Delhi District Court
State vs Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli (1-J/C) on 24 January, 2025
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.DLWT01-004650-2020
Sessions Case No. 321/2020
FIR No. 734/2019
PS: Nangloi
U/s 302 IPC
State Vs. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli
a) Date of commission of offence : 15/11/2019
b) Name of the complainant : Sh. Suka @ Ravi
S/o Late Sh. Ghisa Ram
c) Name of accused and address : Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli
S/o Late Sh. Kedar Nath
R/o H.No. S-3/10, Gali No.5,
Mangal Bazar Road, Swaran Park,
Mundka, Delhi
d) Offence complained of : u/s. 302 IPC
e) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
f) Final order : CONVICTED
Date of institution of the case : 13/02/2020
Date of committal : 07/10/2020
Date on which judgment was : 17/12/2024
reserved
Date of judgment : 24/01/2025
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:38:39 -
0200
FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.1 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 15/11/2019
at about 10:40 PM at Mangal Bazar Road, in-front of Janta Meat Shop,
Swaran Park, Mundka, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Nangloi, accused
Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli had committed the murder of Kanhiya
(deceased) by stabbing him with a knife repeatedly on the vital parts of his
body i.e. chest and abdomen.
REGISTRATION OF FIR, INVESTIGATION AND CHARGE-SHEET
2. In the present case, on the complaint of the complainant
Sh. Suka @ Ravi, FIR bearing No.734/2019, Police Station Nangloi,
U/s. 302 IPC was got registered by the Police of Police Station Nangloi.
After registration of the FIR, the matter was investigated by the police and
on completion of the investigation, the present charge-sheet was submitted
in the Court of Ld. MM on 13/02/2020 for trial of the accused Neeraj @
Prince @ Guthli.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:38:49 -0200
FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.2 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli
SUPPLY OF COPIES AND COMMITTAL
3. Copies of the charge-sheet were supplied to the accused Neeraj
@ Prince @ Guthli in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, vide
order dated 07/10/2020 passed by the Ld. MM, the present case was
committed to the Court of Sessions.
CHARGE
4. Finding a prima-facie case against the accused Neeraj @ Prince
@ Guthli, charge for the offence u/s. 302 IPC was framed against the
accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. Prosecution was then called upon to substantiate its case by
examining its witnesses. The prosecution in support of its case had
examined 24 witnesses. The prosecution had examined the following
witnesses:-
(1) PW-1 HC Dinesh
(2) PW-2 Smt. Dhanni
(3) PW-3 ASI Shiv Charan
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:38:59 -0200
FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.3 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli
(4) PW-4 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Vats
(5) PW-5 HC Anil Kumar
(6) PW-6 HC Bhim Singh
(7) PW-7 Ct. Sandeep Kumar
(8) PW-8 ASI Sunil Kumar
(9) PW-9 SI Rohit Kumar
(10) PW-10 Sh. Suka @ Ravi
(11) PW-11 Ct. Ravi Sharma
(12) PW-12 Ct. Ummed Singh
(13) PW-13 HC Kulbir Singh
(14) PW-14 Dr. Anurag Thapar, Specialist, Department of Forensic
Medicine, Indira Gandhi Hospital, Dwarka, Delhi
(15) PW-15 Ct. Sanjay
(16) PW-16 ASI Gulab Singh
(17) PW-17 ASI Parminder Kumar
(18) PW-18 ASI Sanjay
(19) PW-19 Inspector Vipin Kumar
(20) PW-20 Dr. Subhash Chandra, Senior Scientific Officer
(Chemistry), FSL, Rohini, Delhi
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:39:08 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.4 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli(21) PW-21 Dr. Monika Shahi, Senior Scientific Officer
(Physics), FSL, Rohini, Delhi
(22) PW-22 Sh. Saurabh Pathak, Junior Forensic/Chemical
Examiner (Biology), RFSL, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi
(23) PW-23 Dr. Dharmender, Casualty Medical Officer, Sanjay
Gandhi Medical Hospital, Mangol Puri, New Delhi
(24) PW-24 Inspector Rajesh Kumar
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE RELIED UPON BY THE
PROSECUTION
6. (1) FIR Ex.PW-1/A
(2) Endorsement on rukka Ex.PW-1/B
(3) Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW-1/C
(4) Dead body identification memo Ex.PW-2/A
(5) Scene of Crime Report Ex.PW-3/A
(6) Scaled site plan Ex.PW-5/A
(7) DD No. 46 A Ex.PW-6/A
(8) RC and acknowledgments Ex.PW-7/A, Ex.PW-7/B,
Ex.PW-7/C and Ex.PW-7/D
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:39:17 –
0200
FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.5 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli(9) Statement/ complaint of the complainant Suka @ Ravi
Ex.PW-10/A
(10) Arrest memo of the accused Ex.PW-10/B
(11) Dead body identification memo Ex.PW-10/C
(12) Dead body handing over memo Ex.PW-10/D
(13) Photographs of the spot Ex.PW-12/1 to Ex.PW-12/23
(14) Copy of entry at serial No. 2825 in register No.19 Ex.PW-13/A
(15) Copy of entry at serial No. 2826 in register No.19 Ex.PW-13/B
(16) Photocopy of RC No. 217/21/19 Ex.PW-13/C
(17) Acknowledgment Ex.PW-13/D
(18) Photocopy of RC No. 218/21/19 Ex.PW-13/E
(19) Acknowledgment Ex.PW-13/F
(20) Post-mortem report No. 1094/19 Ex.PW-14/A
(21) Sketch of knife prepared by PW-14 Ex.PW-14/B
(22) Subsequent opinion Ex.PW-14/C
(23) Rukka Ex.PW-16/A
(24) Seizure memos of blood stained concrete and blood in gauze
Ex.PW-17/A and Ex.PW-17/B
(25) Sketch of knife prepared by IO Ex.PW-17/C
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:39:24 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.6 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli(26) Seizure memo of knife Ex.PW-17/D
(27) Seizure memo of blood stained slippers of the accused
Ex.PW-17/E
(28) Seizure memo of clothes of the accused Ex.PW-17/F
(29) Personal search memo of the accused Ex.PW-18/A
(30) Disclosure statement of the accused Ex.PW-18/B
(31) FSL report dated 17/02/2020 Ex.PW-20/A
(32) FSL report dated 25/02/2021 Ex.PW-21/A
(33) FSL report dated 09/12/2020 Ex.PW-22/A
(34) Allelic Data Ex.PW-22/B
(35) MLC No. 18780 of the deceased Ex.PW-23/A
(36) Site plan Ex.PW-24/A
(37) Pointing out memo of the spot of occurrence Ex.PW-24/B
(38) Seizure memo of viscera and clothes of deceased alongwith
sample seal Ex.PW-24/C
Apart from aforesaid documentary evidence, the prosecution
has also relied upon the other evidence (case property) i.e. knife
Ex.P-10/1, earth material Ex.P-1, gauze piece Ex.P-2 and clothes of the
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:39:32 –
0200
FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.7 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthliaccused Ex.P-3 (colly).
7. TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES.
(i) PW-1 in his testimony had deposed that on 16/11/2019 at about
4:23 AM, PSI Rohit Kumar came to Police Station with a rukka sent by ASI
Gulab Singh for registration of FIR under Section 302 IPC and he got the
FIR typed with the help of CCTNS Operator, compared the same with
original rukka and found the same to be correct and thereafter, print out was
taken and he signed the same. After registration of FIR Ex.PW-1/A, the
investigation was marked to Inspector Rajesh. Endorsement on rukka
Ex.PW-1/B is in his handwriting and signature. He had handed over the
copy of FIR and original rukka to PSI Rohit Kumar with directions to hand
over the same to Inspector Rajesh. The requisite certificate u/s. 65-B of
Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW-1/C is bearing his signature. Ct. Ravi was
handed over the copies of the FIR with directions to deliver the same to
Ld. MM and senior officers of the police, who left the police station with
copies on Govt. motorcycle.
PW-1 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused. Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:39:40 –
0200
FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.8 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli
(ii) PW-2 in her testimony had deposed that her husband Kanhiya
was residing in Swaran Park, Nangloi, Delhi. On information regarding
death of her husband on 16/11/2019, she came to Delhi on 17/11/2019 and
identified the dead body of her deceased husband at the mortuary of SGM
Hospital, Mangolpuri during inquest proceedings and her statement
Ex.PW-2/A was recorded.
PW-2 was not cross-examined by counsel for the accused
despite opportunity.
(iii) PW-3 in his testimony had deposed that in the intervening night
of 15-16/11/2019, he was posted as In-charge, Crime Team. On that night,
on receipt of an information through Control Room, he alongwith
photographer Ct. Umed Singh and Finger Print Proficient Ct. Sanjay had
gone to Shop No. 98/5, Janta Halal Meat, Mangal Bazar Road, Swaran
Park, Nangloi, Delhi. ASI Parminder Kumar, HC Sanjay and other police
staff were already present and blood was found lying/splashed in the gali
and it was revealed that deceased had been removed to Hospital. Ct. Umed
Singh took photographs of the spot from different angles and Ct. Sanjay
checked the finger prints and his proceedings continued from 12:05 to
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:39:47 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.9 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli01:00 AM on 16/11/2019 and he had prepared Scene of Crime Report
Ex.PW-3/A.
PW-3 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(iv) PW-4 in his testimony had deposed that on 05/11/2019 at about
11:00 PM, he was passing through Janta Meat Shop, Mangal Bazar Road,
Swaran Park, Nangloi, Delhi. As he was going from his plot to Swaran
Park, he saw one person lying in injured condition outside Janta Meat Shop.
He called at No. 100 from his mobile no. 9211315179. On 25/11/2019 on
being called by the IO, he had gone to the police station and police official
recorded his statement.
PW-4 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(v) PW-5 in his testimony had deposed that on 03/12/2019, he had
visited the spot i.e. near Janta Halal Meat Shop, Shop No. 98/5, Mangal
Bazar Road, Swaran Park, Nangloi, Delhi alongwith IO/Inspector Rajesh
Kumar and public witness Suka @ Ravi. With the help of Inspector Rajesh
and public witness, he took the measurements at the spot and prepared the
scaled site plan Ex.PW-5/A and handed over the same to IO on 09/12/2019.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:39:56 -0200
FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.10 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli
PW-5 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(vi) PW-6 in his testimony had deposed that on 15/11/2019, he was
working as Duty Officer from 4:00 PM to 12 midnight. On that day, at
about 10:56 PM, he had received an information regarding one injured lying
at Mangal Bazar Road, Swaran Park, Nangloi, Delhi and he had recorded
the said information in DD register at Sr. No. 46A Ex.PW-6/A and the said
DD was assigned to ASI Gulab Singh for further proceedings.
PW-6 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(vii) PW-7 in his testimony had deposed that on 03/12/2019, on the
direction of IO/Inspector Rajesh Kumar, he took the exhibits i.e. one
wooden box containing viscera and seven parcels duly sealed with the seal
of ‘SGMH’ with sample seal of ‘SGMH’ alongwith forwarding letter and
Road Certificates from the malkhana and deposited the same at FSL,
Rohini. After depositing the same there, he came back to Police Station and
deposited the copy of RC and the acknowledgments Ex.PW-7/A,
Ex.PW-7/B, Ex.PW-7/C and Ex.PW-7/D in the malkhana and IO had
recorded his statement in this case. So long as the exhibits remained in his
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:40:03 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.11 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthlipossession, same were not tampered with and seals remained intact.
PW-7 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(viii) PW-8 in his testimony had deposed that in the intervening night
of 15-16/11/2019, he was on duty as In-charge, PCR, Coral-65 from
8:00 PM to 8:00 AM and at about 11:00 PM, on receipt of an information,
he had reached at Mangal Bazar Road, Swaran Park, Nangloi, Delhi and
saw one person lying in injured condition in a pool of blood in-front of
Janta Halal Meat Shop. He with the help of HC Sanjeev, who was on duty
with him, picked the injured and sat him in the PCR and in the meantime,
ASI Gulab Singh, PSI Rohit Kumar, HC Sanjay and other staff of PS
Nangloi reached at the spot. At the same time, one young person came at
the spot having knife in his hand and told the police officials that he had
stabbed the injured with the said knife and he had apprehended the said
young boy and handed over him with knife to ASI Gulab Singh and HC
Sanjay and thereafter, he took the injured in PCR Van and got him admitted
at SGM Hospital vide MLC No. 18477 where the injured was declared as
‘brought dead’ by the Doctors in his presence. IO had recorded his
statement.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:40:14 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.12 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ GuthliPW-8 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(ix) PW-9 in his testimony had deposed that in the intervening night
of 15-16/11/2019, he was on night emergency duty alongwith ASI Gulab
Singh. On receipt of DD No.46A by ASI Gulab Singh, he alongwith ASI
Gulab Singh reached at Mangal Bazar Road, Swaran Park, Nangloi, Delhi
and found one person lying in an injured condition in a pool of blood. PCR
Van was already present there when they reached. Accused Prince @ Guthli
came at the spot with a knife and revealed that he had stabbed the injured
with the said knife. They apprehended the accused with the knife and the
injured was removed to Hospital by the PCR officials. One person namely
Sukha @ Ravi, who stated himself to be nephew of injured, came at the spot
and told them that accused had stabbed the injured in his presence. Crime
Team was called at the spot. ASI Parminder and other staff also came at the
spot. The knife was handed over to ASI Parminder and the accused was
handed over to HC Sanjay and other beat staff. He alongwith ASI Gulab
Singh and Sukha @ Ravi left the spot for SGM Hospital where the injured
was already declared brought dead by the doctors. The dead body was
preserved in the mortuary. ASI Gulab Singh had recorded the statement of
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:40:21 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.13 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthlithe complainant Sukha @ Ravi and prepared the rukka and handed over the
same to him. He took the rukka to the Police Station for registration of the
FIR and after registration of FIR, he came back at the hospital alongwith
original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to ASI Gulab
Singh. The investigation was marked to Inspector Rajesh Kumar, who
recorded his statement.
PW-9 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(x) PW-10 in his testimony had deposed that he has been working
as rag-picker and deceased Kanhiya was his uncle (चाचा). His uncle
Kanhiya used to sleep at the roof of house situated at Mangal Bazar Road,
Swaran Park, Nangloi and used to run goods rickshaw. He does not not
remember if his uncle Kanhiya also resided as a tenant in the house of
Kedar Nath. On 15/11/2019 at about 10:30 p.m., he was coming back from
his duty and on or about 10:40 p.m. while walking, when he had reached at
Mangal Bazar Road, in front of Janta Meat Shop ahead of Swaran Park,
Mundka, he saw an altercation in between his uncle and accused Neeraj @
Prince @ Guthli. He also saw that accused was carrying one knife with him
and was uttering the words “मेरे माँ और मेरे पिता को तु मने गाली दी है आज
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:40:28 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.14 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthliमैं तेरा काम तमााम कर देता हूँ”. Accused Neeraj was also using abusing
language against his uncle Kanhiya Lal and while using the said abusive
language, accused Neeraj assaulted his uncle over his chest and abdomen
with the knife being carried by him at that time. Due to said stab injury, his
uncle Kanhiya Lal started bleeding profusely and fell down. Due to fear, he
raised noises and being perturbed, he ran away from there as he was under
apprehension that accused Neeraj would also inflict injuries with said knife
to him. After running at some distance, he hided himself. Someone made a
call at No.100 to the police. Upon seeing the police present at the spot, he
went near the police, by that time, accused Neeraj had already been
apprehended by the police alongwith said knife. He also saw the clothes of
accused Neeraj being stained with blood and he had informed the police
officials present at the spot that the incident was witnessed by him. In his
presence, police officials took his uncle to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial
Hospital. He had also visited the said Hospital where he came to know that
his uncle had been declared dead. On the same day, police had recorded his
statement Ex.PW-10/A at Police Station and on the basis of his said
statement, police got the FIR registered. IO had also effected the arrest of
the accused in his presence vide arrest memo Ex.PW-10/B. IO had also
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:40:36 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.15 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthliprepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence at his instance. He
had also visited the mortuary at the time of post-mortem of the body of his
uncle and in the said mortuary, he was shown the body of his uncle, which
he had identified vide identification memo Ex.PW-10/C and after
post-mortem, the body of his uncle was handed over to him vide memo
Ex.PW-10/D.
PW-10 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(xi) PW-11 in his testimony had deposed that on 16/11/2019, after
registration of the FIR of the present case, duty officer HC Dinesh Kumar
had handed over him the copy of FIR in an envelope with directions to hand
over the same to Ld. Jurisdictional MM, DCP and Joint CP at about
5:10 AM. As per his directions, he had left the police station at the same
time on motorcycle No. DL-1SY-3725 and handed over the same to the
abovesaid officers. His statement was recorded by the IO.
PW-11 was not cross-examined by the accused despite
opportunity.
(xii) PW-12 in his testimony had deposed that in the year 2019, he
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:40:43 -0200
FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.16 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli
was posted at Mobile Crime Team, Outer District as Photographer. In the
intervening night of 15-16/11/2019, he alongwith Mobile Crime Team
In-charge ASI Shiv Charan had gone to the spot i.e. in-front of Shop
No.98/5, Janta Halal Meat Shop, Mangal Bazar Road, Swaran Park,
Nangloi, Delhi with his official Digital Camera. As per instructions of IO,
ASI Gulab Singh and In-charge Crime Team, he had taken 23 photographs
Ex.PW-12/1 to Ex.PW-12/23 of the spot from different angles, got the same
developed and handed over the same to the IO.
PW-12 was not cross-examined by the accused despite
opportunity.
(xiii) PW-13 in his testimony had deposed that on 16/11/2019, he
was posted as MHC(M) at PS Nangloi and on that day, IO Inspector Rajesh
Kumar had deposited seven pullandas sealed with the seal of ‘RK’ in
Malkhana and he had made entry at serial No. 2825 in register No.19
Ex.PW-13/A in this regard. Thereafter, on 17/11/2019, IO Inspector Rajesh
Kumar had deposited two pullandas sealed with the seal of ‘SGMH’
mortuary, Mangolpuri, Delhi and two sample seals in Malkhana and he had
made entry at serial No. 2826 in register No.19 Ex.PW-13/B in this regard.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:40:49 -0200
FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.17 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli
Thereafter, on 03/12/2019, on the instructions of IO Inspector Rajesh
Kumar, he had handed over one wooden box containing viscera and blood
of deceased Kanhiya, sealed with the seal of ‘SGMH’ mortuary, Mangolpuri,
Delhi and one sample seal to Ct. Sandeep with direction to deposit the same
at FSL vide road certificate No. 217/21/19 Ex.PW-13/C. After deposit,
Ct. Sandeep had handed over him the acknowledgment Ex.PW-13/D from
FSL. On the same day i.e. on 03/12/2019, on the instructions of IO
Inspector Rajesh Kumar, he had also handed over seven sealed pullandas
and one sample seal to Ct. Sandeep with direction to deposit the same at
FSL vide road certificate No. 218/21/19 Ex.PW-13/E. After deposit,
Ct. Sandeep had handed over him the acknowledgment Ex.PW-13/F from
FSL. So far as the aforesaid case property remained with him, the same
were not tampered in any manner and he had also made corresponding
entries in register No. 19 regarding the handing over of the case property to
Ct. Sandeep, who had deposited the same in FSL, Rohini.
PW-13 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(xiv) PW-14 in his testimony had deposed that on 17/11/2019, he
had conducted the post-mortem on the body of deceased Kanhiya. After
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:40:56 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.18 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthliconducting post-mortem, he had prepared post-mortem report No. 1094/19
Ex.PW-14/A and opined the cause of death to be hemorrhagic shock due to
chest and abdominal injury. All injuries were ante-mortem in nature. He had
also opined that injury No.1 & 2 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary
course of nature and were caused by sharp single edged weapon. He had
also opined the time since death approximately one and half days as per
inquest papers. He had also preserved blood and viscera to rule out any
prior intoxication and after sealing the said exhibits, he had handed over the
same to investigating agency alongwith inquest papers and sample seal of
department. Thereafter, on 30/11/2019, he had received an information from
Inspector Rajesh Kumar and one sealed white pullanda sealed with 8 intact
seals of RK. He had opened the said pullanda, which was found containing
one single edged knife and he had prepared the sketch Ex.PW-14/B of said
knife. He had also examined the said knife and opined that injuries as
mentioned in post-mortem report Ex.PW-14/A i.e. external injury No.1 & 2
were possible with the produced weapon of offence i.e. knife or any other
similar one. Since the blade of said knife was blood stained at several
places, he had mentioned that weapon can be sent to FSL for expert opinion.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:41:04 -
0200
FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.19 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli
After examination, he had re-sealed the said knife with the seal of ‘SGMH
MORTUARY MANGOL PURI DELHI-83’ and alongwith sample seal, sent
back to IO. The subsequent opinion Ex.PW-14/C was prepared by him.
PW-14 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(xv) PW-15 in his testimony had deposed that in the intervening
night of 15-16/11/2019, he was posted as finger print proficient with crime
team, Outer District. On that day, a message was received from the control
room and accordingly, he alongwith Crime Team In-charge ASI Shiv
Charan and crime team photographer Ct. Ummed Singh reached at
in-front of shop No. 98/5, Janta Halal Meat, Mangal Bazar Road, Swaran
Park, Nangloi. At the spot, they met with ASI Parminder Kumar, HC Sanjay
and other police officials of PS Nangloi. He made efforts to lift the chance
prints but no chance prints were lifted. Ct. Ummed took photographs and
ASI Shiv Charan inspected the place of occurrence and handed over crime
team report to ASI Parminder. During investigation, IO had recorded his
statement in this regard.
PW-15 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:41:12 -
0200
FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.20 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli
(xvi) PW-16 in his testimony had deposed that in the intervening
night of 15-16/11/2019, he was posted at PS Nangloi as ASI and was on
night emergency duty from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am. On that night, he had
received DD No. 46A dated 15/11/2019, accordingly, he alongwith
PSI Rohit went to the place of information i.e. Mangal Bazar Road, in-front
of Janta meat shop, Swaran Park, Mundka, Delhi and upon reaching at the
spot, they found one person lying in injured unconscious condition. The
said injured person was bleeding from his abdomen and chest. In the
meantime, Inspector Rajesh, Inspector V.N. Jha, ASI Parminder, HC Sanjay,
Ct. Sandeep and other police officials also reached at the spot. In the
meantime, accused Neeraj @ Prince also reached at the spot. In the
meantime, complainant Sukka @ Ravi also reached at the spot and he
identified accused Neeraj @ Prince being the person, who assaulted
Kanhiya with knife. The wearing clothes of accused Neeraj @ Prince were
found to be blood stained. Accused Neeraj @ Prince also produced one
knife and the said knife was stained with blood with which he had assaulted
Kanhiya. He had produced accused Neeraj @ Prince as well as the
recovered knife to ASI Parminder. In the meantime, the PCR van had also
reached at the spot and injured Kanhiya was sent to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:41:19 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.21 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthliin the said PCR van. He had appointed the other staff at the spot and
alongwith PSI Rohit and complainant Sukka @ Ravi went to Sanjay Gandhi
Hospital. In the said hospital, injured Kanhiya was declared brought dead
vide MLC No. 18780/19. In the hospital, he had inspected the body of
Kanhiya and found 6 to 7 knife injuries over the chest and abdomen of
Kanhiya. He got shifted the body of Kanhiya to the mortuary. In the
hospital, he had recorded the statement of complainant Sukka @ Ravi and
on the basis of said statement and contents of MLC, he had prepared rukka
Ex.PW-16/A and rukka was handed over to PSI Rohit, who accordingly
went to PS and got the FIR registered. Thereafter, he alongwith complainant
Sukka @ Ravi reached back at the spot and when they reached back to the
spot, he found crime team officials present over there and were inspecting
the place of occurrence. In the meantime, PSI Rohit reached at the spot and
handed over copy of FIR and rukka to Inspector Rajesh Kumar, to whom
investigation was marked. On the spot, it was also revealed to him that
accused Prince had already been taken to Police Station by HC Sanjay.
During investigation, IO had recorded his statement in that regard.
PW-16 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:41:27 -0200
FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.22 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli
(xvii) PW-17 in his testimony had deposed that in the intervening
night of 15-16/11/2019, he was posted at PS Nangloi as ASI. On that day,
DD No. 46A dated 15/11/2019 was marked to ASI Gulab Singh, who
alongwith PSI Rohit went to the place of information i.e. Mangal Bazar
Road, in-front of Janta meat shop, Swaran Park, Mundka, Delhi. On the
same day, he alongwith Inspector Rajesh, Inspector V.N.Jha, HC Sanjay,
Ct. Sandeep and other police officials also reached at the spot. Upon
reaching at the spot, they found one person lying in injured unconscious
condition and the said injured person was bleeding from his abdomen and
chest. In the meantime, accused Neeraj @ Prince also reached at the spot. In
the meantime, complainant Sukka @ Ravi also reached at the spot and he
had identified accused Neeraj @ Prince being the person, who assaulted
Kanhiya with knife. The wearing clothes of accused Neeraj @ Prince were
found to be blood stained. Accused Neeraj @ Prince also produced one
knife and the said knife was stained with blood with which he had assaulted
Kanhiya. ASI Gulab Singh had produced accused Neeraj @ Prince before
them as well as the recovered knife to him. In the meantime, the PCR van
had also reached at the spot and injured Kanhiya was sent to Sanjay Gandhi
Hospital in the said PCR van. ASI Gulab Singh had appointed the other
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:41:34 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.23 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthlistaff at the spot and alongwith PSI Rohit and complainant Sukka @ Ravi
went to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. In the hospital, ASI Gulab Singh had
recorded the statement of the complainant Sukka @ Ravi. On the basis of
said statement and contents of MLC, ASI Gulab Singh had prepared rukka
Ex.PW-16/A and rukka was handed over to PSI Rohit, who accordingly,
went to PS for getting the FIR registered. Thereafter, ASI Gulab Singh
alongwith complainant Sukka @ Ravi reached back at the spot. Upon the
information of ASI Gulab Singh, crime team officials present over there and
were inspecting the place of occurrence. In the meantime, PSI Rohit had
reached at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and rukka to Inspector
Rajesh Kumar to whom investigation was marked. During investigation,
Inspector Rajesh Kumar had lifted blood in gauze and blood stained
concrete and kept the said exhibits in separate plastic containers and sealed
with the seal of RK and seized the same vide seizure memos Ex.PW-17/A
and Ex.PW-17/B. Thereafter, IO had prepared the rough site plan of the
place of occurrence at the instance of the complainant Sukka @ Ravi.
Thereafter, they brought accused Neeraj @ Prince to police station and in
the said police station, IO had prepared the sketch of knife Ex.PW-17/C. IO
had also measured the said knife and upon measuring, the total length of
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:41:43 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.24 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthliknife came to 30.5 cm, of handle came to 13.5 cm and of blade came to
18.8 cm. IO had kept the said knife in a cloth pullanda and said pullanda
was sealed with the seal of RK and was seized vide seizure memo
ExPW-17/D. IO had also seized the wearing blood stained slippers of
accused Neeraj @ Prince after keeping the same in a cloth pullanda and
after sealing the same with the seal of RK vide seizure memo Ex.PW-17/E.
IO had also got changed the clothes of accused and seized the blood stained
clothes i.e. blood stained black colour jacket and blood stained mehandi
colour pant and kept them in a polythene and thereafter, prepared a cloth
pullanda and said pullanda was sealed with the seal of RK and seized the
same vide seizure memo Ex.PW-17/F. IO had also effected the arrest of
accused Neeraj @ Prince and conducted his personal search and also
recorded his disclosure statement. During investigation, IO had recorded
his statement in that regard.
PW-17 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(xviii) PW-18 in his testimony had deposed the same facts as deposed
by PW-17 in his testimony.
PW-18 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:41:52 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.25 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli(xix) PW-19 in his testimony had deposed that on 25/01/2020,
further investigation of the present case was marked to him. He had perused
the case file and since the investigation was complete, he had prepared
charge-sheet with a request that upon receipt of FSL report, supplementary
charge-sheet be filed and upon receipt of FSL reports/viscera report, he had
filed the same in Court.
PW-19 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(xx) PW-20 in his testimony had deposed that on 03/12/2019, he
was posted at FSL, Rohini, as Senior Scientific Officer. On that day, their
office had received one sealed wooden box/parcel sealed with the seal of
“SGMH MORTUARY MANGOLPURI”. Upon checking, the seals over the
said parcel was found intact and tallied as per forwarding authority
specimen seal. The said parcel was marked to him for examination
purposes. He had opened the said parcel/wooden box and the material
contained in parcel no.1 were marked as Ex.1A, Ex.1B and Ex.1C. On
chemical, microscopic, TLC and GC-HS examination, Ex.1A, Ex.1B and
Ex.1C were found contain ‘Ethyl Alcohol’. Exhibit 1C was found to contain
“Ethyl Alcohol” 196.8mg/100 ml of blood. After examination, he had
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:42:01 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.26 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthliprepared FSL report dated 17/02/2020 Ex.PW-20/A. After examination, the
remnants of the exhibits were sealed with the seal of S.C. F.S.L. DELHI.
PW-20 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(xxi) PW-21 in her testimony had deposed that she was posted at
FSL, Rohini at Physics Department since the year 2016. Vide letter dated
03/12/2019, their office had received two sealed parcels in connection with
present case on 12/11/2020 through Biology Division. The said parcels were
marked to her for examination purposes and the seals over the said parcels
were found intact and tallied with the specimen seals as per forwarding
letter/FSL form. She had opened the said parcels and material contained in
parcel no. 3 i.e. knife was marked as Exhibit 3, the material contained in
parcel no. 6 was marked as Exhibit 6a (one black colour pant), 6b (shirt)
and 6c (underwear). She had examined all the aforesaid Exhibits. Upon
examination, she found six cut marks on Exhibit 6b which were marked as
Q1 to Q6 on Exhibit 6b i.e. shirt and one cut mark which was marked as Q7
on Exhibit 6c i.e. underwear. The said cut marks were examined physically
under magnification and using measuring tools in respect of shape and size.
Test cut marks T1 and T2 were made on Exhibit 6b with the help of knife
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:42:08 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.27 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ GuthliExhibit 3 and the test cut marks were compared with the crime cut marks.
On the basis of cut shape and morphology, the cut marks Q1 to Q6 on
Exhibit 6a and cut marks Q7 on Exhibit 6c could be caused by the sharp
edged weapon like knife Exhibit 3. Upon examination, she had prepared
FSL report dated 25/02/2021 Ex.PW-21/A and after examination, the said
parcels were sealed with the seal of FSL DR.M.S. Delhi.
PW-21 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(xxii) PW-22 in his testimony had deposed that on 03/12/2019, he
was posted at FSL, Rohini. On that day, their office had received seven
sealed parcels in connection with FIR No. 734/2019, PS Nangloi. The said
parcels were marked to him for examination purposes. He had checked the
said parcels and seals over the said parcels were found intact. Out of the
seven parcels, three were sealed plastic container, one was sealed cloth
parcel and three were sealed polythene. He had opened the said parcels and
the material contained therein were marked as Exhibit 1 to Exhibit 7. He
had examined the said material and upon examination, blood was detected
on Exhibit 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 5, 6a, 6b, 6c and 7. The said exhibits were also
subjected to DNA examination. Upon examination, DNA profile was
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:42:15 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.28 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthligenerated from the source of exhibit 7 (gauze cloth piece of deceased) was
found similar with a DNA profile generated from the source of exhibits 3,
4a & 6b. After examination, he had prepared FSL report dated 09/12/2020
Ex.PW-22/A. After examination, the remnants of the exhibits were sealed
with the seal of SPFSL DELHI. He had also annexed the allelic data
Ex.PW-22/B.
PW-22 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
(xxiii) PW-23 in his testimony had deposed that on 16/11/2019, he
was posted at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangol Puri, New Delhi
as Casualty Medical Officer. On that day at about 00:52 AM, one patient
namely Kanhiya was brought in the casualty in unconscious condition by
ASI Sunil. The said patient was examined by Dr. Harender Singh under his
supervision vide MLC No. 18780 Ex.PW-23/A and as per the said MLC, the
patient was declared brought dead.
PW-23 was cross-examined by the accused.
(xxiv) PW-24 in his testimony had deposed that on 15/11/2019, he
was posted as Inspector at PS Nangloi, New Delhi. On receipt of DD
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:42:23 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.29 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ GuthliNo.46-A, he alongwith SHO PS Nangloi and ASI Parminder went to the
place of occurrence i.e., Mangal Bazar Road, in-front of Janta Halal Meat
Shop, Swaran Park, Mundka, Delhi. Upon reaching there, they met with
ASI Gulab Singh, PSI Rohit, HC Sanjay and Constable Sandeep. They also
met with the injured Kanhiya and the PCR Van took him to Sanjay Gandhi
Hospital, Delhi. In the meantime, one person, who was having blood stains
on his wearing cloth and was also carrying a knife in his hands came
forward and told that he had stabbed the injured Kanhiya. In the meantime,
Sukha @ Ravi also came at the spot and told them that the said person
namely Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli had stabbed his uncle Kanhiya. ASI
Gulab Singh had handed over accused Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli to Head
Constable Neeraj and knife was handed over to ASI Parminder. ASI Gulab
Singh had informed the Crime Team. ASI Gulab Singh and PSI Rohit went
to the hospital alongwith Sukha @ Ravi. After sometime, PSI Rohit came to
the spot alongwith the copy of the FIR and original rukka and handed over
the same to him as the present case was marked to him for further
investigation. ASI Gulab Singh and Sukha @ Ravi also came at the spot. He
had lifted the exhibits i.e., blood stained concrete and blood in gauge and he
had prepared the separate pulandas, which were sealed with seal of RK and
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:42:30 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.30 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthliwere seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-17/A and Ex.PW-17/B. He had
prepared the site-plan Ex.PW-24/A at the instance of complainant Sukha @
Ravi and thereafter, he alongwith police team, complainant Sukha @ Ravi
and accused Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli came to Police Station with the case
property. He had formally interrogated the accused Neeraj @ Prince @
Guthli and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW-10/A, conducted his
personal search vide memo Ex.PW-18/A and he had also recorded the
disclosure statement of the accused vide memo Ex.PW-18/B. He had also
prepared the sketch of the knife Ex.PW-17/C and had prepared the pullanda
of the knife and sealed with the seal of RK and also seized the knife vide
seizure memo Ex.PW-17/D. He had also prepared the pullanda of the
slippers, blood stained jacket and pant of the accused and sealed them with
the seal of “RK” and accordingly, seized vide seizure memos Ex.PW-17/E
and Ex.PW-17/F and the case property was deposited at Malkhana. The
accused took them to the spot of incident, where he had prepared the
pointing out memo Ex.PW-24/B of the spot of occurrence at the instance of
the accused and thereafter, accused was medically examined. He had
recorded the statement of witnesses u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. and during the
investigation, he had also obtained the Crime Team Report Ex.PW-3/A
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:42:38 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.31 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthlithrough ASI Parminder. On 17/11/2019, the post-mortem of the deceased
Kanhiya was got conducted and he had also seized the viscera and clothes
alongwith the sample seal vide seizure memo Ex.PW-24/C and deposited
the same at Malkhana. On 30/11/2019, he had obtained the subsequent
opinion Ex.PW-14/B. On 03/12/2019, all the exhibits were sent to FSL,
Rohini, Delhi and he also got prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PW-5/A
through the Draftsman. He had also obtained all the photographs
Ex.PW-12/1 to Ex.PW-12/23 from the photographer and placed the same on
the record. During the investigation, he had also recorded the
supplementary statements of witnesses. Thereafter, he was transferred and
the case file was handed over to MHC (R).
PW-24 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED U/S 313 CR.P.C.
8. Separate statement of the accused was recorded u/s. 313
Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the allegations against him and rebutted the
prosecution evidence against him and claimed that he is innocent and has
been falsely implicated and he has no connection with the commission of
the offence of the present case. It was also stated that he had not committed
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:42:47 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.32 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthlithe murder of deceased Kanhiya. It was also stated that the weapon of
offence i.e. knife was not recovered from his possession and the same was
planted upon him by the police. It was also stated that he wants to lead
evidence in his defence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
9. In the present case, accused had not led defence evidence. On
11/07/2024, it was submitted by the accused that he does not wish to lead
defence evidence in the present case. Accordingly, at the request of the
accused, defence evidence was closed.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
10. This Court heard the final arguments advanced by Ld. Addl. PP
for the State and Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused and carefully
perused the entire record including the testimonies on record.
During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by Addl.
PP for the State that the prosecution witnesses have duly supported the case
of the prosecution and from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and
the documentary as well as other evidence relied upon by the prosecution,
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:42:55 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.33 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthlithe prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt and the accused be convicted for the offence as mentioned
in the charge. On the other hand, during the course of final arguments, it
was submitted by counsel for the accused that accused has been falsely
implicated in the present case and there is no incriminating evidence on
record against the accused and the prosecution has failed to prove its case
against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accused be acquitted in
the present case.
In order to bring home conviction, the prosecution has to show
on record an unbroken chain of events leading to commission of actual
offence. Further, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case in such a
manner so as to bring it outside the pale of any reasonable doubt.
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE
11. In the present case, charge for the offence u/s. 302 IPC was
framed against the accused.
Section 302 IPC has prescribed the punishment for the offence
of murder. The definition of murder is given u/s. 300 IPC. Section 300 IPC
is reproduced as under:-
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:43:02 -0200
FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.34 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli
“300. Murder- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted,
culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the
death is caused is done with the intention of causing
death, or-
Secondly.- If it is done with the intention of causing such
bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause
the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or-
Thirdly.-If it is done with the intention of causing bodily
injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be
inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death, or-
Fourthly.- If the person committing the act knows that it
is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all
probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely
to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse
for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as
aforesaid.”
The essential Ingredients of the offence under section 302 IPC
are as under:-
(i) Death of a human was being caused;
(ii) Such death was caused by or in consequence of
the act of the accused
(iii) Such act was done
(a) with the intention of causing death, or
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:43:11 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.35 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli
(b) that the accused knew it to be likely to
cause death, or
(c) that the injury was sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death.
12. Law relating to appreciation of evidence of the witnesses has
been elaborated by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as “Satish
@ Bombaiya Vs. State“, { 44 (1991) DLT 561} and it was held that :-
“…….. While appreciating the evidence of a witness
approach must be whether the evidence of the witness,
read as a whole, appears to have a ring of truth. Once
that impression is formed then undoubtedly it is
necessary for the Court to scrutinise the evidence more
particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks,
and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole
and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the
general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and
whether earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as
to render it unworthy of behalf. Minor discrepancies on
trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper
technical approach by taking sentences torn out of
context here and there from the evidence, attaching
importance to some technical error committed by the
investigating officer not going to the root of the matter,
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:43:20 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.36 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthliwould not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as
a whole. The main thing to be seen is, whether those
inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to
insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the
defense may be justified in seeking advantage of the
inconsistencies in the evidence. In the latter, however,
no such benefit may be available to it. That is a salutary
method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases.”
13. Law relating to appreciation of ocular evidence has been
elaborated by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as ” Akbar &
Anr. Vs. State“, { 2009 Cri. L.J. 4199 } and it was held that :-
“49. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a Herculean
task. There is no fixed or strait-jacket formula for
appreciation of ocular evidence. The judicially evolved
principles regarding the appreciation of the ocular
evidence in a criminal case can be enumerated as under:-
I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the
approach must be whether the evidence of the witness
read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that
impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the
Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly
keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:43:26 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.37 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthliinfirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and
evaluate them to find out whether it is against the
general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and
whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken
as to render it unworthy of belief.
II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence
had the opportunity to form the opinion about the
general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the
appellate court which had not this benefit will have to
attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the
trial Court and unless there are reasons weighty and
formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence
on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the
matter of trivial details.
III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite
possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts
should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in
the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the
credibility of his version that the Court is justified in
jettisoning his evidence.
IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching
the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking
sentences torn out of context here or there from the
evidence, attaching importance to some technical error
committed by the investigating officer not going to the
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:43:33 –
0200
FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.38 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthliroot of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection
of the evidence as a whole.
V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations
falling in the narration of an incident (either as between
the evidence of two witnesses or as between two
statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic
approach for judicial scrutiny.
VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to
possess a photographic memory and to recall the details
of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on
the mental screen.
VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken
by events. The witness could not have anticipated the
occurrence which so often has an element of surprise.
The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be
attuned to absorb the details.
VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to
person. What one may notice, another may not. An
object or movement might emboss its image on one
person’s mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part
of another.
IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a
conversation and reproduce the very words used by
them or heard by them. They can only recall the main
purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:43:40 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.39 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthliwitness to be a human tape recorder.
X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time
duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their
estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at
the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people
to make very precise or reliable estimates in such
matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of
individuals which varies from person to person.
XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall
accurately the sequence of events which take place in
rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is
liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated
later on.
XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be
overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross
examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up
facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill
up details from imagination on the spur of the moment.
The sub- conscious mind of the witness sometimes so
operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or
being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful
and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.
XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent
with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to
amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:43:46 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.40 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthlihas the potency to discredit the later statement, even if
the later statement is at variance with the former to some
extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness.
14. FINDINGS
(i) Testimony of the complainant/ eye-witness
In the present case, charge for the offence u/s. 302 IPC was
framed against the accused Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli
It is the case of the prosecution that on 15/11/2019 at about
10:40 PM at Mangal Bazar Road, in-front of Janta Meat Shop, Swaran Park,
Mundka, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Nangloi, accused Neeraj @
Prince @ Guthli had committed the murder of Kanhiya (deceased) by
stabbing him with a knife repeatedly on the vital parts of his body i.e. chest
and abdomen.
PW-10 is the complainant/eye-witness in the present case.
PW-10 is the nephew of the deceased. PW-10 in his testimony has
categorically, elaborately and graphically described as to how the offence of
murder of the deceased Kanhiya was committed by the accused at the
relevant time, date and place. Complainant/PW-10 in his testimony had duly
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:43:54 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.41 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthliproved on record the complaint Ex.PW-10/A, on the basis of which, FIR
Ex.PW-1/A of the present case was got registered. Complainant/PW-10 in
his complaint Ex.PW-10/A has specifically mentioned the name of the
accused as assailant. Name of the accused has also been specifically
mentioned in the FIR Ex.PW-1/A. The contents of Ex.PW-10/A and
Ex.PW-1/A have been duly proved and corroborated by PW-10 and other
prosecution witnesses.
PW-10 in his testimony had deposed that deceased Kanhiya
was his uncle (चाचा). PW-10 had also deposed that on 15/11/2019 at about
10:30 p.m., he was coming back from his duty and on or about 10:40 p.m.
while walking, when he had reached at Mangal Bazar Road, in front of
Janta Meat Shop ahead of Swaran Park, Mundka, he saw an altercation in
between his uncle and accused Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli. PW-10 had also
deposed that he also saw that accused was carrying one knife with him and
was uttering the words “मेरे माँ और मेरे पिता को तु मने गाली दी है आज मैं
तेरा काम तमााम कर देता हूँ”. PW-10 had also deposed that accused Neeraj
was also using abusing language against his uncle Kanhiya Lal and while
using the said abusive language, accused Neeraj assaulted his uncle over his
chest and abdomen with the knife being carried by him at that time. PW-10
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:44:00 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.42 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthlihad also deposed that due to said stab injury, his uncle Kanhiya Lal started
bleeding profusely and fell down. PW-10 had also deposed that due to fear,
he raised noises and being perturbed, he ran away from there as he was
under apprehension that accused Neeraj would also inflict injuries with said
knife to him. PW-10 had also deposed that after running at some distance,
he hided himself and someone made a call at No.100 to the police. PW-10
had also deposed that upon seeing the police present at the spot, he went
near the police, by that time, accused Neeraj had already been apprehended
by the police alongwith said knife. PW-10 had also deposed that he also saw
the clothes of accused Neeraj being stained with blood and he had informed
the police officials present at the spot that the incident was witnessed by
him and in his presence, police officials took his uncle to Sanjay Gandhi
Memorial Hospital and he had also visited the said Hospital, where he came
to know that his uncle had been declared dead. PW-10 had also deposed that
on the same day, police had recorded his statement Ex.PW-10/A at Police
Station and on the basis of his said statement, police got the FIR registered
and IO had also effected the arrest of the accused in his presence vide arrest
memo Ex.PW-10/B and IO had also prepared the rough site plan of the
place of occurrence at his instance. PW-10 had also deposed that he had
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:44:07 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.43 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthlialso visited the mortuary at the time of post-mortem of the body of his uncle
and in the said mortuary, he was shown the body of his uncle, which he had
identified vide identification memo Ex.PW-10/C and after post-mortem, the
body of his uncle was handed over to him vide memo Ex.PW-10/D.
PW-10 has duly supported the case of prosecution. The
testimony of PW-10 is also corroborated with the testimonies of other
prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence as well as other evidence
relied upon by the prosecution.
There is nothing on the record to disbelieve the
testimony/version of complainant/eye-witness/PW-10. In the
cross-examination of PW-10, no material contradiction/ inconsistency has
been surfaced or pointed out except some minor ones which are but natural.
(ii) Testimonies of other public witnesses
PW-2 and PW-4 are the other public witnesses examined by the
prosecution in the present case.
PW-2 in her testimony had deposed regarding identification of
dead body of deceased Kanhiya. PW-2 in her testimony had deposed that on
17/11/2019, she had identified the dead body of her deceased husband in the
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:44:15 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.44 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthlimortuary of SGM Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi vide Ex.PW-2/A.
PW-4 is the public person, who called the police at 100
number. PW-4 in his testimony had deposed that on 05/11/2019 at about
11:00 PM, he was passing through Janta Meat Shop, Mangal Bazar Road,
Swaran Park, Nangloi, Delhi and he saw one person lying in injured
condition outside Janta Meat Shop and he called at No. 100 from his mobile
no. 9211315179.
The testimonies of PW-2 and PW-4 are corroborated with the
testimonies of other prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence as
well as other evidence relied upon by the prosecution.
There is nothing on the record to disbelieve the
testimonies/versions of PW-2 and PW-4. PW-2 was not cross-examined by
counsel for the accused. In the cross-examination of PW-4, no material
contradiction/ inconsistency has been surfaced or pointed out.
(iii) Identity of deceased
PW-2 and PW-10 in their testimonies had deposed regarding
identification of dead body of deceased Kanhiya and they identified the
dead body of Kanhiya vide memos Ex.PW-2/A and Ex.PW-10/C
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:44:21 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.45 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthlirespectively. Accused/counsel had not put any question in the cross-
examination of aforesaid witnesses to dispute the identity of the deceased.
Hence, identity of the deceased Kanhiya is duly established by the
prosecution.
(iv) Identity of the accused
PW-8, PW-9, PW-10, PW-16, PW-17, PW-18 and PW-24
during the course of their testimonies had duly identified the accused Neeraj
@ Prince @ Guthli. PW-10, who is stated to be the eye-witness of the
incident, in his testimony had specifically mentioned the name of the
accused Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli as assailant. Complainant/PW-10 in his
complaint Ex.PW-10/A has specifically mentioned the name of the accused
as assailant. Name of the accused has also been specifically mentioned in
the FIR Ex.PW-1/A. Arrest memo Ex.PW-10/B of the accused Neeraj @
Prince @ Guthli is bearing the signatures of PW-10, PW-18 and PW-24 and
personal search memo Ex.PW-18/A of the accused Neeraj @ Prince @
Guthli is bearing the signatures of PW-18 and PW-24. Accused/counsel had
not put any question in the cross-examination of aforesaid witnesses to
dispute the identity of the accused. Hence, identity of the accused Neeraj @
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:44:26 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.46 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ GuthliPrince @ Guthli is duly established by the prosecution.
(v) Presence of the accused
PW-10 in his testimony had specifically deposed that the
accused was present at the place of incident at the relevant time and date.
PW-10 in his testimony had categorically, elaborately and graphically
described as to how the offence of murder of the deceased Kanhiya was
committed by the accused at the relevant time, date and place.
Accused/counsel had not put any question in the cross-examination of the
PW-10 and other concerned prosecution witnesses to dispute the presence
of the accused at the place of incident at the relevant time and date. Hence,
presence of the accused at the place of the incident at the relevant time and
date is duly established by the prosecution.
(vi) Identity of the weapon of offence/case property
During the course of examination of PW-10, PW-17 and
PW-18, weapon of offence i.e. knife Ex.P-10/1 was produced and they duly
identified the Ex.P-10/1. During the course of examination of PW-16, the
identity of weapon of offence i.e. knife was not disputed. Accused/counsel
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:44:32 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.47 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthlihad not put any question in the cross-examination of the PW-10, PW-17 and
PW-18 to dispute the identity of the aforesaid weapon of offence i.e. knife.
Sketch Ex.PW-17/C and seizure memo Ex.PW-17/D of weapon of offence
i.e. knife have been duly proved on record by the prosecution. During the
course of examination of concerned prosecution witnesses, the other case
properties i.e. Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 of the present case were also
produced and the same had been duly identified by the concerned
prosecution witnesses. Accused/counsel had not put any question in the
cross-examination of the aforesaid concerned prosecution witnesses to
dispute the identity of the other case properties i.e. Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2 and
Ex.P-3. Hence, identity of weapon of offence i.e. knife Ex.P-10/1 and other
case properties i.e. Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 have been duly
established/proved by the prosecution.
(vii) Medical witnesses
PW-14 and PW-23 are the medical witnesses, examined by the
prosecution in the present case.
PW-14 is the medical witness, who conducted the post-mortem
upon the dead body of the deceased Kanhiya and prepared post-mortem
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:44:40 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.48 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthlireport Ex.PW-14/A, sketch of the knife Ex.PW-14/B and subsequent
opinion Ex.PW-14/C.
PW-23 is the medical witness, on whose supervision Kanhiya
(deceased) was medically examined by Dr. Harender Singh.
PW-14 in his testimony had deposed that on 17/11/2019, he
had conducted the post-mortem on the body of deceased Kanhiya and after
conducting post-mortem, he had prepared post-mortem report No. 1094/19
Ex.PW-14/A and opined the cause of death to be hemorrhagic shock due to
chest and abdominal injury and all injuries were ante-mortem in nature.
PW-14 had also deposed that he had also opined that injury no. 1 & 2 were
sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and were caused by
sharp single edged weapon and he had also opined the time since death
approximately one and half days as per inquest papers. PW-14 had also
deposed that he had prepared the sketch of the said knife Ex.PW-14/B and
he had also examined the said knife and opined that injuries as mentioned in
post-mortem report Ex.PW-14/A i.e. external injury no. 1 & 2 were possible
with the produced weapon of offence i.e. knife or any other similar one.
PW-14 had also deposed that the subsequent opinion Ex.PW-14/C was
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:44:48 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.49 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthliprepared by him.
PW-23 in his testimony had deposed that on 16/11/2019 at
about 00:52 AM, one patient namely Kanhiya was brought in the casualty in
unconscious condition by ASI Sunil and the said patient was examined by
Dr. Harender Singh under his supervision vide MLC No. 18780
Ex.PW-23/A and as per the said MLC, the patient was declared brought
dead.
The testimony of PW-14 is corroborated with the post-mortem
report Ex.PW-14/A and subsequent opinion Ex.PW-14/C.
Medical documents of the deceased Kanhiya have been duly
proved on record by the aforesaid medical witnesses. There is nothing on
the record to disbelieve the testimonies/ versions/ opinions of the aforesaid
medical witnesses.
(viii) Forensic witnesses
PW-20, PW-21 and PW-22 are the forensic witnesses,
examined by the prosecution in the present case. PW-20, PW-21 and
PW-22 in their testimonies had duly proved on record the FSL reports
Ex.PW-20/A, Ex.PW-21/A, Ex.PW-22/A and allelic data Ex.PW-22/B.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:44:55 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.50 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ GuthliPW-20 in his testimony had deposed that on chemical,
microscopic, TLC and GC-HS examination, Ex.1A, Ex.1B and Ex.1C were
found contain ‘Ethyl Alcohol’ and Exhibit 1C was found to contain “Ethyl
Alcohol” 196.8mg/100 ml of blood and after examination, he had prepared
FSL report dated 17/02/2020 Ex.PW-20/A.
PW-21 in her testimony had deposed that vide letter dated
03/12/2019, their office had received two sealed parcels and same were
marked to her for examination purposes and she had opened the said parcels
and material contained in parcel no. 3 i.e. knife was marked as Exhibit 3,
the material contained in parcel no. 6 was marked as Exhibit 6a (one black
colour pant), 6b (shirt) and 6c (underwear). PW-21 had also deposed that
she had examined all the aforesaid Exhibits and upon examination, she
found six cut marks on Exhibit 6b which were marked as Q1 to Q6 on
Exhibit 6b i.e. shirt and one cut mark which was marked as Q7 on Exhibit
6c i.e. underwear and the said cut marks were examined physically under
magnification and using measuring tools in respect of shape and size and
test cut marks T1 and T2 were made on Exhibit 6b with the help of knife
Exhibit 3 and the test cut marks were compared with the crime cut marks.
PW-21 had also deposed that on the basis of cut shape and morphology, the
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:45:05 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.51 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthlicut marks Q1 to Q6 on Exhibit 6a and cut marks Q7 on Exhibit 6c could be
caused by the sharp edged weapon like knife Exhibit 3. PW-21 had also
deposed that upon examination, she had prepared FSL report dated
25/02/2021 Ex.PW-21/A.
PW-22 in his testimony had deposed that on 03/12/2019, their
office had received seven sealed parcels and same were marked to him for
examination purposes and out of the seven parcels, three were sealed plastic
container, one was sealed cloth parcel and three were sealed polythene.
PW-22 had also deposed that he had opened the said parcels and the
material contained therein were marked as Exhibit 1 to Exhibit 7 and he had
examined the said material and upon examination, blood was detected on
Exhibit 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 5, 6a, 6b, 6c and 7 and the said exhibits were also
subjected to DNA examination. PW-22 had also deposed that upon
examination, DNA profile was generated from the source of exhibit 7
(gauze cloth piece of deceased) was found similar with a DNA profile
generated from the source of exhibits 3, 4a & 6b. PW-22 had also deposed
that after examination, he had prepared FSL report dated 09/12/2020
Ex.PW-22/A and also annexed the allelic data Ex.PW-22/B.
FSL reports Ex.PW-20/A, Ex.PW-21/A, Ex.PW-22/A and
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:45:12 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.52 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthliallelic data Ex.PW-22/B have been duly proved on record by PW-20,
PW-21 and PW-22. There is nothing on the record to disbelieve the
testimonies/versions/opinions of PW-20, PW-21 and PW-22. In the cross-
examination of PW-20, PW-21 and PW-22 , the counsel for the accused had
not put any question in respect of credibility of the FSL reports
Ex.PW-20/A, Ex.PW-21/A, Ex.PW-22/A and allelic data Ex.PW-22/B. Even
otherwise, the FSL result is per se admissible u/s. 293 Cr.P.C.
(ix) Testimonies of police witnesses
In the present case, PW-1, PW-3, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7,
PW-8, PW-9, PW-11, PW-12, PW-13, PW-15, PW-16, PW-17, PW-18,
PW-19 and PW-24 are the police officials examined by the prosecution.
From the testimonies of the aforesaid police witnesses, it is evident that
investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present
case during the course of investigation have been substantially proved by
the aforesaid police witnesses.
PW-24 is the IO in the present case, who deposed regarding
investigation conducted by him and he duly proved on record the
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:45:19 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.53 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthlidocuments relating to the investigation conducted by him.
15. CONTENTIONS OF COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED
(a) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by
counsel for the accused that the accused had not committed the murder of
Kanhiya (deceased) as he was not having any motive to murder the Kanhiya
and in view of the same, benefit of doubt be given to the accused. On the
other hand, it was submitted by Addl. PP for the State that the accused was
having motive to murder the Kanhiya (deceased).
For the purpose of any offence, motive, intention and
knowledge are relevant factors.
The terms motive, intention and knowledge have been
elaborated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as ” Basdev
Vs. The State of PEPSU“, { AIR 1956 SC 488} and it was held that :-
“……….of course, we have to distinguish between
motive, intention and knowledge. Motive is something
which prompts a man to form an intention and
knowledge is an awareness of the consequences of the
act. In many cases intention and knowledge merge into
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:45:26 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.54 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthlieach other and mean the same thing more or less and
intention can be presumed from knowledge. The
demarcating line between knowledge and intention is no
doubt thin but it is not difficult to perceive that they
cannote different things…….”
PW-10 in his testimony had deposed that “I also saw that
accused was carrying one knife with him and was uttering the words “मेरे
माँ और मेरे पिता को तुमने गाली दी है आज मैं तेरा काम तमााम कर देता हूँ “.
Accused Neeraj was also using abusing language against my uncle Kanhya
Lal and while using the said abusive language accused Neeraj assaulted my
uncle over his chest and abdomen with the knife being carried by him at
that time”.
The aforesaid facts as deposed by PW-10 in his testimony have
also been mentioned in the disclosure statement of the accused
Ex.PW-18/B.
In view of the above, it is clear that accused was having motive
to murder the Kanhiya (deceased).
Even otherwise, it is well settled law that motive looses all its
importance in a case where direct evidence of eye-witness is available.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:45:36 -
0200
FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.55 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli
It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as
” State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Kishan Pal & Ors.“, { (2008) 16 SCC 73 }
that :-
“……….the motive is a thing which is primarily known
to the accused themselves and it is not possible for the
prosecution to explain what actually promoted or
excited them to commit the particular crime. The motive
may be considered as circumstance which is relevant for
assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and
unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of
the accused, the same is not weakened even if the
motive is not a very strong one. It is also settled law that
the motive looses all its importance in a case where
direct evidence of eye-witnesses is available, because
even if there may be a very strong motive for the
accused persons to commit a particular crime, they
cannot be convicted if the evidence of eye-witnesses is
not convincing. In the same way, even if there may not
be an apparent motive but if the evidence of eye-
witnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or
inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of
conviction………”
It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:45:44 –
0200
FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.56 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthlias ” Sanjeev Vs. State of Haryana“, { 2015 (4) SCC 387} that :-
“It is settled principle of law that, to establish
commission of murder by an accused, motive is not
required to be proved. Motive is something which
prompts a man to form an intention. The intention can
be formed even at the place of incident at the time of
commission of crime. It is only either intention or
knowledge on the part of the accused which is required
to be seen in respect of the offence of culpable
homicide. In order to read either intention or knowledge,
the courts have to examine the circumstances, as there
cannot be any direct evidence as to the state of mind of
the accused.”
In view of the law laid in Kishan Pal and Sanjeev cases (supra),
it is held that the motive was not required to be proved by the prosecution as
there is a direct evidence of the complainant/ eye-witness/PW-10 in the
present case. In the present case, motive of the accused to murder the
Kanhiya (deceased) was not required to be proved as the prosecution has
duly proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence,
the contention of counsel for the accused in this regard is not tenable.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:45:51 -
0200
FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.57 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli
(b) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by
counsel for the accused that complainant/ PW-10 is the nephew of the
deceased Kanhiya and being the nephew of the deceased, he has falsely
deposed against the accused to falsely implicate the accused in the present
case. It was also submitted that in view of the same, benefit of doubt be
given to the accused. It is well settled law that merely because the witnesses
are related to the complainant or the deceased, their evidence cannot be
thrown out.
It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as
” Waman & Ors. Vs. State of Maharastra”, {Criminal Appeal No. 364/2009
decided on 29/06/2011} that :-
“It is clear that merely because the witnesses are related
to the complainant or the deceased, their evidence
cannot be thrown out. If their evidence is found to be
consistent and true, the fact of being a relative cannot by
itself discredit their evidence. In other words, the
relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a
witness and the courts have to scrutinize their evidence
meticulously with a little care.”
There is nothing on the record to show that the
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:45:57 –
0200
FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.58 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthlicomplainant/eye-witness/PW-10 was having any previous enmity with
accused. In view of the specific testimonies of PW-10 and other concerned
prosecution witnesses regarding commission of offence of the murder of
Kanhiya (deceased) by the accused, the contention of counsel for the
accused in this regard is not tenable.
(c) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by
counsel for the accused that in the present case, no independent public
witness from the nearby residential houses was joined in the investigation of
the present case by the IO nor cited/examined in the present case. It was
also submitted that in view of the same, benefit of doubt be given to the
accused.
It is well settled law that non-examination of any witness per
se will not vitiate the case of the prosecution and it depends upon the
quality and not the quantity of the witnesses and its importance.
It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as
” Rajesh Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of UP”, {Criminal Appeal No.339-
340/2014 decided on 04/02/2022} that:-
“A mere non-examination of the witness per se will not
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:46:04 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.59 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthlivitiate the case of the prosecution. It depends upon the
quality and not the quantity of the witnesses and its
importance. If the court is satisfied with the explanation
given by the prosecution along with the adequacy of the
materials sufficient enough to proceed with the trial and
convict the accused, there cannot be any prejudice.
Similarly, if the court is of the view that the evidence is
not screened and could well be produced by the other
side in support of its case, no adverse inference can be
drawn. Onus is on the part of the party who alleges that
a witness has not been produced deliberately to prove
it….”
It is well settled law that non-joining of public witness in the
investigation is not fatal in every case. In the present case, complainant/
eye-witness/PW-10, PW-2 and PW-4 were joined in the investigation of the
present case. Hence, the contention of counsel for the accused in this regard
is not tenable.
(d) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by
counsel for the accused that in the present case, the IO had not made any
effort to collect the CCTV footage from the place of incident and in view of
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:46:12 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.60 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthlithe same, benefit of doubt be given to the accused. There is nothing in the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses to show that the CCTV cameras were
installed at the place of incident. PW-16 and PW-24 in their testimonies
have deposed that no CCTV camera was found installed near the place of
occurrence. Hence, the contention of counsel for the accused in this regard
is not tenable.
(e) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by
counsel for the accused that as per complainant/PW-10, he was present near
the place of incident at the time of murder of Kanhiya but the complainant
neither made any effort to save the Kanhiya nor called the police and in
view of the same, the conduct and testimony of the complainant have
become doubtful. It was also submitted that in view of the same, benefit of
doubt be given to the accused. PW-10 in his testimony had deposed that due
to fear, he raised noises and being perturbed, he ran away from there as he
was under apprehension that accused Neeraj would also inflict injuries with
said knife to him. In view of the aforesaid testimony of PW-10, the conduct
and testimony of the complainant/ eye-witness/ PW-10 cannot be said to be
doubtful. Hence, the contention of counsel for the accused in this regard is
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:46:18 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.61 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthlinot tenable.
(f) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by
counsel for the accused that complainant/ PW-10 in his testimony had
deposed that the IO had prepared the rough site plan of the place of
occurrence at his instance but the site plan Ex.PW-24/A is not bearing the
signature of the complainant and in view of the same, benefit of doubt be
given to the accused. Complainant/ PW-10 in his testimony had deposed
that IO had prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence at his
instance. PW-17 and PW-18 in their testimony had deposed that IO had
prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence at the instance of the
complainant. PW-24/ IO in his testimony had deposed that he had prepared
the site plan Ex.PW-24/A at the instance of the complainant. In view of the
above, it is clear that the site plan Ex.PW-24/A was prepared at the instance
of the complainant. Absence of signature of the complainant in Ex.PW-24/A
is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Hence, the contention of counsel
for the accused in this regard is not tenable.
(g) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:46:23 -0200
FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.62 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli
counsel for the accused that in the present case, exhibits/ case properties
were not kept in proper temperature and in view of the same, FSL results
have become doubtful. It was also submitted that in view of the same,
benefit of doubt be given to the accused. There is nothing in the testimonies
of prosecution witnesses to show that exhibits/ case properties were not kept
in proper temperature. FSL reports Ex.PW-20/A, Ex.PW-21/A, Ex.PW-22/A
and allelic data Ex.PW-22/B have been duly proved on record by PW-20,
PW-21 and PW-22. There is nothing on the record to disbelieve the
testimonies/versions/opinions of PW-20, PW-21 and PW-22. Even
otherwise, the FSL result is per se admissible u/s. 293 Cr.P.C. Hence, the
contention of counsel for the accused in this regard is not tenable.
(h) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by
counsel for the accused that as per case of the prosecution, the incident took
place on 15/11/2019 but PW-4 in his testimony had deposed that on
05/11/2019, he saw the one person in injured condition and called at
number 100 from his mobile No.9211315179 and in view of the same,
benefit of doubt be given to the accused. As per case of the prosecution, the
accused has committed the murder of Kanhiya (deceased) on 15/11/2019 at
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:46:29 –
0200
FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.63 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthliabout 10:40 PM at Mangal Bazar Road, in-front of Janta Meat Shop,
Swaran Park, Mundka, Delhi. As per DD entry No.46-A Ex.PW-6/A, the
call was made on 15/11/2019 from the mobile No.9211315179. It is
pertinent to mention here that in the statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of PW-4, it is
mentioned that on 15/11/2019 at about 11:00 PM in-front of Janta Meat
Shop, he saw one person in injured condition and he made the call to police
at 100 number from his mobile No. 9211315179. Merely because the PW-4
has mentioned the wrong date in his testimony, the whole case of the
prosecution cannot be thrown out in view of the fact that the prosecution
has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
In the statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of PW-4, the correct date i.e. 15/11/2019
has been mentioned. Even otherwise, it is not disputed that Kanhiya
(deceased) was murdered on 15/11/2019 at the relevant time and place.
Hence, the contention of counsel for the accused in this regard is not
tenable.
(i) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by
counsel for the accused that IO had not investigated the present matter
properly and in view of the same, benefit of doubt be given to the accused.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:46:35 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.64 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ GuthliOn the other hand, it was submitted by Addl. PP for the State that IO had
properly investigated the present matter. There is nothing on the record to
show that IO had not investigated the present matter properly and
investigation was defective.
Even otherwise, it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in case titled as “Ambika Prasad & Anr. Vs. State (Delhi Administration)”
(AIR 2000 SC 718) that :-
…..Dealing with a case of negligence on the part of the
investigating officer, this Court in Karnel Singh v. State
of MP {(1995) 5 SCC 518} observed that in a case of
defective investigation it would not be proper to acquit
the accused if the case is otherwise established
conclusively because in that event it would tantamount to
be falling in the hands of erring investigating officer…”
Hence, the contention of counsel for the accused in this regard
is not tenable.
(j) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by
counsel for the accused that there are material contradictions and
inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and in view of
the same, benefit of doubt to be given to the accused. On the other hand,
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:46:41 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.65 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthliduring the course of final arguments, it was submitted by Addl. PP for the
State that there is no material contradiction in the testimonies of prosecution
witnesses.
It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as
“Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta Vs. State of Maharashtra“, { (2010) 13
SCC 657} that:-
” While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take
into consideration whether the contradictions/
omissions had been of such magnitude that they may
materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions,
inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on
trivial matters without effecting the core of the
prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject
the evidence in its entirety. The Trial Court, after going
through the entire evidence, must form an opinion
about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate
Court in normal course would not be justified in
reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons.”
In the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, no material
contradiction and inconsistency has been surfaced except some minor ones
which are but natural. Hence, the contention of counsel for the accused in
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:46:47 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.66 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthlithis regard is not tenable.
16. In the present case, PW-2, PW-11 and PW-12 had not been
cross-examined by the accused/counsel. The testimonies of PW-2, PW-11
and PW-12 have gone un-rebutted, un-challenged and un-controverted.
In the present case, no defence evidence had been led by the
accused in support of his defence and to rebut and contradict the case of the
prosecution.
17. In the present case, the nature of injuries sustained by the
deceased, mode & manner of assault, weapon of offence, motive, intention
and knowledge are relevant factors. The aforesaid factors have been duly
proved on record by the prosecution.
In the present case, complainant/eye-witness/PW-10 in his
testimony had specifically deposed regarding the mode and manner in
which the accused had caused the injuries to the Kanhiya (deceased). The
accused had caused the injuries to Kanhiya (deceased) by stabbing him with
weapon of offence i.e. knife repeatedly on the vital parts of his body i.e.
chest and abdomen. The said factum has also been duly proved on record by
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:46:53 –
0200
FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.67 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthlithe prosecution witnesses including the medical and forensic witnesses. The
prosecution has duly proved on record the MLC, post-mortem report,
subsequent opinion and FSL reports. The prosecution has also proved on
record the documentary evidence as well as all case properties.
The testimony of PW-10 has been corroborated with the
testimonies of other public witnesses, medical, forensic and police
witnesses as well as medical, forensic and other documents and case
properties relied upon by the prosecution.
Testimonies of PW-10, medical and forensic witnesses as well
as medical and forensic reports clearly shows the nature of injuries
sustained by Kanhiya (deceased) and mode & manner in which the accused
had committed the murder of the deceased and the same also shows the
intention and knowledge of the accused to kill/ murder the Kanhiya
(deceased).
18. In the present case, the prosecution has also successfully
proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt from the
testimonies of eye-witness, public witnesses, medical, forensic and police
witnesses as well as medical, forensic and other documents and case
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:47:00 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.68 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthliproperties relied upon by the prosecution. All the evidence on record
clearly and undoubtedly suggests that it is only the accused, who had
committed the murder of Kanhiya (deceased).
19. All the essential ingredients of the offence u/s. 302 IPC have
been duly proved on record from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses
and documentary as well as other evidence relied upon by the prosecution.
The factum regarding un-natural death of Kanhiya (deceased)
is not disputed by the accused. The prosecution has also been able to prove
the fact that death of the Kanhiya (deceased) was caused by or in
consequence of the act of the accused. The prosecution has also been able to
prove that such act was done by the accused with the intention of causing
death of the deceased and the accused knew it to be likely to cause death
and the injuries caused by the accused to the Kanhiya (deceased) were
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the Kanhiya
(deceased).
20. CONCLUSION
Applying priori and posteriori reasonings, this Court is held
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
15:47:07 -0200FIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.69 of 70
State V. Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthlithat on 15/11/2019 at about 10:40 PM at Mangal Bazar Road, in-front of
Janta Meat Shop, Swaran Park, Mundka, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS
Nangloi, accused Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli had committed the murder of
Kanhiya (deceased) by stabbing him with a knife repeatedly on the vital
parts of his body i.e. chest and abdomen.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful to prove its case
against the accused Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli beyond reasonable doubt for
the offence under section 302 IPC. This Court is held that the accused
Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli has committed the offence punishable under
section 302 IPC. Accordingly, accused Neeraj @ Prince @ Guthli is
convicted for the offence under section 302 IPC.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.01.24
Announced in the open Court 15:47:14 –
0200
on 24/01/2025
(VIJAY SHANKAR)
ASJ-04 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, DelhiFIR No.734/2019 PS Nangloi Page No.70 of 70