Delhi District Court
State vs Karan Sharma@ Rohit Sharma on 14 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR KHARTA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)-02, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions case no. 28099/2016)
FIR No. 400/2015
Police Station Timarpur
Charge-sheet filed under Sections Sec. 302/201/34 IPC.
Charges framed against accused. Sec. 201/34 IPC.
State Versus Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
S/o Sh. Pramod Sharma,
R/o H. No. 1743, Sanjay Basti,
Timarpur, Delhi.
...Accused.
Date of Institution of case 04.09.2015
Date of Arguments 11.08.2025
Judgment reserved on 11.08.2025
Judgment pronounced on 14.08.2025
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma is facing trial for
the offence punishable under Sec. 201/34 IPC. The case of the
prosecution is that on 05.05.2015, during the night, accused
knowing that ‘IK’ (CCL & facing inquiry before Ld. JJB) had
murdered her mother Smt. Yashmeen and in furtherance of his
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 1 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
common intention with CCL ‘IK’, accused Karan Sharma @
Rohit Sharma assisted CCL ‘IK’ in burning the dead body of
Yashmeen with the intention of screening CCL ‘IK’ from the
legal punishment.
2. The brief facts which are borne out from the record of the
case are that on 05.05.2015 at about 04:15 am, on receiving DD
No. 5A, Ex. PW-1/A regarding fire in a house, PW-1 ASI Usman
Ali along with PW-14 HC Ravinder reached at the spot of
incident i.e. H. No. D-134/1, Ground Floor, Gali No. 9, near
Afgani Chowk, Wazirabad, Delhi and found that the main door of
the abovesaid house was opened and smock was coming out
from the above said house. Thereafter, they entered the abovesaid
house and saw that one burnt dead body of a woman was lying
on the floor near the main door inside the house and the blood
was lying under her head. Thereafter, on inquiry, the name of
deceased was revealed as ‘Yashmeen’ and it was further revealed
that the deceased was residing along with her daughter namely
CCL ‘IK’, aged about 17 years in the abovesaid house, however,
CCL ‘IK’ was not found available at the abovesaid house.
Thereafter, IO got inspected the spot of incident through Mobile
Crime Team and informed the concerned SDM regarding the said
incident who conducted the proceedings under Sec. 176 Cr.PC.
During investigation, IO took the dead body of deceased to
Aruna Asaf Ali hospital where the deceased was declared as
brought dead vide MLC Ex. PW-1/B1 and the concerned doctor
handed over two ear rings, two small ear ring, one nose pin and
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 2 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
two finger rings of deceased to IO, which were seized by him
vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/B2. Thereafter SDM got preserved
the dead body of deceased at Subzi Mandi Mortuary. During
investigation, IO seized blood oozed out from the head of
deceased lying at the spot, blood stained earth control, ashes of
the brunt cushion, broken bangles and old brass ring from the
spot of incident. Thereafter on 06.05.2015, IO got identified the
dead body of deceased through her relatives, got conducted the
postmortem on the dead body and after postmortem, the dead
body was handed over to the relatives of deceased. During
investigation, IO also seized hair of deceased, blood in cloth
piece along with sample seal, pullanda of burnt clothes and
wooden box containing viscera of deceased from Mortuary.
During investigation, IO also obtained postmortem report of
deceased in which concerned doctor has opined about cause of
death as ‘cerenio cerebral damage consequence upon blunt force
impact to the head which was sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature’. Thereafter, considering the said
opinion, IO made endorsement, Ex. PW-1/L on DD No. 5A and
got the present FIR registered at PS Timarpur and thereafter
further investigation of the present case was entrusted to PW-22
Inspector Rajesh Malhotra.
3. Thereafter, IO visited the spot of incident alongwith father
and husband of deceased, where he got conducted photography
of the spot and seized partially burnt bed along with burnt cotton
mattress. During investigation, a black diary was found at
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 3 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
Dressing Table in the room containing personal information of
deceased Yasmeen and after going through the same, it was
found that it contained some adverse writing about her daughter
CCL ‘IK’. It was also found that on page dated 25.10.2014 of
aforesaid diary, the name of accused Rohit Sharma was
mentioned and certain adverse comments were written against
CCL ‘IK’ and accused Rohit Sharma. Thereafter, IO seized the
aforesaid diary vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-1/N and as suspicion
grew against CCL ‘IK’, she was interrogated by JWO/WSI
Neeraj and after thorough interrogation, she confessed her
involvement in the present case and named accused Rohit
Sharma in destruction of evidence. Thereafter she was
apprehended and her version, Ex. PW-8/D was recorded.
Thereafter, IO made search of accused Rohit Sharma and he
along with CCL ‘IK’ visited DIIT, Wazirabad, where Sh. Rizwan
Alam, owner of Center met him and produced the admission
register and on page no. 1735, there was entry of Karan Sharma
with photograph and on seeing the photograph, CCL ‘IK’ told
that the said persons was Rohit. During investigation, on
15.06.2015, on the basis of secret information, accused Rohit
Sharma @ Karan Sharma was apprehended from Bus Stand, near
PNB ATM, Timarpur and he was interrogated by the IO in which
he confessed his involvement in the present case. Thereafter, IO
arrested him in the present case, conducted his personal search
and recorded his disclosure statement. Thereafter, accused led the
police party to Nala, Outer Ring Road coming from Nehru Vihar
in which CCL ‘IK’ had thrown the danda used in commission of
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 4 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
offence but the danda could not be searched as the Nala was very
toxic. Thereafter accused also led the police team to Jungle area
behind Hindu Rao Hospital for recovery of mobile phone and
SIM but same could not be recovered. During investigation, IO
seized the photocopies of documents with respect to motorcycle
bearing registration no. DL-6SAC-6845, which was used by
accused on the day of incident, collected CDR of mobile phone
no. 9212880257 & 9211812657 used by accused and CCL ‘IK’
and on analysis of CDR, it was revealed that accused and CCL
‘IK’ were in continuous contact during intervening night of 04-
.05.05.2015 and the location accused Rohit Sharma @ Karan
Sharma was also found at house of deceased. During
investigation, IO recorded statements of neighbours of deceased,
recorded statement of Smt. Anju teacher of Savita Public School,
Wazirabad, where CCL ‘IK’ used to study, got prepared scaled
site plan, got collected school record of accused for ascertaining
his age and collected report from MLO, Mall Road, Delhi with
respect to driving license of accused. On completion of
investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the IO before the Court.
After obtaining the FSL result, supplementary charge-sheet was
also filed before the court, in this case.
4. Vide order dated 0 4 . 0 9 . 2 0 1 5 copy of the charge-sheet
was supplied to accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C and v i d e
o r d e r d a t e d 1 1 . 0 9 . 2 0 1 5 the case was committed to the
Court of Sessions under Sec. 209 Cr.P.C.
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 5 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
5. Vide order dated 22.09.2015, the Ld. Predecessor Court
was pleased to frame charges under Sec 201/34 IPC against
accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 28 witnesses.
The testimonies of presecution witnesses along with its nature
has been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
7. PW-1 ASI Usman Ali was the first IO in the present case.
He deposed that at about 04:15 am on 05.05.2015, on receiving
information vide DD No. 5A, Ex. PW-1/A, he along with Ct.
Ravinder reached at the spot i.e. H. No. D-134/1, Ground Floor,
Gali No. 9, near Afgani Chowk, Wazirabad, Delhi and found that
the main door of the abovesaid house was opened and smoke was
coming out from the abovesaid house. He further deposed that
they entered the abovesaid house and saw that one burnt dead
body of a woman was lying on the floor near the main door
inside the house and blood was lying under the head. He further
deposed that on inquiry, the name of deceased was revealed as
Yasmeen, who was residing alongwith her daughter namely CCL
‘IK’, aged about 17 years, in the abovesaid house but the CCL
‘IK’ was not available at the abovesaid house. He narrated about
proceedings conducted by him at the spot of incident viz.
inspection of spot of incident through Mobile Crime Team vide
report, Ex. PW-1/B, conducting proceedings under Sec. 176
Cr.PC by concerned SDM, seizure of blood lying under head of
deceased, blood stained earth control, ashes of the burnt cushion,
broken bangles and old brass ring from the spot of incident vide
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 6 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
seizure memo Ex. PW-1/C. He also narrated about shifting of
dead body to Mortuary, Aurna Asaf Ali Hospital vide MLC, Ex.
PW-1/B1 and seizure of two ear rings, two small ear ring, one
nose pin and two finger rings of deceased from hospital vide
seizure memo Ex. PW-1/B2, identification of dead body through
its relatives vide statements Ex. PW-1/D to Ex. PW-1/F, got
conducting of postmortem on the dead body and on postmortem
handing over of dead body to its relative vide receipt, Ex.
PW-1/G. He also narrated about seizure of hair of deceased,
blood in cloth piece along with sample seal, pullanda of burnt
clothes of deceased and one wooden box containing viscera from
hospital vide seizure memos, Ex. PW-1/H to Ex. PW-1/K. He
also narrated about opinion about cause of death given by
concerned doctor on postmortem report as ‘cernio cerebral
damage consequence upon blunt force impact to the head which
is sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature’.
He also deposed that considering the said opinion, he made his
endorsement, Ex. PW-1/L on DD No. 5A and got the present FIR
registered at PS on 12.06.2015. He further deposed that on
13.06.2015, he along with SHO Inspector Rajesh Malhotra and
WSI Neeraj went to the spot of incident where CCL ‘IK’, Shahid
and Fajlur Rehman were available. He narrated about
proceedings conducted by SHO Inspector Rajesh Malhotra at the
spot viz. seizure of half burnt Deewan (single bed) and one burnt
cushion vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/M, seizure of personal
diary of deceased Yasmeen in which she had written something
against her daughter CCL ‘IK’ vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-1/N.
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 7 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
He also narrated about interrogation of daughter of deceased
CCL ‘IK’ in which she confessed her involvement and informed
that she had hit Danda on the head of her mother, apprehension
memo of CCL ‘IK’ and recording of version of CCL ‘IK’. He
further deposed that on 18.08.2015, he again joined the
investigation in the present case along with IO and went to the
spot of incident and Inspector Mahesh, draftsman inspected the
same and prepared scaled site plan, Ex. PW-1/O at his instance.
In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not join any
public person to the written proceedings/memos conducted by
him at the spot. He also deposed that he had not recorded
statement of any public witness/neighbour who were present
there.
8. PW-2 HC Ram Niwas, was the duty officer at PS
Timarpur. He deposed that on 12.06.2015, ASI Usman Ali
produced rukka, Ex. PW-1/L to him for registration of FIR vide
DD No. 29A. He proved copy of FIR, certificate under Sec. 65B
of The Indian Evidence Act and copies of DD No. 29A & 30A as
Ex. PW-2/A to Ex. PW-2/D. This witness was not cross-
examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity given to him.
9. PW-3 HC Shiv Kumar, was the Duty Officer at PS
Timarpur. He deposed that 05.05.2015 at about 04:12 am, he
received a PCR call regarding fire in house no. 134/1, Chhota
Madarsa, near Afgani Chowk, Gali No. 9, Wazirabad, Delhi from
N-50 on wireless and the mobile number of the caller was
referred as 9711439806. He proved copy of DD No. 5A as Ex.
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 8 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
PW-1/A. This witness was also not cross-examined on behalf of
accused despite opportunity given to him.
10. PW-4 SI Nagender Giri, was the In-Charge at Mobile
Crime Team. He deposed about the proceedings conducted by
him alongwith his staff Ct. Chetan, fingerprint proficient and Ct.
Chetan, Photographer ASI Pawan Kumar. He proved his detailed
report regarding inspection of scene of crime as Ex. PW-1/B.
This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused
despite opportunity given to him.
11. PW-5 Ct. Vijender, was Photographer at Mobile Crime
Team. He proved 13 photographs of scene of crime from
different angles as Ex. PW-5/1 to Ex. PW-5/13. He also proved
negatives of the abovesaid photographs as Ex. PW-5/14 to Ex.
PW-5/26. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of
accused despite opportunity given to him.
12. PW-6 Dr. Ashitesh Bajwa, Specialist Forensic Medicine,
Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital had conducted postmortem on the body
of deceased Yasmeen Ali. He proved his detailed postmortem
report as Ex. PW-6/A. He also gave opinion regarding cause of
death as ‘cranio cerebral damage consequent upon blunt force
impact to the head which was sufficient to cause death in an
ordinary course of nature’. This witness was also not cross-
examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity given to him.
13. PW-7 Ct. Vikesh Kumar, deposed that on 22.07.2015, on
direction of IO, he received exhibits from MHC(M) vide RC No.
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 9 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
91/21, 90/21 & 92/21 and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini. He
proved copy of RC Nos. as Ex. PW-7/A to Ex. PW-7/C. He also
proved acknowledgment received from FSL as Ex. PW-7/D. This
witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused despite
opportunity given to him.
14. PW-8 Sh. Shahid Ali, was the husband of deceased. He
deposed that on 04.05.2015, his wife Yasmeen, who was residing
separately at Afgani Chowk, Wazirabad along with her daughter
CCL ‘IK’, called him. He further deposed that he reached at the
abovesaid house of his wife and took her to a Dentist at Azad
Market and after taking medicine, they returned at about 01:00
pm and thereafter they along with CCL ‘IK’ took lunch together
and he left the abovesaid house of Yasmeen. He further deposed
that on 05.05.2015 at 06:30 am, he received a telephonic call of
CCL ‘IK’ on his mobile phone from public telephone and CCL
‘IK’ told him that she had left the house. He further deposed that
he immediately asked her to return to the house and told her that
he would reach at the abovesaid house at noon time as her
mother (Yasmeen) was not well. He further deposed that after
about half an hour of receiving the aforesaid call of CCL ‘IK’, he
received call from SHO PS Timarpur and he asked him about his
relation with Yasmeen. He further deposed that he told him that
Yasmeen was his wife and thereafter SHO called him
immediately at PS Timarpur. He further deposed that when he
reached PS Timarpur, he saw CCL ‘IK’ in the PS but she did not
tell him as to why she had left the house. He further deposed that
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 10 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
thereafter, on direction of the SHO, SI Usman Ali took him to the
hospital where he identified the burnt dead body of his wife
Yasmeen. He further deposed that on 06.05.2015, he identified
the dead body of his wife Yasmeen at Mortuary, Subzi Mandi
vide his statement, Ex. PW-1/D. He also proved dead body
handing over memo of deceased as Ex. PW-1/G. He further
deposed that on 13.06.2015, he along with Fazlu Rehman, father
of deceased, Mumtaz, sister of deceased and CCL ‘IK’ had
visited H. No. D-134/1, Gali No. 9, Afgani Chowk, Wazirabad
where SHO along with SI Usman Ali and WSI Neeraj came and
opened the lock of abovesaid house. He narrated about the
proceedings conducted by the IO at the spot viz. seizure of half
burnt deewan and mattress, seizure of personal diary of deceased
containing her personal information as well as something written
against CCL ‘IK’ and proved their seizure memos. He also
narrated about interrogation of CCL ‘IK’ by WSI Neeraj in which
she confessed that she had committed murder of her mother
Yasmeen and she was assisted by accused Karan Sharma in
burning the dead body of deceased. He also narrated about
seizure of admission register from DIIT by IO in which accused
and CCL ‘IK’ were learning computer and proved its seizure
memo Ex. PW-8/A. He also proved the version of CCL ‘IK’ as
Ex. PW-8/B as well as her apprehension memo and personal
search memo as Ex. PW-8/C & Ex. PW-8/D. This witness
correctly identified accused as well as case properties during his
deposition before the court. In his cross-examination, he deposed
that he used to stay with Yasmeen at her home after the marriage,
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 11 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
sometimes after 8 days or sometime after 15 days. He also
deposed that he was staying with his children born from the
wedlock of his first wife. He also deposed that CCL ‘IK’ never
told him regarding such type of behaviour of deceased with her
before the date of incident. He also deposed that he had seen the
abovesaid diary in the house of deceased Yasmeen before the
incident. He also deposed that he was not aware about the
education of deceased Yasmeen. He denied the suggestion that
Yasmeen was illiterate or that she could not write anything. He
also denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered by Police
from the house of deceased in his presence or that the abovesaid
diary did not belong to deceased or that the same was
manipulated by the Police.
15. PW-9 Inspector Mahesh Kumar, was the Draftsman at
Crime Branch, PHQ. He proved scaled site plan, Ex. PW-1/O. In
his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he had not
visited the spot or that he had not taken any rough notes and
measurement of the spot or that he was deposing falsely at the
instance of IO.
16. PW-10 Ct. Ravinder was examined-in-chief on 16.12.2016
but later on he was examined-in-chief again and cross-examined
on 06.10.2017 & 06.12.2023 as PW-14. Accordingly, testimony
of Ct. Ravinder is being read his testimony as PW-14.
17. PW-11 HC Ram Niwas, was the MHC(M) at PS Timarpur.
He proved entries in register nos. 19 & 21 regarding movement
of case properties as Ex. PW-11/A to Ex. PW-11/F. He also
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 12 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
proved acknowledgment from FSL Rohini regarding deposit of
case properties as Ex. PW-11/G & Ex. PW-11/H. He also
deposed that on 15.12.2015, HC Satender brought sealed wooden
box of viscera duly sealed with the seal of FSL Delhi along with
FSL result, three sealed parcels and one cloth parcel duly sealed
with the seal of FSL Delhi and deposited the same in the
Malkhana, vide entry Ex. PW-11/L. He also deposed that all the
abovesaid exhibits remained intact as long as the same were
under his custody and the same were not allowed to be tempered
in any manner. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of
accused despite opportunity given to him.
18. PW-12 ASI Ajay Kumar, deposed that on 05.05.2015 he
was posted at CPCR (PHQ), Delhi and at about 04:04 am, a call
was received from Renuka Rose Kujur regarding ‘D-134/11,
Afgani Chowk, Wazirabad fire lagi hai’. He proved PCR form
regarding aforesaid information as Ex. PW-12/A. This witness
was not cross-examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity
given to him.
19. PW-13 HC Kiran Pal, deposed that on 15.06.2015 he
joined the investigation in the present case along with IO. He
narrated about apprehension of accused Karan Sharma @ Rohit
on the basis of secret information from PNB ATM near Balakram
Bus Stand and proved his disclosure statement, arrest memo and
personal search as Ex. PW-13/A to Ex. PW-13/C. In his cross-
examination, he deposed that he did not remember as to what
clothes were worn by the accused. He also deposed that he had
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 13 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
not noticed if any public person was standing at the PNB ATM,
however, few public persons were moving in the area. He also
deposed that IO had requested 2-3 public persons, however, none
of them agreed. He also deposed that all the writing work was
done in the PS and the disclosure statement of accused was
recorded in the room of IO. He denied the suggestion that
accused was not arrested as the manner he had stated above. He
also denied the suggestion that accused was lifted from his house
and false documents were prepared against him to falsely
implicate him in the present case.
20. PW-14 HC Ravinder deposed that on 05.05.2015, at about
04:00 am, on receiving a call from PCR that fire broke out in H.
No. 134/1, Street No. 9, near Afgani Chowk, Wazirabad, Delhi,
he along with ASI Usman went to the spot. He further deposed
that he saw that smoke was coming out from the said house and
the main gate of the house was lying opened. He further deposed
that he and ASI Usman went near the gate and saw inside the
room and found that dead body of lady was lying there in burnt
condition and blood was lying beneath the head of dead body. He
narrated about the proceedings conducted by the IO at the spot of
incident viz. inspection of spot through Mobile Crime Team,
seizure of blood, broken pieces of bangles, blood stained earth
control, ash of burnt mattress and proved their seizure memo Ex.
PW-1/C. He also narrated about identification of dead body of
deceased through her husband and shifting of dead body at
Mortuary, Subzi Mandi by the IO. He further deposed that on
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 14 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
06.05.2015, he again joined the investigation in the present case
and narrated about conducting of postmortem on the dead body,
seizure of viscera of deceased along with sample seal by the IO
vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-1/K and after postmortem, handing
over the dead body to its relative by the IO. This witness was not
cross-examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity given to
him.
21. PW-15 Dr. Ruby, Medical Officer, deposed that on
05.05.2015 she was posted as CMO, Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital and
on that day at about 10:25 am, one lady namely Yasmeen, aged
about 50 years was brought by Police with the alleged history of
burn injury. She further deposed that she examined the patient,
however, she was declared brought dead and dead body was
referred to Forensic Department for postmortem. She proved
MLC No. 1694/15 of deceased Yasmeen as Ex. PW-1/B1. This
witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused despite
opportunity given to him.
22. PW-16 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan, Nodal Officer, Tata Tele
Services Ltd. proved CAF, Voter ID card, CDR of mobile phone
no. 9212880257 issued in the name of Aman, S/o Sh. Suresh, R/o
D-1/511, Hanuman Mandir Road, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi as Ex.
PW-16/A to Ex. PW-16/C. He also proved CAF, Voter ID card,
CDR of mobile phone no. 9211812657 issued in the name of
Pawan, S/o Sh. Jugal, R/o B-1/499, Hanuman Mandir Road,
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi as Ex. PW-16/D to Ex. PW-16/F. He also
proved location chart of both the aforesaid mobile numbers as
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 15 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
well as certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act as
Ex. PW-16/G & Ex. PW-16/H. This witness was also not cross-
examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity given to him.
23. PW-17 Sh. Dilshad, was the neighbour of deceased. He
deposed that deceased Yasmeen was residing in front of his house
with her daughter CCL ‘IK’ and they both used to quarrel and
fight with each other. He further deposed that on the intervening
night of 04-05.05.2015, at about 03:30 am, when he was sleeping
at his home, he was woken by one Ahmad Hasan Ali who used to
reside at the first floor of the building in which Yasmeen was
residing with her daughter. He further deposed that Ahamd Hasan
Ali had informed that there was smoke in the house of Yasmeen.
He also deposed that neighbours gathered at the spot and they
reached near the house of Yasmeen i.e. H. No. 134/1, ground
floor, Gali No. 9, near Afgani Chowk, Wazirabad, Delhi and saw
that heavy smoke was coming out from Yasmeen’s house and the
door was not locked. He further deposed that after opening the
door of Yasmeen’s house, Yasmeen was found lying at the floor
of the house in burnt condition. He also deposed that Police was
called and the fire was doused by the water buckets and pipes. He
further deposed that police and SDM inquired from him and
recorded his statement. He proved his statement given to the
SDM as Ex. PW-17/A. This witness was also not cross-examined
on behalf of accused despite opportunity given to him.
24. PW-18 Mr. Manish Jain was posted as SDM, Civil Lines,
Delhi. He deposed that on 05.05.2015 he got call from Mr.
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 16 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
Rajesh Malhotra, Inspector/SHO PS Timarpur that a lady namely
Ms. Yasmeen Ali had got burnt at her house in Wazirabad and the
lady had been married for 1-1½ year and the inquest proceedings
need to be conducted. He further deposed that on receiving
information, he reached H. No. D-134, Ground Floor, Gali No. 9,
Afgani Chowk, Wazirabad, Delhi where he was informed that
burnt body had been shifted to hospital/mortuary. He further
deposed that he was also informed that Ms. Yasmeen Ali had
been married to one Mr. Shaheed Ali, aged about 65 years since
the last one and one and half years and it was the eighth marriage
of Ms. Yasmeen Ali and she was living in the aforesaid house
along with her daughter CCL ‘IK’ (around 17 years of age). He
further deposed that he directed the SHO PS Timarpur to bring
CCL ‘IK’ to PS Timarpur. He also deposed that the statement of
CCL ‘IK’, Ex. PW-18/A was recorded in the afternoon of
05.05.2015 and same was read over to her. He further deposed
that he also recorded statement of Mr. Ahmad Ali, Ex. PW-18/B,
resident of first floor of the building where the incident took
place and he also recorded statement of Mr. Dilshad Saifi, Ex.
PW-17/A, who was residing opposite to the house where incident
took place. He further deposed that on the next day i.e.
06.05.2015, after necessary proceedings, the postmortem upon
the dead body of Ms. Yasmeen Ali was conducted by the doctor
of Mortuary, Subzi Mandi upon his request. He proved his
request for postmortem and Form No. 25.35 as Ex. PW-18/C &
Ex. PW-18/D. This witness was also not cross-examined on
behalf of accused despite opportunity given to him.
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 17 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
25. PW-19 Mr. Fazlur Rehman, was the father of deceased. He
deposed that deceased Yasmeen Ali was his younger daughter. He
also deposed that first of all his daughter Yasmeen Ali was
married to one Mr. Iqbal Khan and from their wedlock a girl
child was born whose name was Ikra Khan. He further deposed
that on 05.05.2015, at about 10:30 morning, he had received
information of death of his daughter Yasmeen Ali and
accordingly, he came to PS Timarpur where he came to know that
SDM, Civil Lines was conducting the proceedings. He further
deposed that on 06.05.2015, he identified he dead body of his
daughter in the mortuary vide identification memo, Ex. PW-1/F
and after postmortem dead body was handed over to him vide
handing over memo, Ex. PW-1/G. This witness could not be
further examined as he had expired on 13.05.2020.
26. PW-20 Inspector O. P. Thakur, was one of the
Investigating Officer in the present case. He deposed that on
09.08.2015 the investigation of the present case was handed over
to him and during the course of investigation, he recorded
statement of duty officer HC Ram Niwas as well as public
witnesses namely Ahmed Hasan Ali, Ex. PW-20/A and Dilshad,
Ex. PW-20/B. He further deposed that he also recorded statement
of Smt. Anju, teacher of Savita Public School, where CCL ‘IK’
used to study, as Ex. PW-20/C. He further deposed that during
investigation, he got inspected the scene of crime through
Draftsman, collected scaled map, collected school record of
accused ascertaining his age from Government Boys Senior
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 18 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
Secondary School, Lancer Road, Ex. PW-20/D, wrote a letter to
MLO, Mall Road Authority for providing documents with respect
to driving license in the name of accused, Ex. PW-20/E and
collected attested report in this regard as Ex. PW-20/E1. In his
cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that previous IO of
the case had already recorded statements of abovesaid public
witnesses under Sec. 161 Cr.PC. He also deposed that he was not
aware that the previous IO had interrogated the abovementioned
witnesses. He denied the suggestion that he had neither visited
the house of the witnesses nor recorded their statements and on
that account, he had not placed on record said entry on record
along with the charge-sheet.
27. PW-21 Ms. Anju, was the teacher of CCL ‘IK’. She
deposed that around 8-10 years ago, CCL ‘IK’ came there in an
Auto ferrying suitcase in TSR and got stopped TSR on seeing
her. She further deposed that she requested her to stay at her
house for 1-2 days. She also deposed that she asked her why she
wanted to stay at her home on which she told that she had dispute
with her mother and hence she had left her house. She further
deposed that she obliged her by telling to go her house and she
proceeded to her house. She also deposed that when she
proceeded towards her house, she made call to the number of her
mother, which was attended by a Police official who told her that
mother of CCL ‘IK’ was admitted in the hospital due to burn
injury. She further deposed that she also told police official that
CCL ‘IK’ had gone to her home, after leaving her house on the
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 19 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
ground that she had dispute with her mother. She further deposed
that she went to school which was nearby and within 5-10 police
officials reached there and she took them to her house where
CCL ‘IK’ was present and she was taken by Police officials with
her belongings. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf
of accused despite opportunity given to him.
28. PW-22 Inspector Rajesh Malhotra, was the Investigating
Officer in the present case. He deposed that on 05.05.2015, DD
No. 5A regarding fire in house was entrusted to ASI Usman Ali
and he also reached at the spot i.e. H. No. D-134/11, Gali No. 9,
near Afgani Colony, Wazirabad, where one lady who was
identified as Yasmeen, W/o Mohd. Shahid was found dead in
burnt condition. He further deposed that as she was married to
Mohd. Shahid around one and half year back, SDM Civil Lines
was informed, who conducted inquest proceedings under Sec.
176 Cr.PC and ASI Usman Ali seized the exhibits from the spot.
He further deposed that on 06.05.2015, postmortem on the dead
body was got conducted and biological and other exhibits were
seized. He further deposed that doctor who conducted the
postmortem on the dead body and opined the manner of death as
‘homicidal’ and therefore on 12.06.2015, the case was registered
under Sec. 302/201 IPC and he undertook the further
investigation in the present case. He further deposed that on
13.06.2015 he visited the spot of incident along with father and
husband of deceased. He narrated about the proceedings
conducted by him at the spot of incident viz. seizure of partly
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 20 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
burnt bed and mattress, seizure of personal diary of deceased
which contained some adverse writings against her daughter CCL
‘IK’ and accused Rohit Sharma, interrogation of CCL ‘IK’
through JWO/WSI Neeraj, apprehension of CCL ‘IK’ in the
present case after confessing her involvement and recording of
her version in which she named accused Rohit Sharma. He also
narrated about search of accused Rohit Sharma and seizure of
admission register containing photograph of accused from DIIT
where CCL ‘IK’ and accused were studying. He also narrated
about apprehension of accused Rohit Sharma @ Karan Sharma
on the basis of secret information from Bus Stop, near PNB
ATM, Timarpur and proved his arrest memo, personal search
memo and disclosure statement. He also narrated about search of
weapon of offence i.e. Danda which was thrown in the Nala,
Outer Ring Road by accused and proved its pointing out memo,
Ex. PW-22/A, application for PC remand of accused, Ex.
PW-22/B, pointing out memo of Jungle area behind Hindu Rao
Hospital, Ex. PW-22/C where accused thrown his mobile phone
and SIM, seizure memo of documents with respect to motorcycle
bearing registration no. DL-6SAC-6845 used by accused on the
day of incident, Ex. PW-22/D. He also narrated about collection
of CDR of mobile phones of accused and CCL ‘IK’. This witness
correctly identified the case properties as well as accused during
his deposition in the court. In his cross-examination, he deposed
that no family members were present at that time in the said
house, however, 3-4 neighbours were present but he had not
recorded the statement of said public persons at that time as the
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 21 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
case was not registered till that time. He also deposed that the
black diary was not produced by any person to him but he found
the same lying on the dressing table. He also deposed that he had
not sent diary of deceased to FSL. He also deposed that he had
not taken into possession any other writing of the deceased for
the purpose of comparison with diary written by her. He also
deposed that CCL ‘IK’ was not aware about the address of
accused Rohit Sharma nor she had taken the investigating team
to the residence of accused Rohit. He admitted that the entry of
the register along with photograph, the name of Rohit Sharma as
alias of Karan Sharma was written. He denied the suggestion that
there was no such entry in any of the register of the Computer
Centre being run by Rizwan Alam and the same was prepared
afterward in order to implicate accused Rohit Sharma as they
were unable to found the actual culprit in the murder of deceased.
He also deposed that accused Rohit was all alone near the bus
stop and no public person was present at the bus stand at the time
of apprehension of accused Rohit. He admitted that no
investigation was carried at the spot of arrest of the accused. He
also deposed that he went to New Heera Motors on 16.05.2015
regarding verifying purchase of motorcycle bearing registration
no. DL-6SAC-6845 and he seized the photocopy of RC of said
motorcycle. He also deposed that he did not remember the owner
of said motorcycle. He also deposed that it was in the name of
Karan Sharma and the said motorcycle was purchased on
26.02.2015 and the same was sold on 19.05.2015. He also
deposed that there was one mobile phone with accused and the
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 22 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
said mobile was in the name of perhaps Pawan. He admitted that
he had not interrogated Pawan and SIM of the said phone was
not in the name of Karan Sharma or Rohit Sharma. He denied the
suggestion that the location as per CDR of the mobile phone
pertaining to the owner of the SIM of mobile and the same was
not that of the accused. He denied the suggestion that he had
intentionally not investigated the said Pawan who was the owner
of mobile and SIM card because the said mobile on 05.05.2015
was in possession of Pawan and not the accused. He also denied
the suggestion that he had not carried out the investigation in
proper way and falsely implicated the accused in order to solve
the crime.
29. PW-23 SI Neeraj, deposed that on 13.06.2015, she was
posted at PS Timarpur as Juvenile Welfare Officer. She further
deposed that she along with Inspector Rajesh Malhotra and ASI
Usman Ali reached at the spot i.e. H. No. 134/1, Ground Floor,
Gali No. 9, near Afgani Chowk, Wazirabad where Mumtaz,
husband of deceased, CCL ‘IK’, daughter of deceased and one
more person whose name she was not recollecting met them. She
further deposed that she made inquiry from CCL ‘IK’, recorded
her version and apprehended her. She also deposed that CCL ‘IK’
was got medically examined and she was produced before
member of Ld. JJB. This witness was not cross-examined on
behalf of accused despite opportunity given to him.
30. PW-24 Inspector Surya Prakash, deposed that on
15.06.2015 he joined the investigation in the present case along
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 23 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
IO/SHO Inspector Rajesh Malhotra. He narrated about
apprehension of accused Rohit Sharma @ Karan Sharma on the
basis of secret information from Balak Ram Bus Stand near PNB
ATM and proved his arrest memo, personal search memo and
disclosure statement. He also narrated about pointing out memos
of ganda nala, Outer Ring Road, Wazirabad and Jungle behind
Hindu Rao Hospital, by accused, where accused had thrown
weapon of offence i.e. danda and his mobile phone respectively.
He also narrated about verification with respect to motorcycle
bearing registration no. DL-6SAC-6845 conducted from Hira
Motors, Naiwala and proved the seizure memo of documents
collected from there. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he
did not know when the secret informer gave information
regarding presence of accused at Bus Stand. He deposed that the
bus stand was crowded and 15-20 public persons were present
there. He also deposed that IO had interrogated the accused only
but no public persons were inquired by the IO. He also deposed
that he did not know which family member of accused was
informed about his arrest by the IO. He admitted that abovesaid
memos did not bear signature of any of the public persons
including the relative or family members of the accused. He
admitted that the motorcycle was seized by the IO at Police
Station, being brought to the PS by person from Hira Motors. He
denied the suggestion that accused was not apprehended at
Balakram Bus Stand or that he was not arrested as deposed above
or that he was lifted from his house or that he had not given any
disclosure statement or that his signature were obtained on blank
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 24 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
papers and the same were converted into incriminating memos or
he had not pointed out Nala or Jungle.
31. PW-25 Dr. Kavita Goyal, Assistant Director (Chemistry),
FSL Rohini has proved her detailed chemical examination report
as Ex. PW-25/A. She also deposed that on chemical,
microscopic, TLC & GC-HS examination, metallic poison, ethyl
and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates,
tranquilizers, pesticides, kerosene, diesel & petrol could not be
detected in Ex. 1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 3, 4 & 5. This witness was not
cross-examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity given to
him.
32. PW-26 Dr. Garima Chaudhary, Senior Scientific Officer
(DNA) has proved her detailed biological examination report as
Ex. PW-26/A. This witness was also not cross-examined on
behalf of accused despite opportunity given to him.
33. PW-27 Inspector Shalender Tomar, deposed that from
01.07.2015 to 09.08.2015, he was looking after the work of SHO
PS Timarpur and during abovesaid period, he investigated the
present case. He also deposed that during investigation, the
exhibits of the present case were deposited in the FSL, Rohini
through Ct. Vikas and he collected 14 photographs from
Photographer Arun. He also deposed that he also collected PCR
form and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements
under Sec. 161 Cr.PC. In his cross-examination, he deposed that
he had never visited the place of incident. He also deposed that
he had not personally verified regarding the genuineness of
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 25 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
photographs. He also deposed that he had not seen the contents
of exhibits. He also deposed that he did not know the detail of the
said PCR form.
34. PW-28 SI Amit Bhardwaj, deposed that in July, 2018, he
had filed FSL result, Ex. PW-26/A before the court of Ld. MM by
was of supplementary charge-sheet. This witness was not cross-
examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity given to him.
35. After closing of prosecution evidence, statement of
accused was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC, wherein he denied
all the charges against him. He claimed that in the abovesaid
case, he was falsely implicated on the wrong identification of
identifying him as Rohit specifically when he was Karan Sharma
since very beginning. He also claimed that he was known as
Karan Sharma since his birth and all his academic documents
pertaining to his education and Aadhar card, Bank account etc.
mentioned his name as Karan Sharma and he was not concerned
in any manner by any other name who might be some other
person. He also claimed that the CDR obtained in this case
pertained to abovesaid phone number neither belonged to him
nor he had used the said mobile number at any point of time and
the same did not relate to him. He also claimed that witnesses are
false and interested witnesses made by the police in order to
solve the case of murder after 40 days of the incident in which he
was falsely involved by the police.
36. Accused has examined two defence witnesses. The nature
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 26 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
and testimony of the defence witnesses has been briefly
discussed as under:-
37. DW-1 Sh. S. N. Pandey, Lecturer in Government Boy
Senior Secondary School, Delhi proved the summoned record
pertaining to accused Karan Sharma, S/o Sh. Pramod Kumar
Sharma as he had studied 10th class in the year 2010-2012 from
Government Boy’s Senior Secondary School. He proved
admission form of accused Karan Sharma, copy of admission and
withdrawal register bearing the name of Karan Sharma,
examination register of class 10th bearing name of Karan Sharma
at serial no. 51 and result of class 10 th of accused Karan Sharma
as Ex. DW-1/1 to Ex. DW-1/3. This witness was not cross-
examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State despite opportunity given
to him.
38. DW-2 Smt. Kiran Sihmar, Section Officer, National
Institute of Open Schooling proved record pertaining to academic
examination result of candidate Karan Sharma, S/o Sh. Pramod
Kumar Sharma bearing enrollment no. 270204133002 and his
academic examination result as Ex. DW-2/1. She also proved her
authority letter, Ex. DW-2/2 authorizing her to appear before
Hon’ble Court by Regional Director Dr. Rachna Bhatia. This
witness was also not cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the
State despite opportunity given to him.
39. Final arguments were advanced by Sh. Pankaj Kumar
Ranga, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Vinod Khanna, Ld.
Counsel for accused Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma.
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 27 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
40. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the prosecution
witnesses have supported the prosecution story and have
corroborated each other’s version. To substantiate his
submissions, he argued that the prosecution has proved the chain
of circumstances against the accused. He submits that accused
was using mobile phone no. 9212880257 while CCL ‘IK’ was
using mobile phone no. 9211812657 and they used to talk with
each other on these phone numbers and on the date of incident,
the location of abovesaid mobile phone was found in the vicinity
of house of deceased Yasmeen. He further submits that CCL ‘IK’
has stated that accused Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma had
helped her in destroying the evidence by burning dead body of
her mother Yasmeen. He further submits that motorcycle bearing
registration no. DL-6SAC-6845 was used by the accused on the
date of incident. He further argued that as per the record of DIIT
Computer Centre, accused Karan Sharma was studying there and
CCL ‘IK’ knew him of the name of Rohit Sharma. He further
argued that the deceased had mentioned the name of Rohit
Sharma in her personal diary. He also argued that since the
prosecution has proved its case against accused beyond
reasonable doubt, accused should be convicted for the offence
punishable under Sec. 201/34 IPC.
41. Per Contra Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against accused
beyond reasonable doubt. To substantiate his points, he argued
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 28 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
that the investigation in the present case has been conducted in an
arbitrary manner. He argued that the present case is based on
circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has not proved the
complete chain of evidence against the accused. He further
argued that in the diary of deceased Yasmeen, name of one Rohit
was mentioned but name of accused is Karan Sharma and the
police falsely implicated him in the present case after about 40
days of commission of offence. He further argued that no
incriminating evidence was found at the spot of incident against
the accused. He also argued that the CDR of the mobile phone
produced by the prosecution are not relevant in the present case
as the said mobile phone numbers do not belong to accused as
well CCL ‘IK’. He further argued that the alleged danda has not
been recovered in the present case. He also argued that
prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that accused
ever helped CCL ‘IK’ in destruction of evidence. He also argued
that since the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the
accused beyond the reasonable doubt, accused should be
acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec. 201/34 IPC.
42. In the present case, charges under Sec. 201/34 IPC have
been framed against accused. These Sections have been defined
as follows:-
201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving
false information to screen offender:-
Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an
offence has been committed, causes any evidence of theFIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 29 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
commission of that offence to disappear, with the
intention of screening the offender from legal
punishment, or with that intention gives any infor-
mation respecting the offence which he knows or
believes to be false;
if a capital offence.– shall, if the offence which he
knows or believes to have been committed is
punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with imprisonment for life.– and if the
offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or
with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three years, and shall
also be liable to fine;
if punishable with less than ten years’ imprisonment.–
and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for
any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished
with imprisonment of the description provided for the
offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part
of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for
the offence, or with fine, or with both.
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common
intention:-
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 30 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
When a criminal act is done by several persons in
furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons
is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him
alone.
43. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced,
perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence
led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions
of law. I have also considered the judgments relied upon by the
Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for accused.
44. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is
established principle of law that a witness may lie but not the
circumstances. In the present case, there is no eye witness of the
alleged incident of causing of disappearance of evidence by the
accused in furtherance of his common intention with CCL ‘IK’.
45. The guilt of the accused in the present case has to be
proved by the prosecution through the circumstantial evidence.
The circumstantial evidence has to be appreciated as per the
established principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The
standard of proof required for conviction in case of
circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances relied upon in
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.
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 31 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
46. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as
‘Sharad Bridhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra cited as
(1984) 4 SCC 116′ has laid down the five golden priciples for
appreciation of circumstantial evidence and has termed the same
as Panchsheel of the Proof of Case based on circumstantial
evidence. The said five 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.
47. Thus, before recording the conviction of any of the
accused persons, the abovesaid five condition must be satisfied.
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 32 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
The prosecution has to establish its case on the basis of
abovesaid 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.
48. Prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances
which have been brought on record through the evidence:-
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 33 of 51
(i) Name of Rohit Sharma was mentioned by deceased
Yasmeen in her diary.
(ii) Analysis of CDR of mobile phone numbers used by
accused and CCL ‘IK’.
(iii) Motive for commission of offence. (iv) Record of DIIT, Wazirabad. (v) Use of motorcycle bearing registration no.
DL-6SAC-6845 by accused on the night of incident.
49. The evidence led by the prosecution through the above-
said circumstances relied upon by the prosecution has been
analysed as follows:-
(i) Name of Rohit Sharma was mentioned by deceased
Yasmeen in her diary:-
PW-22 IO/Inspector Rajesh Malhotra had seized one
personal diary of deceased Yasmeen from the spot of incident
vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-1/N. The said diary exhibited as Ex.
P8/3, pertains to year 2014. As per prosecution story, deceased
Yasmeen used to write about her feelings in the said diary. On the
page having date 25.10.2014, deceased Yasmeen had written ‘ye
ladki yaarbajni hai, Rohit Sharma jan gande ladke se fas kar isne
apne haramipan ka mujhe saboot diya. Dil to karta hai mai isse
bedakhal kar du par ye mujhe mana kar dete hai’. From the
abovesaid writings, it can be inferred that daughter of deceased
Yasmeen, CCL ‘IK’ was having some kind of affair with one
Rohit Sharma and deceased Yasmeen did not like the saidFIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 34 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
relationship and she had developed some grudge against CCL
‘IK’ for the said reason. The said diary was never sent to the FSL
for comparing the handwriting of deceased Yasmeen and hence
the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
said lines had been written by deceased Yasmeen. Secondly, the
present incident pertains to the intervening night of
04/05.05.2015. Just after the incident, on receiving DD No. 5A,
Ex. PW-1/A, PW-1 ASI Usman Ali along with PW-14 HC
Ravinder, went to the spot of incident and he did not found any
such diary at the spot of incident. PW-4 SI Nagender Giri, In-
charge, Mobile Crime Team along with Ct. Chetan, (fingerprint
proficient) and Ct. Vijender (photographer) went to the spot of
incident and PW-4 SI Nagender Giri, who has mentioned the
availability of several articles at the spot of incident has also not
mentioned about the availability of any such diary at the spot of
incident. PW-5 Ct. Vijender has proved the photographs of spot
of incident, Ex. PW-5/1 to Ex. PW-5/13. In the photographs, Ex.
PW-5/1 to Ex. PW-5/13, no such diary is visible. PW-1 ASI
Usman has specifically deposed that on 13.06.2015, he along
with SHO Inspector Rajesh Malhotra and WSI Neeraj went to the
spot of incident i.e. D-134/A, Gali No. 9, Afgani Chowk,
Wazirabad and the lock of said house was opened by PW-19 Sh.
Fazlur Rehman who was having the possession of key with him
from 05.05.2015. He also deposed that from the spot,
IO/Inspector Rajesh Malhotra seized one diary from the spot of
incident vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-1/N. Thus, the said diary
was seized by the IO after a delay of eight days and none of theFIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 35 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
prosecution witnesses who visited the spot of incident, just after
the incident, have not deposed about the availability of the said
diary at the spot of incident on the date of incident. Ld. Counsel
for accused has argued that the said diary was planted later on.
This raises serious doubts on the prosecution story. Moreover, the
contents of diary do not indicate towards the guilt of accused for
the destruction of evidence in the present case. Thus, the
circumstances pertaining to the contents of the diary cannot be
considered as an evidence against the accused.
(ii) Analysis of CDR of mobile phone numbers used by
accused and CCL ‘IK’:-
As per prosecution story, accused was using mobile phone
no. 9212880257 while CCL ‘IK’ was using mobile phone no.
9211812657 and the location of said mobile phones was found in
the vicinity of spot of incident on the night of incident. PW-16
Sh. Rajeev Ranjan, Nodal Officer, Tata Teleservices Ltd. has
proved the CDR, CAF & Location Chart of abovesaid mobile
phone numbers exhibited as Ex. PW-16/A to Ex. PW-16/H. As
per the report of service provider, mobile phone no. 9212880257
was issued in name of one Amar, S/o Sh. Suresh while mobile
phone no. 9211812657 was issued in name of one Pawan, S/o Sh.
Jugal. Mobile phone no. 9212880257 was not recovered from
possession of accused. The prosecution has not examined Sh.
Amar and Sh. Pawan to prove that the said mobile phone
numbers were being used by accused and CCL ‘IK’. In these
circumstances, the CDR and the location chart of the abovesaidFIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 36 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
mobile phone numbers are not relevant in the present case and
the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was present
at the spot of incident at that time of incident.
(iii) Motive for commission of offence:-
(iii)(a). Ld. Defence counsel for accused has argued that
prosecution has failed to prove the motive of commission of
offence and the benefit of same should be given to accused. Per
contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that accused wanted
to marry CCL ‘IK’ and mother of CCL ‘IK’ i.e. deceased
Yasmeen was against the said marriage and hence accused and
CCL ‘IK’ in furtherance of their common intention caused the
disappearance of evidence of murder of deceased Yasmeen.
(iii)(b). Motive is relevant under Sec. 8 of Indian Evidence Act.
Motive is the force that 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 altercation, previous litigation between
the accused and the victim becomes relevant. The mere existence
of motive is by itself is not an incriminating circumstance.
Motive cannot be a substitute of proof, however, it is an
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
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 37 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
mind of perpetrator may not be known to others and hence it has
to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of this case.
(iii)(c). 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 relies 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 of 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 inFIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 38 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
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.”
(iii)(d). Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment tilted as
Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Punjab cited as (1996) 9 SCC 233
observed as under:-
“7…. The motives may be minor but nonetheless
they did provide occasion for attack on the
deceased by the appellants. That apart, even in
absence of motive, the guilt of culprit can be
established in a given case if the other evidence on
record is trustworthy in the absence of proof of
motive has never been considered as fatal to the
prosecution case where the ocular evidence is found
reliable”.
(iii)(e). After apprehension of CCL ‘IK’, her version was
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 39 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
recorded by JWO/SI Neeraj in which CCL ‘IK’ named accused
for helping her in disappearance of evidence. The version of CCL
‘IK’ cannot be read in evidence until and unless any new fact is
discovered in pursuance of her version. None of the prosecution
witness has produced any love letter, whatsapp messages or any
other kind of evidence to show that the accused and CCL ‘IK’
were having love affair. The irrelevancy of the contents of diary
has already been discussed in the preceding paragraphs.
Moreover, prosecution has not examined any witness who had
ever seen accused in company of CCL ‘IK’ at any point of time.
Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the motive for the
commission of offence of disappearance of evidence in the
present case.
(iv) Record of DIIT, Wazirabad:-
PW-22 IO/Inspector Rajesh Malhotra deposed that in her
version, CCL ‘IK’ had mentioned the name of accused Rohit
where accused Rohit was studying with her at DIIT, Wazirabad.
He further deposed that he visited DDIT, Wazirabad where the
owner of Centre namely Rizwan Alam produced the registered
which was checked by him and at page no. 1735, an entry in
name of Karan Sharma with photograph was found and CCL ‘IK’
identified the person in photograph as Rohit Sharma. It is
pertinent to mention that in the abovesaid record, name of Rohit
Sharma was not mentioned. The prosecution has not examined
Sh. Rizwan Alam, owner of the Centre to prove the said record
and also to prove that Karan Sharma who was student of the
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 40 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
Centre was also known with the name of Rohit Sharma.
Prosecution has not produced any evidence to prove that accused
Karan Sharma, who was studying at DIIT, Wazirabad was also
known with the name of Rohit Sharma. Accused has examined
DW-1 Sh. S. N. Pandey, Lecturer, Government Sr. Secondary
School and Smt, Kiran Sihmar, Section Officer, National Institute
of Open Schooling who produced the school record of accused
Karan Sharma, S/o Sh. Pramod Kumar Sharma, exhibited as
DW-1/2 to Ex. DW-1/3 & Ex. DW-2/1 to Ex. DW-2/2. These
defence witnesses were not cross-examined on behalf of Ld.
Addl. PP for the State which means that the prosecution has
admitted that the name of person facing the trial is Karan
Sharma. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that accused
Karan Sharma is also known with the name of Rohit Sharma and
he was the same person about whom deceased Yasmeen had
mentioned in her personal diary.
(v) Use of motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-6SAC-6845
by accused on the night of incident:-
As per the prosecution story, accused had used motorcycle
bearing registration no. DL-6SAC-6845 on the night of incident
and he had taken CCL ‘IK’ on the said motorcycle to the Railway
Station from where, she made call to her step-father/PW-8 Sh.
Sahid Ali. PW-8 Sh. Sahid Ali has not deposed that CCL ‘IK’
told him that she was in company of accused. PW-17 Sh.
Dilshad, who was neighbour of deceased Yasmeen deposed that
on the intervening night of 04-05.05.2015 at about 03:30 am,FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 41 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
when he was sleeping at his house, he was woken up by one
Ahmad Hasan Ali, who used to reside at the first floor of building
in which Yasmeen was residing with her daughter. He further
deposed that he saw heavy smoke was coming from Yasmeen’s
house. PW-17 Sh. Dilshad has not deposed about the presence of
accused at the spot of incident along with his abovesaid
motorcycle. IO has not collected the CCTV footage of the
vicinity of the spot of incident or the Railway Station where
accused allegedly took CCL ‘IK’ on the abovesaid motorcycle.
PW-21 Smt. Manju (teacher of CCL ‘IK’) deposed that she was
standing near Tyagi Farm House and at that time, CCL ‘IK’ came
there in an Auto carrying a suitcase and the Auto stopped there
on seeing her. She also deposed that on request of CCL ‘IK’, she
allowed her to reside her at her house. PW-21 Smt. Manju has
not deposed about the accused on his motorcycle as CCL ‘IK’
came to her in an Auto rickshaw. PW-22 IO/Inspector Rajesh
Malhotra deposed that he went to new Heera Motors from where
he seized the photocopies of documents Marked as PW-22/1
pertaining to motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-6SAC-6845
which was being used by the accused on the date of incident and
seized the same vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-22/D, bearing
signature of Heera Lal, who produced the same. Prosecution has
not examined Heera Lal as PW nor the said motorcycle was ever
produced in the court during the trial. Thus, the prosecution has
failed to prove that the motorcycle bearing registration no.
DL-6SAC-6845 was used by the accused on the night of
commission of offence.
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 42 of 51
50. As per the case of prosecution, accused and CCL ‘IK’ in
furtherance of their common intention threw the danda used by
CCL ‘IK’ in commission of murder of deceased Yasmeen in the
Nala, situtated near Outer Ring Road, near Nehru Vihar. PW-22
IO/Inspector Rajesh Malhotra specifically deposed that the said
Nala was very toxic and said danda could not be searched.
Prosecution has not examined any eyewitness who might have
seen accused and CCL ‘IK’ while throwing the said danda in the
said Nala. Moreover, prosecution has not produced any CCTV
footage in which accused and CCL ‘IK’ can be seen carrying the
said danda or throwing the same in the Nala. Thus, the
prosecution has failed to prove the existence of any such danda
or throwing of the same in the said Nala by accused and CCL
‘IK’.
51. PW-4 SI Nagender Giri, In-charge, Mobile Crime Team
has proved his spot inspection report, Ex. PW-1/B and PW-5 Ct.
Vijender has proved the photographs, Ex. PW-5/1 to Ex.
PW-5/13 clicked by him. Both the witnesses was accompanied
by Ct. Chetan who was fingerprint proficient. No fingerprint of
accused was found at the spot of incident. No other incriminating
evidence pertaining to accused was also found at the spot of
incident by PW-4 SI Nagender Giri nor any such thing can be
seen in the photographs Ex. PW-5/1 to Ex. PW-5/13 clicked by
Ct. Vijender. Thus, nothing incriminating evidence was found at
the spot of incident against the accused.
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 43 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
52. PW-25 Dr. Kavita Goyal has proved FSL Report, Ex.
PW-25/A and PW-26, Dr. Garima Chaudhary has proved the
DNA report, Ex. PW-26/A. Nothing incriminating evidence has
come on record against accused in the said reports and hence
the said reports are irrelevant for the purpose of prosecution of
accused.
53. To prove the prosecution case, the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses must be reliable. It is not the quantity but
the quality of the testimony of the witness that helps a court in
arriving at a conclusion in any case. The test in this regard is that
the evidence adduced by the parties must have a ring of truth. In
a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt and it is possible only when the testimony of
prosecution witnesses is cogent, trustworthy and credible. To
secure a conviction of accused, the testimony of the prosecution
witness must be of sterling quality.
54. In case titled as ‘Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT
of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21′, it is held that :
“22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling
witness” should be of a very high quality and
caliber whose version should, therefore, be
unassailable. The court considering the
version of such witness should be in a
position to accept it for its face value without
any hesitation. To test the quality of such aFIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 44 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
witness, the status of the witness would be
immaterial and what would be relevant is the
truthfulness of the statement made by such a
witness. What would be more relevant would
be the consistency of the statement right from
the starting point till the end, namely, at the
time when the witness makes the initial
statement and ultimately before the court. It
should be natural and consistent with the
case of the prosecution qua the accused.
There should not be any prevarication in the
version of such a witness. The witness should
be in a position to withstand the cross-
examination of any length and howsoever
strenuous it may be and under no
circumstances should given room for any
doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the
persons involved, as well as the sequence of
it. Such a version should have corelation with
each and every one of other supporting
material such as the recoveries made, the
weapons used, the manner of offence
committed, the scientific evidence and the
expert opinion. The said version should
consistently match with the version of very
other witness. It can even be stated that itFIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 45 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
should be akin to the test applied in the case
of circumstantial evidence where there should
not be any missing link in the chain of
circumstances to hold the accused guilty of
the offence alleged against him. Only, if the
version of such a witness qualifies the above
test as well as all other such similar tests to
be applied, can it be held that such a witness
can be called as a “sterling witness’ whose
version can be accepted by the court without
any corroboration and based on which the
guilty can be punished. To be more precise,
the version of the said witness on the core
spectrum of the crime should remain intact
while all other attendant materials, namely,
oral, documentary and material objects
should match the said version in material
particulars in order to enable the court trying
the offence to rely on the core version to sieve
the other supporting materials for holding the
offender guilty of the charge alleged.”
55. Similarly, in case of Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra,
(2007) SCC 170, it is held that :-
“23. It is no doubt true that the conviction in a
case of rape can be based solely on the testimonyFIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 46 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case
where the court is convinced about the truthfulness
of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances
with cast of shadow of doubt over her veracity. It
the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality
that may be sufficient to sustain an order of
conviction solely on the basis of her testimony. In
the instant case we do not fine her evidence to be
of such quality.”
56. Thus, from the above said judgments, it is clear that the
version of the witness should be natural one and it must
corroborate the prosecution case. Such version must match with
the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. It should be of such
a quality that there should not be any shadow of doubt upon it.
57. Due to inconsitency and contradictions in testimonies of
PW-8 Sh. Sahid Ali, PW-17 Sh. Dilshad & PW-21 Ms. Anju
being not the eyewitnesses of alleged incident or the relevant
facts, serious doubts have been created upon the prosecution
story. The versions of PW-8 Sh. Sahid Ali, PW-17 Sh. Dilshad &
PW-21 Ms. Anju are not natural one. The things appears to have
not happened in the manner these have been projected. In the
light of aforesaid discussion, this court is of the considered
opinion that the testimonies of PW-8 Sh. Sahid Ali, PW-17 Sh.
Dilshad & PW-21 Ms. Anju are not clear, cogent, credible and
trustworthy and same are not corroborated by other material
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 47 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
evidence. The testimonies of PW-8 Sh. Sahid Ali, PW-17 Sh.
Dilshad & PW-21 Ms. Anju in the present case cannot be said to
be of sterling quality to secure the conviction of the accused.
58. It is established principle of law that if two views are
possible, the view favourable to the accused must be accepted.
The benefit of doubt must always go to the accused as the
prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
59. The Hon’ble Apex court in Rang Bahadur Singh Vs. State
of U.P. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1209 has held as follows:
“The timetested rule in that acquittal of a
guilty person should be preferred to conviction of
an innocent person. Unless the prosecution
establishes the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed
on the accused. A criminal court cannot afford to
deprive liberty of the appellants, lifelong liberty,
without having at least a reasonable level of
certainty that the appellants were the real
culprits.”
60. In yet another decision in State of U.P. Vs. Ram Veer
Singh and Another reported in 2007(6) Supreme 164 the Hon’ble
Apex Court has held as follows:
“The golden thread which runs through the web
of administration of justice in criminal cases is
that if two view are possible on the evidenceFIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 48 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of
the accused and the other to his innocence, the
view which is favourable to the accused should
be adopted. The paramount consideration of the
Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is
prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may
arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than
from the conviction of an innocent. In a case
where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is
cast upon the appellate Court to reappreciate
the evidence where the accused has been
acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to
whether any of the accused really committed any
offence or not.”
61. In the present case, due to inconsistency and contradictions
in testimonies of PW-8 Sh. Sahid Ali, PW-17 Sh. Dilshad &
PW-21 Ms. Anju coupled with non-recovery of danda & mobile
phone, non-collection of the relevant CCTV footage, non-
availability of any eyewitness of alleged incident, doubt in fixing
the identity of accused and non-collection of any corroborative
evidence, serious doubts have been created on the prosecution
story and two views are possible in this case and applying the
law laid down by Hon’ble Superme Court of India in ‘Rang
Bahadur Singh (Supra) and Ram Veer Singh (Supra), the benefit
of the same must go to the accused.
FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 49 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
62. On appreciation of entire evidence led by the prosecution
and applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in ‘Sharad Birdichand Sharda (Supra)’, this court has
reached on the following conclusions:-
(i) This court is of considered opinion that the evidence
led by the prosecution against accused is not clear,
cogent, crediable and trustworthy and from the
evidence led by the prosecution the guilt of accused
has not been fully established.
(ii) The facts established by the prosecution are not
completely consistent with the hypotheses of the
guilt of accused and other hypotheses that the
offence may have been committed by some other
person is possibile in the present case.
(iii) The circumstances established by the prosecution
are not conclusive in nature and tendency.
(iv) The circumstances brought on record by the
prosecution have not excluded every possible
hypotheses except the hypotheses which the
prosecution intended to prove.
(v) The chain of evidence led by the prosecution is not
so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground
for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of
accused and prosecution has failed to prove that in
all probabilities, the offence has been committed byFIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 50 of 51
State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma
accused and CCL ‘IK’ in furtherance of their
common intention only.
63. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered
opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of
offence punishable under Section 201/34 IPC, against accused
Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma beyond reasonable doubt.
64. Accordingly in view of the aforesaid discussion, accused
Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma is hereby acquitted for offence
punishable under Section 201/34 IPC.
Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR Announced in the open court KUMAR KHARTA Date: KHARTA on 14th day of August, 2025 2025.08.14 15:03:05 +0530 (Virender Kumar Kharta) ASJ/FTC-02(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI:14.08.2025 FIR No. 400/2015, PS: Timarpur Page No. 51 of 51 State Vs. Karan Sharma @ Rohit Sharma