidence, behaving in an unnatural way etc are relevant under
Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act.
71.2. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as Prithipal
Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anrs. Cited as (2012) 1 SCC
10 while confirming the conviction of appellant observed as under: –
“Most of the appellants had taken alibi for screening themselves
from the offences. However, none of them could establish the same.
The courts below have considered this issue elaborately and in
order to avoid repetition, we do not want to re- examine the same.
However, we would like to clarify that the conduct of accused
subsequent to the commission of crime in such a case, may be very
relevant. If there is sufficient evidence to show that the accused
fabricated some evidence to screen/absolve himself from the
offence, such circumstance may point towards his guilt. Such a
view stand fortified by judgment of this Court in Anant Chintaman
Lagu v. The State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 500.”
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 88 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
71.3. Now reverting to the present matter, the cousin of accused has
been examined by the prosecution as PW-14 Sh. Lokesh Kumar
who has deposed specifically on Oath that on 22.03.2016 i.e. on the
day of incident, the accused came to his work place on a Pulsar
motorcycle and stayed with him over night. The next day, accused
left his house on the same motorcycle. This clarifies that after the
incident, the accused did not return to his own house due to fear of
being apprehended and stayed at house of his cousin.
71.4. The next day, accused left the house of his cousin and went to
Samaipur Badli, Railway Station where he parked his motorcycle,
as proved by PW-13 while proving the corresponding entry in the
register, copy of which has been seized vide memo and proved as
Ex.PW-13/A and thereafter, absconded.
71.5. As per record, the accused could not be apprehended since
absconding and he surrendered in the connected kidnapping case of
deceased on 21.04.2016 i.e. after almost a month of the incident.
Thereafter, on information received of his surrender, the accused
was arrested in the present matter on 25.04.2016. The same has
been deposed by the Investigating Officer in his testimony
specifically, therefore, soon after the incident, the accused did not
return to his house and absconded for a month. Such conduct of the
accused of absconding also strengthens the chain of circumstances
as put forth by the prosecution.
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 89 of 101
72. Discussing the next circumstance now,
(h) Medical and Scientific Evidence to connect the accused with the
crime.
72.1. First dealing with the medical evidence which is against the
accused is that as per PW-7 Dr. Jatin, the deceased has been
murdered by stab injuries on vital parts of the body and the said
injuries correspond with the knife recovered at the instance of
accused as the weapon of offence.
72.2. The weapon of offence which is knife, recovered at the
instance of accused, was sent to FSL and as per FSL result proved as
Ex.PW-21/A, the said knife was received in parcel ’11’ which was
intact having seal of ‘PMDDUH’. The said knife has been
numbered as Exhibit ’11’ having specification of ‘one pointed knife
having dark brown stains’ and as per Biological examination, blood
was detected on the said knife. As per DNA examination, the alleles
from the source of Exhibit ’11’ (the knife) are accounted in the
alleles from the source of exhibit ’10’ (gauze cloth pieces of
deceased), which reveals that the blood of the deceased was found
on the knife.
72.3. The shirt of accused, recovered at his instance, was also sent
to FSL and as per FSL result proved as Ex.PW-21/A, the said shirt
was received in parcel ’12’ which was intact having seal of
‘PMDDUH’. The said shirt has been numbered as Exhibit ’12’
having specification of ‘one shirt having brown stains’ and as per
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 90 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
Biological examination, blood was detected on the said shirt. As per
DNA examination, the alleles from the source of Exhibit ’12’ (the
shirt) are accounted in the alleles from the source of exhibit ’10’
(gauze cloth pieces of deceased), which reveals that the blood of the
deceased was found on the shirt of accused.
72.4. The FSL result regarding the other exhibits lifted from the
spot is that the blood was detected on all exhibits except ‘6’ & ‘8’
which is one strand of hair collected from the spot and vaginal swab
of deceased respectively. The DNA examination report states that
DNA profile was generated by using Amp FLSTR Identifier Plus
PCR Amplification Kit. STR analysis was used for each of the
sample however DNA could not be isolated specifically from the
source of Exhibits ‘6’ (hair strand) and ’13b’ (blood gauze cloth
piece of accused). Therefore, the DNA of the accused could not be
matched from the hair strand collected from the spot for want of
DNA Isolation.
73. Now discussing the last circumstance to be proved to
complete the chain of circumstances which is,
(i) Motive behind the commission of crime;
73.1 Motive is relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Motive is the moves a man to do a particular work. Generally, there
can be no action without any motive. Under Section 8 of Evidence
Act, several factors including preparation, previous threat, previous
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 91 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
altercation, previous litigation between the accused and the victim
becomes relevant.
73.2 The mere existence of motive is by itself is not an
incriminating circumstance. Motive cannot be a substitute of proof
however it is a corroborating factor in proving the case of the
prosecution. The motive for the commission of offence is of vital
importance in a criminal trial and in cases based on circumstantial
evidence motive itself will be a circumstance which the Court has to
consider deeply. The existence of motive which operates in the mind
of perpetrator may not be known to others and hence it has to be
inferred from the facts and circumstances of this case.
73.3 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Sheo
Shankar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr cited as (2011) 3
SCC 654 observed as under:
“15. The legal position regarding proof of motive as an essential
requirement for bringing home the guilt of accused is fairly well
settle by a long line of decision of this Court. These decisions have
made a clear distinction between cases where the prosecution relies
upon the circumstantial evidence on one hand and those were
relying upon the testimonies of the eye witnesses on the other. In
the former category of cases proof of motive is given the
importance it deserves, for proof of motive itself constitutes a link
in the chain of circumstances upon which the prosecution may rely.
Proof of motive, however, recedes into background in cases where
the prosecution relies upon and eye witness account of the
occurrence. That is because if the Court upon a proper appraisal ofCase No. 58004/2016 Page 92 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
the deposition of the eye witnesses comes to the conclusion that the
version given by them is credible, absence of evidence to prove the
motive is rendered inconsequential. Conversely, even if the
prosecution succeeds in establishing a strong motive for the
commission of the offence, but the evidence of the eye witnesses is
found unreliable or unworthy of credit, existence of motive does not
by itself provide a safe basis for convicting the accused. That does
not, however, mean that proof of motive even in a case which rests
on an eye witness account does not lend strength to the prosecution
case or fortify the Court in its ultimate conclusion proof of motive
in such a situation certainly helps the prosecution and supports the
eye witnesses.”
73.4. Reverting to the present matter, the background of the present
matter is that the deceased Nikita was having friend-ship with
accused Gaurav @ Sunny and as per evidence surfaced on record,
the deceased eloped with the accused and since she was of age of
minority, a case of kidnapping was registered against the accused.
However, the victim (present deceased) was recovered by the police
and was handed over to her parents being her legal guardianship.
After her recovery, Counseling Sessions were given to her and the
family members also counseled her about her welfare. Accordingly,
she gain wisdom about her welfare and broke her relation-ship with
the accused. Still the accused continued contacting and stalking her.
The accused even harassed and tortured her and her family members
while making continuous phone calls to her and them. Even a day
prior to the murder of the deceased, the accused stalked after her
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 93 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
coaching classes and finding no other option, the deceased went to
the office of her sister/PW-6 and told her the exact position. PW-6
the escorted the deceased to her house considering her safety from
the accused, since the deceased confided to her sister/PW-6 that
accused had threatened to kill her on refusal to marry him.
73.5. The very next day of the said incident of stalking, the accused
made continuous calls to the deceased and conveyed to PW-9
Hemant that he is coming to Shadipur Metro Station alongwith his
friend/deceased Nikita. This proved that the accused was supposed
to meet or already met deceased Nikita that day. The CDR of
deceased reveals that last call was made to the accused at 16:17:22
hours from Cell ID bearing no. 404110014902573 and the said
location is stated to be of Baljit Nagar by the prosecution during
course of arguments as per Location Chart in the police file.
73.6. The deceased sustained as many as 07 stab injuries which
caused her death by the kitchen knife. It is not the case of the
prosecution that she has been raped and thereafter murdered.
Further, the dead body of deceased was found in the room of friends
of accused, where the accused used to take the deceased earlier also.
Apparently, the spot was the place where the deceased had
confidence to go with the accused, since she visited the said spot
with the accused while they were in relation-ship earlier.
73.7. The accused in his statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. admitted the
phone calls exchanged between him and the deceased on the day of
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 94 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
incident. He even admitted that he was residing on the upper floor
of the spot premises for some time and therefore, he was known to
PW-10 Naveen Singh Bisht. He stated that he never kidnapped
Nikita and therefore, he was acquitted in that matter however, he
neither denied the relation-ship between him and the deceased nor
the factum of elopement. He even admitted that the deceased went
to the room of Hemant to meet him but he never reached the said
spot and had to return from the Metro Station. However, no reason
has been putforth by the accused for returning from Shadi Pur Metro
Station itself and not going to the spot, where the deceased stated to
have gone to meet him.
73.8. The only motive which has surfaced on record for the present
murder is refusal by the deceased to continue the relation-ship with
the accused and to marry him, as confided by the deceased to her
sister that accused had threatened to kill her while stating that “अगर
तू मेरी नहीं हुई तो किसी की भी नहीं होगी व तुझे जान से मार दूंगा”. The sister
of deceased/PW-6 also deposed that the deceased told her that
accused was forcing her for marriage but she refused. The motive of
the accused has been scaring and pressurizing the deceased to marry
him and when she did not accede to his request, the accused in a
dramatical manner in order to satisfy his male ego, stabbed her
multiple times and committed her murder.
73.9. On the basis of material available on record in form of ocular,
medical and documentary evidence on record as well as as per
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 95 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C., it is proved beyond reasonable
doubt that the murder of deceased was committed with the motive
only of teaching the deceased a lesson for her refusal to marry the
accused in order to satisfy his male ego and sadist pleasure.
Explanation by the accused about the aforesaid circumstances
against him.
74. Despite opportunity granted to the accused under Section 313
Cr.PC to explain the circumstances appearing against him and he
failed to tender any plausible explanation for the same. The answers
given in the defence by the accused are of general denial.
Analaysis on the point of Charge under section 201 IPC :
75. The accused has been charged for concealing the weapon of
offence in order to avoid prosecution after committing murder of
deceased Nikita and also for attempting to burn the face of the
deceased so as to hide her identity.
76. As per testimony of PW-17 SI Kishore Kumar, who is the first
Investigating Officer of the present case, when he went to the spot
and inspected the crime scene including the dead body, he found
that hand and abdomen of the dead body had burn marks. He lifted
one plastic bottle partially burnt having yellow colour label
mentioning the words ‘Kachi Ghani ka Tel”, gents shoe partially
burnt, partially burnt lady shoe and one partially burnt bed sheet
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 96 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
from the spot. Even the clothes worn by the dead body were also
stated to be partially burnt.
77. As per the FSL result, Parcel S2, S4, S5, S8 were found to be
partially burnt however, acetone, Toluene, Hexane, Cyclohexane,
Ethyl acetate, Kerosene, Diesel & Petrol could not be detected in
exhibits ‘S2, S4, S5 and S8.
78. The weapon of offence was not found at the spot and was
recovered at the instance of accused alongwith blood stained shirt,
which was hidden by the accused in the bushes at Ramjas Ground.
79. Though as per Chemical examination, the aforesaid chemicals
were not found on the exhibits lifted however, attempt was made by
the accused to burn the evidence at spot in order to avoid
prosecution and also succeeded in hiding the weapon of offence
which was lateron recovered. Accordingly, on the basis of material
available on record, the Charge under Section 201 IPC has been
well proved by the Prosecution against the present accused.
Final analysis:
80. It is a fundamental doctrine of criminal law that the onus to
prove its case lies on the prosecution. Thus, in a criminal trial, the
onus to prove the commission of offence by the accused is always
upon the prosecution and the same never shifts upon the accused.
The prosecution has to establish before the Court that the accused
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 97 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
persons had committed the offence beyond shadow of all reasonable
doubts.
81. In G. Parshwanath Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2010) 8
SCC 593, the Supreme Court of India made the following
observations when considering a case hinging on circumstantial
evidence:
“23. In cases 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. Although there should not be
any missing links in the case, 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. 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, eachCase No. 58004/2016 Page 98 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
one of which reinforces the conclusion of guilt 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,
howsoever, extravagant and fanciful it might be. 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, 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.”
82. In the present case, the prosecution has been able to prove the
complicity of accused Gaurav @ Sunny in the commission of crime
beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts as all the circumstances
established are consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of
accused and the entire chain of circumstantial evidence is complete
in all respects and no reasonable doubt is left which can lead to the
conclusion of innocence of the accused persons and no other
hypothesis is possible in the given circumstances. The prosecution
has been able to prove all the ingredients of the offences for which
accused have been charged and has faced trial.
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 99 of 101
83. Thus, keeping in view the deposition of the independent
witnesses which had remained coherent, reliable and trustworthy,
the forensic evidence, the medical evidence, the recovery of articles
at the instance of accused, Postmortem Report of the deceased and
documentary/electronic evidence in the form of CDR, it is held that
the prosecution has been able to complete the chain of
circumstances and has proved beyond shadow of all reasonable
doubts that accused Gaurav @ Sunny committed the murder of
deceased Nikita and also attempted to destroy evidence and hide the
weapon of offence etc. in order to avoid prosecution.
84. Before parting with the present matter, the Court is
constrained to state while considering the facts & circumstances of
the present matter, that males in India consider women as a chattel,
who should act according to their wishes and in case of refusing
their proposal, the same hurts their male ego to the point of
destroying/taking the life of the female irrespective of her individual
identity. This is not the first case wherein the Ex-girlfriend or the
female liked by the assailant has been physically assaulted in order
to teach her a lesson for refusal and the same has been prevalent in
India for years now including the acid attacks. The present case is
also another glaring example of the said psychology growing in the
mind of male youth to settle scores with the fairer sex on their
refusal to accept them. The same is having a bad impact on the
society at large and needs to be curbed.
Case No. 58004/2016 Page 100 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
Conclusion:
85. In view of above discussions & findings, accused Gaurav @
Sunny is hereby held guilty and accordingly, convicted for the
commission of the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and
Sections 201 IPC.
86. Copy of the judgment be provided to the convict free of cost
against due endorsement. The judgment be also uploaded on the
official website during course of the day.
87. Let he be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Digitally signed
SHEFALI by SHEFALI
BARNALA
BARNALA TANDON
TANDON Date:
2025.04.21
18:29:10 +0530Pronounced in the open (Shefali Barnala Tandon)
Court on 21.04.2025 Additional Sessions Judge -05,
(West) Tis Hazari Courts Delhi(It is to certify that all 101 Pages of the judgment are duly
signed.) Digitally signed
SHEFALI by SHEFALI
BARNALA
BARNALA TANDON
TANDON Date: 2025.04.21
18:29:15 +0530(Shefali Barnala Tandon)
Additional Sessions Judge -05,
(West) Tis Hazari Courts DelhiCase No. 58004/2016 Page 101 of 101
State v. Gaurav @ Sunny
[ad_2]
Source link