State vs Om Prakash @ Om Prakash Rana Anr on 22 May, 2025

Delhi District Court

State vs Om Prakash @ Om Prakash Rana Anr on 22 May, 2025

        IN THE COURT OF DR. RAKESH KUMAR
  ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC-02), SOUTH-EAST
         SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI




CNR No.DLSE010013642015
SC No.2089/2016
FIR no.62/2015
Police Station: Sunlight Colony

State

Versus

1. Om Prakash @ Om Prakash Rana
Son of Dhiri Singh
Resident of T-12, Jhuggi Gayaspur
Sarai Kale Khan, Delhi

Permanent Address:
Village- Kadribagh, PS-Debai
Distt. Buland Shahar (U.P.)


2. Peetam
Son of Shankar Lal
Resident of T-8, Jhuggi Gayaspur
Sarai Kale Khan, Delhi


Permanent Address:
Village- Meerpur Zarara, PS-Arnia
Distt. Buland Shahar (U.P.)      ..........Accused persons

FIR No.62/2015   P.S. Sunlight Colony   State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam   Page 1 of 109
 Date of Institution                 :       13.05.2015
Judgment reserved on                :       17.05.2025
Date of Decision                    :       22.05.2025

JUDGMENT

1. A police report was put up by the State through
officer-in-charge of the police station Sunlight Colony before the
concerned Metropolitan Magistrate with the view to take
cognizance of offences under sections 302/201/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC‘) against the accused persons,
namely, Om Prakash @ Om Prakash Rana and Peetam for having
committed the said offences and to proceed with committal of the
case.

2. As per the police report, this case FIR was registered
against the accused persons, namely, Om Prakash @ Om Prakash
Rana and Peetam in police station Sunlight Colony on
02.02.2015 for the offences punishable under sections
302/201/34 IPC.

3. As per the police report, an information was
received in the police post Sarai Kale Khan from PCR on
02.02.2015 which was recorded vide DD No.19 and as per the
DD at 02.30 a.m., JAVA 50 informed vide WT set that a caller
from Gayaspur Jhuggies, Yamuna Pul Sarai Kale Khan had
informed, “mere ladke ki kal raat death ho gayi thi, body mili
hai”; the copy of the said DD was handed over to SI Bangali
Babu for taking necessary action who along with Ct. Mohit
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 2 of 109
departed for the spot and SI Lalit Kumar in-charge of the police
post was also informed about the call and was also instructed to
reach at the spot and above information was also received by
Inspector Ashok Kumar on W/Set and Inspector Ashok Kumar
vide DD no.11A of police station Sunlight Colony reached at the
spot i.e. Jhuggi Gayaspur Khadar, Sarai Kale Khan and SI Lalit
Kumar, in-charge police post Sarai Kale Khan, SI Bangali Babu,
HC Virender Singh, Ct. Parveen and Ct. Mohit Kumar were
already present there and one Sonu son of Late Bachan Lal
resident of Sunder ki Jhuggi, Gayaspur Colony, Khadar Sarai
Kale Khan, Delhi met him who identified the headless dead-body
to be of his brother Jagdish, aged 22 years and he informed that
on that day, the dead-body was found in Yamuna towards Khadar
Sarai Kale Khan and he brought the dead-body to that spot. It is
further reported in the police report that said Sonu got his
statement recorded to the Inspector Ashok Kumar.

4. It is further reported in the police report that it is,
inter-alia, stated by Sonu that he lived at the above-mentioned
address with his brother Jagdish and other family members and
worked as helper in a concrete mixer truck of Pratibha Company,
Sarai Kale Khan Delhi; that his younger brother Jagdish also
worked as a driver of Mahindra pick-up in the same company
and yesterday i.e., on 01.02.2015 at about 10.00 p.m., he had
brought his vehicle at home and after taking meal when they
were talking, in the meantime, Peetam son of Shanker and Om
Prakash son of Dheer Singh, who lived in the nearby jhuggies,
had come there and called his brother and his brother Jagdish had
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 3 of 109
gone with them towards Yamuna Pusta and had not returned in
the night; that in the morning when he had seen the vehicle of
Jagdish stationed near Jhuggi and on having arisen suspicion, he
and his brother-in-law Titu made search for the deceased near the
farms of Khadar and inquired from the public but his brother
could not be found.

5. It is further stated by Sonu that at about 02.00 p.m.,
when both of them were searching Jagdish on the bank of
Yamuna river, one person had noticed the dead-body in the water
on the bank of Yamuna towards Khadar Sarai Kale Khan and he
had raised alarm and his cousin Kalu had also come there and
they had taken the dead-body out of water and found that it was
headless and there was black colour pant and a green and khaki
colour waist and a yellow and black colour stripe shirt on the
body from which they had identified the deceased and the body
was having a tatto of his name ‘Jagdish’ on his right hand from
which also they had identified the body of his brother.

6. It is further stated by Sonu that he had taken the pant
of the deceased off to search for the driving license and other
documents but nothing was found; that the red colour belt put on
the pant was also found on the bank; that they all had taken the
dead-body to their jhuggi and kept the body outside the jhuggi
and at that same time, somebody had called at 100 number; that
the investigating officer along with the staff reached at the spot
and along with them, they made search for the head of the
deceased Jagdish in the nearby area but it could not be found and,
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 4 of 109
thereafter, he had shown the place where dead-body was found in
Yamuna to the police officials.

7. It is further stated by Sonu that he was having
suspicion that his brother Jagdish had been killed by Peetam and
Om Prakash in collision with each other because both of them
had been absconding from their respective houses and one Sohan
who also resided in the jhuggi may also be indulge in the
commission murder; that Peetam and Om Prakash had earlier
also threatened to kill Jagdish due to his relation with Manju
daughter of Peetam and Jagdish had gone with both of them on
the last night and they had killed Jagdish and after severing head
of the deceased from the body and had hidden it to prevent the
dead-body from being identified which head could not be
recovered during search. It is further stated by the complainant
Sonu that head of his brother Jagdish should be searched for and
appropriate action as per law should be taken against the
offenders.

8. It is further reported in the police report that from
the statement of the complainant, inspection of the dead-body
and the spot and the circumstances, the offences under sections
302/201/34 IPC have been made out and Inspector Ashok Kumar
prepared rukka, sent it through Head Constable Virender to the
police station, got a case registered under those sections and
further investigation was taken up by Inspector Ashok Kumar
himself.

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 5 of 109

9. It is further reported in the police report that during
the course of investigation, the crime-team and the dog-squad
were called at the spot and the spot was got inspected and during
inspection, the body of the deceased Jagdish was found kept on
the ground and the feet of the body were towards the South and
upper part of the body was towards the North and on the body of
the deceased, there were a dark blue colour underwear (Make
Scott) and on the upper body vests of green and Khaki colour
and yellow black and white colour stripe shirt; there was a tattoo
in english of ‘Jagdish’ on the right hand of the deceased and there
was no visible injury on the body of the deceased; there was a
black colour pant besides the dead body and on the backside
pocket of which ‘RG6206’ was written.

10. It is further reported in the police report that the
investigating officer had taken Sonu along and made search for
the head of the deceased and the weapon of offence and during
the search, the complainant Sonu had pointed out towards the
place where dead-body of the deceased and one red colour belt
were found; there was lot of blood at two places near Pusta
between the Yamuna river and the dead-body and two broken
earphones were also found and SI Sajjan Singh, in-charge of
crime-team had also inspected the spot and photographs of the
dead-body from different angles and photographs of the places
where blood was found were taken by the photographer and the
bloodstained earth earphone, grass, the pant and belt found at the
spot were, as per the instructions of the in-charge of crime-team,

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 6 of 109
seized and the exhibits in the sealed condition were deposited in
the malkhana.

11. It is further reported in the police report that the dog
handler had tried to search for the weapon of offence and head of
the dead-body with the help of the dog at the spot but nothing
could be recovered.

12. It is further reported in the police report that the
dead-body of the deceased was sent and preserved at AIIMS
mortuary for the inquest proceedings under section 174 Cr.P.C.
and for getting the postmortem done.

13. It is further reported in the police report that during
the course of investigation, the witness Yogesh had also verified
that the deceased Jagdish was last seen with the accused persons
Om Prakash and Peetam going with them.

14. It is further reported in the police report that during
the course of investigation, as per the statement of the
complainant, the suspect Om Prakash and Peetam, who were
absconded from their respective homes, were searched for and
raids were conducted at their native places also but they could
not be found; the weapon of offence and head of the deceased
was also searched for in the nearby farms and in the Yamuna
river but of no avail.

15. It is further reported in the police report that on
13.02.2015, an application for surrender was made in the
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 7 of 109
concerned Court by the accused Om Prakash, who was
interrogated with the permission of the Court and during
interrogation, he had made confession about his involvement in
the commission of offence in the present case and on collection
of sufficient evidence against him, the accused was arrested in
the present case and his five days police custody remand was
obtained from the Court for purposes of recovery of head of the
deceased, weapon of offence and clothes, pointing out of the spot
and arrest of his co-accused Peetam; after interrogation, the
disclosure statement of the accused Om Prakash was recorded
whereby the accused had, inter-alia, disclosed that the deceased
Jagdish had taken Manju, daughter of the accused Om Prakash in
the farms and tried to rape her, therefore, he hatched a conspiracy
with his brother-in-law Peetam to eliminate the deceased and
made a plan to kill Jagdish after drinking liquor and as per the
plan, both the accused persons had drunk liquor with the
deceased Jagdish and, thereafter, the accused Om Prakash had
strangulated the deceased with great force due to which he had
fallen down on the ground and was motionless and in order to be
sure about his death and for concealing his identity, Peetam had
put his knee on the chest of the deceased and cut his neck
completely and both of them dragged the body of the deceased
towards the river from the side of the farms due to which the
jacket of the deceased had also taken out which they had hidden
in the bushes and had thrown the body in the river and Peetam
had also thrown his purse in the water and thereafter, they had
kept head of the deceased in a polythene and had thrown it in the

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 8 of 109
river near the pump and the bloodstained knife was also thrown
in the river and they had also thrown the bottle and glasses in the
farms and, thereafter, they had gone to their respective jhuggies
and on the next day, after the body of the deceased had been
recovered, they fled away from there farms and avoided their
arrest.

16. It is further reported in the police report that the
accused Om Prakash had further disclosed that he could point out
the place where they had killed the deceased and also could get
recovered the bottle and the glasses; that he could also point out
the place where they had thrown the head of the deceased and the
weapon of offence (knife) and could also get them recovered; he
could also get the clothes which they had worn at the time of the
incident recovered and also could get the co-accused arrested.

17. It is further reported in the police report that during
the course of investigation and police custody remand, on
14.02.2015 the accused Om Prakash had pointed out the place
i.e. Bank of river Yamuna and disclosed that he along with his
associate Peetam had thrown the dead-body in the river and the
pointing out memo was prepared and on the pointing out of the
accused, with the help of divers, weapon of offence and head of
the deceased was searched for in the river but nothing was found.

18. It is further reported in the police report that during
the course of investigation, on the pointing out of the accused
Om Prakash, three plastic glass, one empty water bottle and one

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 9 of 109
half liquor bottle were recovered from the farms near the spot
and the crime-team was called at the spot and photographs were
taken and fingerprints were lifted from the half bottle.

19. It is further reported in the police report that on the
pointing out of the accused Om Prakash, orange (narangi) colour
jacket of the deceased hidden near the river was recovered and
the accused Om Prakash had also got the clothes (pant shirt and
sweater) worn by him at the time of incident recovered from his
jhuggi and also had got recovered the mobile phone having SIM
No.8588985614 which he had used before and after the incident.

20. It is further reported in the police report that on
16.02.2015, postmortem of the deceased Jagdish was got
conducted and after the postmortem, the dead-body of the
deceased was handed over to his brothers, namely, Sonu and
Naresh and during the postmortem, the Autopsy surgeon had
preserved exhibits/viscera of the deceased which were seized and
kept in the malkhana and the statement of the witnesses, Sonu
and Naresh, HC Praveen were recorded.

21. It is further reported in the police report that the
accused Peetam Lal had made an application for surrender on
20.02.2015 and he was interrogated with the permission of the
Court and during interrogation, the accused had disclosed about
his involvement in the commission of offence and on collection
of sufficient evidence, he was arrested and for purposes of
recovery of head of the deceased and weapon of offence,

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 10 of 109
pointing out of place of incidence, recovery of mobile, purse and
clothes of the accused, his two days police custody remand was
obtained and during the police custody remand, he had made
disclosure about his involvement in the commission of murder of
the deceased on the same lines as disclosed by his co-accused
Om Prakash.

22. It is further reported in the police report that forensic
medical of the accused persons, namely, Om Prakash and Peetam
were got conducted from AIIMS Forensic Department and during
the examination, their blood-in-gauze and nail clippings were got
preserved by the doctor and the exhibits were seized vide seizure
memos and deposited in the malkhana.

23. It is further reported in the police report that during
police custody remand, the accused Peetam pointed out the place
of incident and the place where they had hidden the jacket of the
deceased, the place where the dead-body and head of the
deceased were thrown in the Yamuna river and the place where
they had thrown the knife and purse and pointing out memos of
all the places were prepared.

24. It is further reported in the police report that on
pointing out of the accused, the knife used in the incident was got
recovered from the Yamuna river with the help of diver and it
was seized vide seizure memo; the accused also got recovered
the clothes (pant shirt and jacket) worn by him at the time of
commission of offence which were also seized vide seizure

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 11 of 109
memo and kept in malkhana, however, head of the deceased
could not be recovered despite several efforts.

25. It is further reported in the police report that
Inspector Mahesh Kumar, draughtsman was called at the spot and
scaled site-plan was got prepared.

26. It is further reported in the police report that the
postmortem report of the deceased was obtained and on the
postmortem report number 190/15, the doctor kept the opinion on
the cause of death pending till receiving of Viscera Analysis
Report.

27. It is further reported in the police report that the
investigating officer had obtained subsequent opinion regarding
the weapon of offence (knife) on which the doctor opined, “after
perusal of the PM report and examination of weapon of offence
we are of the considered opinion that the decapitation that is
postmortem in nature mentioned in PM report could be possible
with the knife produced with the examination.”

28. It is further reported in the police report that the
investigating officer of this case got the viscera deposited in FSL
Rohini on 24.03.2015 and the sealed exhibits were got deposited
in FSL Rohini on 06.04.2015 for DNA examination and its
acknowledgment were obtained and the result was pending.

29. It is further reported in the police report that on
09.04.2015 specimen fingerprints of both the accused persons
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 12 of 109
were obtained for its comparison with the chance print lifted by
fingerprints expert of the crime-team on the empty liquor bottle
recovered at the instance of the accused Om Prakash and
deposited in FPB.

30. It is further reported in the police report that the
complainant Sonu had named Sohan Singh son of Ganga Singh
also to be a suspect involved in the commission of incident of
murder of his brother Jagdish in his statement besides the
accused persons being a relative of the accused persons and when
the accused persons had absconded, the public persons had
caught Sohan Singh for being a relative of the accused persons
and also to inquire about the whereabouts of the accused persons
and for that purposes, the public persons had also given beatings
to Sohan Singh, however, during investigation, despite repeated
interrogation of Sohan Singh, no evidence/material could be
collected for proving his involvement in the commission of crime
and the accused persons have also not disclosed his name for
being involved in the commission of offence.

31. It is further reported in the police report that during
the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses under
section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded.

32. It is further reported in the police report that from
the investigation conducted so far, it has been established that
Om Prakash and his brother-in-law Peetam both used to reside in
Gayaspur Jhuggi and knew the deceased Jagdish, a resident of

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 13 of 109
same jhuggis; that Jagdish knew the daughter of Peetam and was
in talking terms with her which was disliked by the accused
Peetam, who had restricted his daughter Manju from talking to or
meeting Jagdish and he had also threatened Jagdish to kill him. It
is also established that on the morning of 31.01.2015, when the
accused Peetam had gone to work in farms, he had noticed that
the wheat crops were bent and one dupatta was lying there which
the accused thought that the same belonged to her daughter
Manju and in order to confirm that thing, the accused Peetam had
gone to his home and shown the duppatta to her daughter Manju
and wife to which Manju told Peetam that in the night of
31.01.2015, Jagdish had taken her to farms on some pretext and
tried to rape her and during struggle, she had forgotten her chunni
there and on hearing that, the accused Peetam had got angry and
decided to kill Jagdish and he had purchased a big knife from
Taimur Nagar where he used to sell vegetables and he planned to
kill Jagdish on 01.02.2015; the accused Peetam purchased liquor
bottle from Ashram, called his brother-in-law (Jija) to his jhuggi
and told him about the same and in the evening, both the accused
persons, namely, Om Prakash and Peetam had made a plan to kill
Jagdish while sitting outside their jhuggi and according to the
plan, call was made to Jagdish so that his availability at home can
be known, thereafter, Om Prakash had taken water bottle and
glasses and Peetam had taken knife and half liquor bottle and
called Jagdish from his home and had taken him to the farms
after crossing Pusta where firstly, both the accused persons had
intoxicated Jagdish heavily by liquor and Om Prakash

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 14 of 109
strangulated Jagdish and Peetam beheaded the body of Jagdish
by using knife and both the accused persons had thrown the head
and torso of deceased Jagdish in two different sides of Yamuna
river in order conceal his identity. Both the accused persons had
also thrown the weapon of offence i.e. knife and purse of the
deceased in Yamuna river and they had also thrown the liquor
bottle and glasses in the farms and had hidden the jacket in the
bushes in order to cause disappearance of the evidence from the
spot. After the dead-body had been recovered, both the accused
persons absconded and kept on hiding themselves at different
places.

33. It has also been established from the investigation
that from the CDRs analysis of the accused persons Peetam and
Om Prakash, it has transpired that the accused Peetam had made
four calls from his mobile phone numbers 8447723232 to the
mobile phone number 8588985614 of the accused Om Prakash
before the incident; thereafter, just before the incident, a call was
made from the mobile phone number 7835881259 of the
deceased Jagdish to the mobile phone of the accused Peetam at
22:50:33 hours and after that mobile phone of the deceased was
switched-off; the phones of the deceased and the accused Peetam
could not be recovered.

34. It has also been established from the investigation
that the accused persons Om Prakash and Peetam in a preplanned
manner called Jagdish from his home and took him to the farms
and after making him to drink liquor heavily, in order to take
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 15 of 109
revenge from him, caused his death by beheading him and in
order to conceal his identity, had thrown his head and torso in
Yamuna river.

35. It is further reported in the police report that on
receiving of report on exhibits/viscera results, the report
regarding cause of death would be obtained from the doctor and
would be filed by way of supplementary police report.

36. It is further reported in the police report that the
afore-said acts on the part of the accused persons, Om Prakash @
Om Prakash Rana and Peetam revealed commission of offences
punishable under sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860. It is, therefore, prayed that cognizance of the offences
committed by the accused persons, Om Prakash @ Om Prakash
Rana and Peetam may be taken and they should be tried as per
the provisions of law.

37. After completion of the investigation, the
investigating officer had filed police report before the concerned
Metropolitan Magistrate.

38. On the police report, on 13.05.2015, the
Metropolitan Magistrate had taken the cognizance of the
offences.

39. On the date of taking cognizance, the accused
persons were also produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate.

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 16 of 109

Copies of police report and other documents were supplied to the
accused persons.

40. On 29.05.2015, the Metropolitan Magistrate found
the offence under section 302 IPC to be exclusively triable by the
Court of Session and therefore, committed the case to the Court
of Session.

41. On 17.07.2015, upon considering the police report
and the documents sent with it under section 173 Cr.P.C. and
after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for the
accused persons, the charge was framed against the accused
persons, namely, Om Prakash @ Om Prakash Rana and Peetam
for their having committed offences punishable under section
302/201/34, the Indian Penal Code.

42. The charge was read over and explained to the
accused persons and they were asked if they pleaded guilty of the
offence charged or claimed to be tried. The accused persons did
not plead guilty and claim trial.

43. During trial, two supplementary police reports were
put by the State. On 09.12.2016, first supplementary police report
was put up whereby the FSL report was submitted and on
21.04.2017, second supplementary police report was put up
whereby the FSL report was submitted.

44. In the first supplementary police report, it is reported
that in continuation to the main police report, the chemical
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 17 of 109
examination report of the viscera of the deceased Jagdish has
been received from the FSL, Rohini New Delhi and as per the
report, “on chemical, microscopic, TLC, GC-HS & GC-MS
examination:-(i) Exhibits IA, IB & IC were found to contain
Ethyl Alcohol. (ii) Exhibit 1C was found to contain Ethyl
Alcohol 175.50mg/100ml of blood. (iii) Metallic poisons, ethyl
& methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates,
tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected in exhibit 1D.”

45. In the second supplementary police report, it is
reported that in continuation of previous police report dated
11.05.2015, the sealed exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini for DNA
examination, vide acknowledge number 2015-BIO-2157 and now
the report of the same has been received vide dairy number
468/15 dated 30.03.2017.

46. In support of its case, the prosecution got examined
PW1 Sonu, PW2 Yogesh @ Kalu , PW3 Dinesh Singh, Nodal
Officer from Vodafone Mobile Service Limited, PW4 Inspector
Mahesh Kumar, PW5 Head Constable (HC) Narpat Singh, PW6
Constable (Ct.) Sumit Kumar, PW7 Assistant Sub-Inspector
(ASI) Rajendra Singh, PW8 Head Constable (HC) Virender
Singh, PW9 Constable (Ct.) Sher Singh, PW10 Constable (Ct.)
Mohit Kumar, PW11 Constable (Ct.) Lokesh Tomar, PW12
Naresh, PW13 G. Shankar, PW14 Dr. D.N. Bhardwaj, Professor
of Forensic Medicine from AIIMS Hospital, PW15 Inspector
Lalit Kumar, PW16 Sub-Inspector (SI) Bangali Babu, PW17
Constable (Ct.) Wasim Khan, PW18 Sub-Inspector (SI) Sajjan
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 18 of 109
Kumar, PW19 Head Constable (HC) Mahesh, PW20 Constable
(Ct.) Puneet, PW21 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Kriti Kumar,
PW22 Head Constable (HC) Sardar Singh, PW23 Ms. Anju
Dixit, MRT from AIIMS Hospital, PW24 Dr. Om Prakash Senior
Resident of General Surgery from AIIMS, New Delhi, PW25 Dr.
Adesh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry) from FSL,
Rohini, New Delhi, PW26 Inspector Fateh Singh, PW27
Constable (Ct.) Parveen Kumar, PW28 Women Constable
(W/Ct.) Manisha, PW29 Dinesh Kumar, Junior MRO from
AIIMS, New Delhi, PW30 Dr. Adarsh Kumar, Professor of
Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS, New Delhi, PW31
Ms. Imrana, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) from FSL,
Rohini, New Delhi and PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar. During
the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the documents
Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F, Ex.PW1/G, Ex.PW1/H,
Ex.PW1/I, Ex.PW1/J, Ex.PW1/K, Ex.PW1/L, Ex.PW1/M,
Ex.PW1/N, Ex.PW1/O, Ex.PW1/P, Ex.PW1/Q, Ex.PW1/R,
Ex.PW1/S, Ex.PW1/T, Ex.PW1/U, Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B,
Ex.PW3/C, Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW3/E, Ex.PW3/F, Ex.PW3/G,
Ex.PW3/H, Ex.PW3/I, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW6/A,
Ex.PW6/B, Ex.PW6/C, Ex.PW6/D, Ex.PW6/E, Ex.PW7/A,
Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW11/B, Ex.PW12/DA, Ex.PW13/A,
Ex.PW13/B, Ex.PW14/A, Ex.PW14/B, Ex.PW14/C,
Ex.PW16/DA, Ex.PW17/A, Ex.PW17/B, Ex.PW17/C,
Ex.PW17/D, Ex.PW17/F, Ex.PW18/A, Ex.PW18/B,
Ex.PW19/A(Colly), Ex.PW19/B(Colly), Ex.PW20/A(Colly),
Ex.PW20/B(Colly) Ex.PW22/A, Ex.PW22/B, Ex.PW22/C,

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 19 of 109
Ex.PW23/A, Ex.PW25/A, Ex.PW27/A, Ex.PW28/A,
Ex.PW29/A, Ex.PW29/B, Ex.PW31/A, Ex.PW32/A,
Ex.PW32/B, Ex.PW32/C, Ex.PW32/D, Ex.PW32/E photographs
Ph-1 to Ph-30 and case properties Ex.P1, Ex.P2 , Ex.P3, Ex.P4,
Ex.P5, Ex.P6, Ex.C1, Ex.C2, Ex.C3, Ex.C4, Ex.PW18/P1,
Ex.PW18/P2, and Ex.PW18/P3 were also tendered in evidence.

47. On 10.05.2024, prosecution evidence was closed and
matter was posted for examination of the accused persons under
section 313 Cr.P.C. and for their statements.

48. On 22.03.2025, this Court examined the accused
persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. and their separate statements
were recorded. During their examination under section 313 of
Cr.P.C., the accused persons denied the correctness of
incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against
them. During their examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C.,
both the accused persons took the defence that they are innocent.
It is further stated by both the accused persons that they have
nothing to do with the present case and they were not present
there at the time of incident. It is further stated by the accused
persons that the family of the deceased raised unfounded
suspicion on them and falsely implicated them in the present
case. The accused persons did not express their desire to lead
evidence in their defence.

49. I have heard Mr. Jagdamba Pandey, Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Nitin Rai Sharma,

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 20 of 109
Advocate for the accused persons and have gone through the
record of the case carefully.

50. Having drawn my attention on the testimonies of
PW1 Sonu, PW2 Yogesh @ Kalu, PW3 Dinesh Singh, PW4
Inspector Mahesh Kumar, PW5 HC Narpat Singh, PW6 Ct.
Sumit Kumar, PW7 ASI Rajendra Singh, PW8 HC Virender
Singh, PW9 Ct. Sher Singh, PW10 Ct. Mohit Kumar, PW11 Ct.
Lokesh Tomar, PW12 Naresh, PW13 G. Shankar, PW14 Dr. D.N.
Bhardwaj, PW15 Inspector Lalit Kumar, PW16 SI Bangali Babu,
PW17 Ct. Wasim Khan, PW18 SI Sajjan Kumar, PW19 HC
Mahesh, PW20 Ct. Puneet, PW21 ASI Kriti Kumar, PW22 HC
Sardar Singh, PW23 Ms. Anju Dixit, PW24 Dr. Om Prakash,
PW25 Dr. Adesh Kumar, PW26 Inspector Fateh Singh, PW27 Ct.
Parveen Kumar, PW28 W/Ct. Manisha, PW29 Dinesh Kumar,
PW30 Dr. Adarsh Kumar, PW31 Ms. Imrana, and PW32
Inspector Ashok Kumar and the documents Ex.PW1/A,
Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F, Ex.PW1/G, Ex.PW1/H, Ex.PW1/I,
Ex.PW1/J, Ex.PW1/K, Ex.PW1/L, Ex.PW1/M, Ex.PW1/N,
Ex.PW1/O, Ex.PW1/P, Ex.PW1/Q, Ex.PW1/R, Ex.PW1/S,
Ex.PW1/T, Ex.PW1/U, Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW3/C,
Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW3/E, Ex.PW3/F, Ex.PW3/G, Ex.PW3/H,
Ex.PW3/I, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW6/B,
Ex.PW6/C, Ex.PW6/D, Ex.PW6/E, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW11/A,
Ex.PW11/B, Ex.PW12/DA, Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW13/B,
Ex.PW14/A, Ex.PW14/B, Ex.PW14/C, Ex.PW16/DA,
Ex.PW17/A, Ex.PW17/B, Ex.PW17/C, Ex.PW17/D,
Ex.PW17/F, Ex.PW18/A, Ex.PW18/B, Ex.PW19/A(Colly),
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 21 of 109
Ex.PW19/B(Colly), Ex.PW20/A(Colly), Ex.PW20/B(Colly)
Ex.PW22/A, Ex.PW22/B, Ex.PW22/C, Ex.PW23/A,
Ex.PW25/A, Ex.PW27/A, Ex.PW28/A, Ex.PW29/A,
Ex.PW29/B, Ex.PW31/A, Ex.PW32/A, Ex.PW32/B,
Ex.PW32/C, Ex.PW32/D, Ex.PW32/E and the photographs Ph-1
to Ph-30 and case properties Ex.P1, Ex.P2 , Ex.P3, Ex.P4, Ex.P5,
Ex.P6, Ex.C1, Ex.C2, Ex.C3, Ex.C4, Ex.PW18/P1, Ex.PW18/P2,
and Ex.PW18/P3, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the State has submitted that from the evidence led by the
prosecution, it has been proved that the accused persons have
committed the offence they are charged with. It is further
submitted that the accused persons had called the deceased from
his home and had taken him along to the farms where after
making him drunk, they killed the deceased. It is further
submitted that the present case is based on last seen together
theory. It is further submitted that the accused Peetam believed
that the deceased was after his daughter which gave him the
motive to commit the crime. It is further submitted that when the
dead-body of the deceased was recovered, the accused persons
fled away from their homes, which shows their conduct. It is
further submitted that pursuance to the disclosure, the accused
Peetam had got the knife used in the crime recovered and the
accused Om Prakash had got recovered liquor bottle and plastic
glasses used by them to make the deceased drunk. It is further
submitted that the jacket of the deceased was also got recovered
at the instance of the accused persons. It is further submitted that
the case-property was sent to FSL but on examination, since, the

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 22 of 109
knife was sub-merged, no chance prints or blood was found on
the knife, however, it has been established that the offence could
have been committed by the use of the said knife. It is further
submitted that during the course of investigation, the
investigating officer had obtained call details of the accused
persons and the deceased which shows their location at the same
place.

51. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused persons
has drawn my attention on the testimonies of PW1 Sonu, PW2
Yogesh @ Kalu, PW3 Dinesh Singh, PW4 Inspector Mahesh
Kumar, PW5 HC Narpat Singh, PW6 Ct. Sumit Kumar, PW7 ASI
Rajendra Singh, PW8 HC Virender Singh, PW9 Ct. Sher Singh,
PW10 Ct. Mohit Kumar, PW11 Ct. Lokesh Tomar, PW12
Naresh, PW13 G. Shankar, PW14 Dr. D.N. Bhardwaj, PW15
Inspector Lalit Kumar, PW16 SI Bangali Babu, PW17 Ct. Wasim
Khan, PW18 SI Sajjan Kumar, PW19 HC Mahesh, PW20 Ct.
Puneet, PW21 ASI Kriti Kumar, PW22 HC Sardar Singh, PW23
Ms. Anju Dixit, PW24 Dr. Om Prakash, PW25 Dr. Adesh
Kumar, PW26 Inspector Fateh Singh, PW27 Ct. Parveen Kumar,
PW28 W/Ct. Manisha, PW29 Dinesh Kumar, PW30 Dr. Adarsh
Kumar, PW31 Ms. Imrana, and PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar
and the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F,
Ex.PW1/G, Ex.PW1/H, Ex.PW1/I, Ex.PW1/J, Ex.PW1/K,
Ex.PW1/L, Ex.PW1/M, Ex.PW1/N, Ex.PW1/O, Ex.PW1/P,
Ex.PW1/Q, Ex.PW1/R, Ex.PW1/S, Ex.PW1/T, Ex.PW1/U,
Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW3/C, Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW3/E,
Ex.PW3/F, Ex.PW3/G, Ex.PW3/H, Ex.PW3/I, Ex.PW4/A,
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 23 of 109
Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW6/B, Ex.PW6/C, Ex.PW6/D,
Ex.PW6/E, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW11/B, Ex.PW12/DA,
Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW13/B, Ex.PW14/A, Ex.PW14/B,
Ex.PW14/C, Ex.PW16/DA, Ex.PW17/A, Ex.PW17/B,
Ex.PW17/C, Ex.PW17/D, Ex.PW17/F, Ex.PW18/A,
Ex.PW18/B, Ex.PW19/A(Colly), Ex.PW19/B(Colly),
Ex.PW20/A(Colly), Ex.PW20/B(Colly) Ex.PW22/A,
Ex.PW22/B, Ex.PW22/C, Ex.PW23/A, Ex.PW25/A,
Ex.PW27/A, Ex.PW28/A, Ex.PW29/A, Ex.PW29/B,
Ex.PW31/A, Ex.PW32/A, Ex.PW32/B, Ex.PW32/C,
Ex.PW32/D, Ex.PW32/E and the photographs Ph-1 to Ph-30 and
case properties Ex.P1, Ex.P2 , Ex.P3, Ex.P4, Ex.P5, Ex.P6,
Ex.C1, Ex.C2, Ex.C3, Ex.C4, Ex.PW18/P1, Ex.PW18/P2, and
Ex.PW18/P3 and the judgments in SK. Yusuf v. State of West
Bengal, (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 620, State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran
& Anr., (2007) 3 SCC 755, Dr. Mahender Singh Dhaiya v. State
(CBI), 2003 [1] JCC 218 and submitted that in the DD No.19
(Ex.PW7/A) it was recorded that “mere ladke ki kal raat death ho
gayi thi, dead body mili hai”. It is further submitted that there is a
long gap between the deceased was last seen together with the
accused at 10.00 p.m. and the dead-body of the deceased was
recovered at 02.00 p.m. on the next day. It is further submitted
that the prosecution has tried to establish motive to commit the
crime on the basis of the deceased was after the daughter of the
accused Peetam, whereas, his daughter was just of 12 years of
age at the time of incident. It is further submitted that the
deceased Jagdish was in regular touch with the accused Peetam.

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 24 of 109

It is further submitted that when the deceased had not returned on
the night who prevented his family members to go to the police
station, however, they have framed the accused persons after the
body of the deceased was recovered. It is further submitted that
the DNA test was not conducted to identify the dead-body and
infact, the dead-body was not of Jagdish and it is the main
defence of the accused persons from the very beginning. It is
further submitted that the deceased used to sit and drink with the
accused persons and they were in touch and remained well
connected on phone.

52. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
submissions made on behalf of the parties.

53. The accused persons have been charged for the
offences punishable under sections 302/201/34 I.P.C. Section 302
IPC provides for punishment of murder. Whereas, the offence of
murder has been defined under section 300 IPC. Sections
300,201 and 34 IPC read as follows: –

“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, if-

Secondly.- If it is done with the intention of causing
such bodily injury as the offence 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-

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 25 of 109

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.”

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 the
commission of that offence to disappear, with the
intention of screening the offender from legal
punishment, or with that intention gives any
information 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.

Illustration — A, knowing that B has murdered Z,
assists B to hide the body with the intention of
screening B from punishment. A is liable to
imprisonment of either description for seven years, and
also to fine.”

34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of
common intention.–When a criminal act is done by
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 26 of 109
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.”

54. The facts of the case have already been noticed
earlier, here, I would like to only focus on the evidence that has
been adduced by the prosecution.

55. To bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the
prosecution has examined thirty-two (32) witnesses.

56. PW1 Sonu has deposed that he along with his
brother Jagdish were residing above-said address and he was
working as a helper in the company, namely, Pratibha at Sarai
Kale Khan and his brother Jagdish was also working in the said
company as driver on the vehicle of Mahindra pick-up. It is
further deposed by PW1 Sonu that on 01.02.2015 at about 10.00
p.m., his brother had come to their house for dinner and had
dinner at his vehicle and had come at Jhuggi to give the utensils
and, in the meantime, Peetam and Om Prakash, who resided in
the same area, had come there and they had called his brother and
they all three had proceeded towards Yamuna Khadar.

57. It is further deposed by PW1 Sonu that they had
found the Mahindra pick-up van, which was driven by his
brother, parked near temple but his brother had not come back
and on having arisen doubts, he had informed his brother-in-law
(Jija) Titu about the missing of Jagdish. It is further deposed by
PW1 Sonu that they had searched for Jagdish but he could not be
found and in search of their brother Jagdish, they had reached at
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 27 of 109
Yamuna Khadar at about 01.45-02.00 p.m. and did not find
anything but his cousin Kalu, who was also with them, had notice
the dead-body of his brother which was under the water and was
at drowning stage. It is further deposed by PW1 Sonu that they
had taken the dead-body of his brother without head out and
when his brother had left their house, his brother was wearing
black color pant yellow shirt and one ring in finger and a
tatto/name was also engraved on his right hand. It is further
deposed by PW1 Sonu that the belongings of his brother like
purse which containing his DL and other documents and Mobile
phone were not found from the dead-body and they had brought
the dead-body of his brother at their Jhuggi. It is further deposed
by PW1 Sonu that his brother Naresh had informed to the police
at 100 number and police had come there and he had also shown
the place where the dead-body was recovered.

58. It is further deposed by PW1 Sonu that his brother
Jagdish used to sit with the accused Peetam and Om Prakash and
Peetam used to tell Jagdish that Jagdish would be his future son-
in-law and there was no enmity between Jagdish and Peetam
family but one day Peetam had threatened his brother Jagdish
because Jagdish was following daughter of Peetam. It is further
deposed by PW1 Sonu that he did not know whether they were
fighting to each other or not but when it came in the knowledge
of Peetam that the dead-body of Jagdish was recovered, he had
run away from his house.

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 28 of 109

59. It is further deposed by PW1 Sonu that the
investigating officer had recorded his statement (Ex.PW1/A). It is
further deposed by PW1 Sonu that he had shown the places to the
investigating officer from where the dead-body was recovered,
the empty bottles (six half bottles) with three glasses were
recovered and the police had taken the photographs marked as
Mark PW1/A, Mark PW1/B, Mark PW1/C, Mark PW1/D and the
place from where these articles were recovered. It is further
deposed by PW1 Sonu that the police had prepared many papers
but he did not remember about nature of papers, however,
(Ex.PW1/E) bears his signature at point A. It is further deposed
by PW1 Sonu that he did not remember the exact date and
month, however, 10-11 months ago, he along with the police
officials had gone near the Yamuna Bank and had shown the spot
to the police officials where the head of the deceased was cut and
other places from where belt and red jacket of the deceased were
recovered. It is further deposed by PW1 Sonu that he had also
shown the place where dead-body was found and he had become
unconscious near the pushta bandh and Kalu had brought the
dead-body of the deceased from the Yamuna Bank to their house.
It is further deposed by PW1 Sonu that he did not remember how
many papers were prepared by the police officials, however,
(Ex.PW1/E to Ex.PW1/T) bear his signatures at point A. It is
further deposed by PW1 Sonu that besides the dead-body, they
had not searched anything near the bank of Yamuna Bank and he
whatever SHO had made him to understand he has deposed
before this Court. It is further deposed by PW1 Sonu that he was

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 29 of 109
deposing on the basis of the incident happened to him and
besides belt and jacket, he did not find anything near the bank of
Yamuna River.

60. During his examination-in-chief, PW1 Sonu was
cross-examined on behalf of the State with the permission of the
Court. During his cross-examination by Additional PP for the
State, he has admitted that the incident happened on 2nd month
of 2015 and when he had gone near the Yamuna Bank, the
accused Peetam and the police officials accompanied him. It is
also admitted by PW1 Sonu that the diver Jogesh and Shankar
were called near the bank for searching the head of the deceased
and the spot of search was pointed out by the accused Peetam. It
is further admitted by PW1 Sonu that the police officials had
prepared the sketch of the said knife and he had signed on said
sketch at point A. It is further admitted by PW1 Sonu that the
police officials has taken shirt, pant and jacket of Peetam into
possession vide the seizure memo and the accused Peetam had
shown the spot to the police officials where he had thrown the
glass of liquor in the farm land and the police officials had
prepared the site-plan of the said spot and had obtained his
signatures. It is further admitted by PW1 Sonu that after the said
incident, he had gone to AIIMS hospital where he had identified
the dead-body of his brother Jagdish and received his body after
postmortem vide memo (Ex.PW1/U). It is further admitted by
PW1 Sonu that during the incident, he along with police officials
had gone to the Jhuggi of Om Prakash from where Om Prakash
had recovered the clothes and had handed over to the police and
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 30 of 109
police had seized the same through seizure memo and obtained
his signatures. It is further admitted by PW1 Sonu that the
accused Om Prakash had taken them to the spot where he along
with Peetam and the deceased had consumed liquor in the farm
land and the police officials had taken the photographs of the
spot. PW1 Sonu has correctly identified both the accused
persons, Om Prakash and Peetam in the Court. PW1 Sonu has
also correctly identified one jacket (Ex.P1) to be belonged to his
deceased brother. PW1 Sonu has also correctly identified one
sweater, shirt and pant (Ex.P2) to be belonged to Om Prakash and
one Jacket, shirt and pant (Ex.P3) to be belonged to Peetam.
PW1 Sonu has also correctly identified four clothes (Ex.P4) and
one belt (Ex.P5) belonged to his deceased brother Jagdish. PW1
Sonu has also correctly identified one knife (Ex.P6) and deposed
that it was recovered near the bank of Yamuna. It is further
deposed by PW1 Sonu that due to lapse of time, he could not
recollect all the facts of this case.

61. PW2 Yogesh @ Kalu has deposed that Jagdish, his
uncle’s son (Tau’s son), was working as a driver in Pratibha
Company. It is further deposed by PW2 Yogesh @ Kalu that he
was coming to attend natural call from Yamuna Khadar on
01.02.2015 at about 10.00 p.m. and he had seen Om Prakash,
Peetam and Jagdish were going towards Yamuna Pushta. It is
further deposed by PW2 Yogesh @ Kalu that at that time, Jagdish
had worn black pant, green vest and yellow jacket and he had
asked them where Jagdish was going but Jagdish had not replied
and, thereafter, he had come at his Jhuggi and gone to sleep. It is
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 31 of 109
further deposed by PW2 Yogesh @ Kalu that on the next day, all
of them were searching Jagdish but he was not found. It is further
deposed by PW2 Yogesh @ Kalu that on the next day, he did not
enquire from Peetam and Om Prakash about Jagdish. It is further
deposed by PW2 Yogesh @ Kalu that when they had reached at
the bank of Yamuna at about 11.00 a.m., they had found the dead-
body of Jagdish and the dead-body of the Jagdish was found in
Yamuna without his head and they had taken the dead-body of
Jagdish at jhuggi. It is further deposed by PW2 Yogesh @ Kalu
that they had searched the head of the Jagdish but it was not
found and when it had come to the knowledge that the dead-body
of the Jagdish was found, Peetam and Om Prakash, who were
working in the field, had run away from there and at that time, no
one was appearing. PW2 Yogesh @ Kalu has correctly identified
the accused the accused persons Om Prakash and Peetam in the
Court.

62. PW2 Yogesh @ Kalu was also cross-examined on
behalf of the State with the permission of the Court. During his
cross-examination by Additional PP for the State, he has admitted
that he had seen Jagdish, Om Prakash and Peetam at 11.00 p.m. It
is further admitted by PW2 Yogesh @ Kalu that he had enquired
about the missing of Jagdish from Om Prakash and Peetam but
they did not disclose anything. It is further admitted by PW2
Yogesh @ Kalu that Sonu and Titu had raised alarm at about
02.00 p.m. about the seen of the dead-body of Jagdish. It is
further admitted by PW2 Yogesh @ Kalu that nothing was found
in the pocket of Jagdish.

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 32 of 109

63. PW3 Dinesh Singh, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile
Services Limited, C-45, Okhla, Phase-II, New Delhi-20 has
deposed that he had brought the Customer Application Forms of
mobile numbers 7838882510, 8447723232, 8588985614 in
respect of customers, namely, (i) Om Prakash son of Dhiri Singh
resident of House No.12-T, Huts, Gayaspur, Sarai Kalen Khan,

(ii) Peetam son of Shankar resident of House No.76, Jhuggi,
Gayaspur, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi and (iii) Om Prakash son
of Dhiri Singh resident of House No.1366, Palakser, Tehsil Dibal,
Bulansher (Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C, respectively).
It is further deposed by PW3 Dinesh Singh that he has seen the
CDR of mobile number 7838882510 (consisting of 1 page)
(Ex.PW3/D), has also seen the CDR of mobile number
8447723232 (consisting of 2 pages) (Ex.PW3/E) and has also
seen the CDR of mobile number 8588985614 (consisting of 2
pages) (Ex.PW3/F). It is further deposed by PW3 Dinesh Singh
that he has seen the certificate under section 65B of Indian
Evidence Act in respect of aforesaid mobile numbers
(Ex.PW3/G, Ex.PW3/H and Ex.PW3/I) and all the aforesaid
documents are duly sealed with seal of company, bearing the
initial of Deepak Tomar (Nodal Officer), who had left the job.
PW3 Dinesh Singh has identified the signatures of Deepak
Tomar.

64. PW4 Inspector Mahesh Kumar has deposed that on
07.04.2015, he was posted as Inspector/Draftsman at Crime
Branch, Police HQ and on that day, he along with Inspector
Ashok Kumar had visited the place of occurrence i.e. Yamuna
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 33 of 109
Khadar, near Gayaspur Jhuggies and had taken rough notes and
measurement on the pointing out of Inspector Ashok Kumar,
thereafter, on the basis of rough-notes and measurement, at the
instance of Inspector Ashok Kumar, he had prepared scaled site-
plan (Ex.PW4/A) and after preparation of scaled site-plan, rough
notes and measurements were destroyed.

65. PW5 HC Narpat Singh has deposed that on
02.02.2015, he was posted as Head Constable in PCR and on that
day, he was in-charge of PCR Vehicle stationed at the police
booth in front of Sarai Kalen Kahan, Bus Stand and his duty
hours were from 08:00 a.m. to 08:00 p.m. and at about 02:20
p.m., on receiving a call from police control room regarding
missing of a boy from the jhuggies of Gyas Pur, Yamuna Bridge,
Sarai Kalen Kahan and his head-less body was lying near the
jhuggies, he along with his other PCR officials had reached there
and he had seen a gathering of public persons. It is further
deposed by PW5 HC Narpat Singh that one Naresh, brother of
the deceased had met him and told that his brother has been
murdered by the accused persons Om Prakash and Peetam and
one person, namely, Sohan Singh was caught by public persons
on suspicion ground and that person was in injured condition. It
is further deposed by PW5 HC Narpat Singh that the local police
had also reached there and Sohan Singh was rescued from the
public persons and was taken Trauma Center, AIIMS and he was
got admitted there.

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 34 of 109

66. PW6 Ct. Sumit Kumar has deposed that on
11.02.2015, he was working as Naib Court in the Court of Sh.
Ashok Kumar, Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket and on that day,
the accused Om Prakash had made an application for surrender
cum bail before the Court and his application was fixed for
orders on 13.02.2015 and on that day, Learned Metropolitan
Magistrate was on leave so he had gone before Link
Metropolitan Magistrate and had produced the application along
with the accused. It is further deposed by PW6 Ct. Sumit Kumar
that after obtaining permission from the Court, the investigating
officer had formally arrested the accused Om Prakash in the
present case vide arrest memo (Ex.PW6/A) and his personal
search was conducted vide memo (Ex.PW6/B) and nothing was
recovered. PW6 Ct. Sumit Kumar has correctly identified the
accused Om Prakash in the Court. It is further deposed by PW5
HC Narpat Singh that on 20.02.2015, the accused Peetam had
made an application for his surrender before the Court, thereafter,
the investigating officer had made an application and having
interrogated him vide memo (Ex.PW6/C), the accused Peetam
was formally arrested vide memo (Ex.PW6/D) and his personal
search was conducted vide memo (Ex.PW6/E). PW6 Ct. Sumit
Kumar has correctly identified the accused Peetam in the Court.

67. PW7 ASI Rajender Singh has deposed that on
02.02.2015, he was working as DD writer at police post Sarai
Kala Khan of police station Sunlight Colony and on that day at
about 2:30 p.m., an information was received that caller had
informed that his son died yesterday in the night and his dead-

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 35 of 109

body was found. It is further deposed by PW7 ASI Rajender
Singh that he had reduced the said information in writing vide
DD No.19 (Ex.PW7/A) and after recording DD entry, he had
handed over copy of the same to SI Bangali Babu for further
inquiry.

68. PW8 HC Virender Singh has deposed that on
02.02.2015, he was posted at the police post Sarai Kale Khan of
police station Sunlight Colony and on that day at about 02:30
p.m., on receiving an information from the Duty Officer
regarding a dead-body was lying near Yamuna Khadar, Sunlight
Colony, he had reached at Yamuna Khadar Gyaspur and seen that
some public persons had gathered over there and a dead-body
was lying and, in the meantime, Ct. Parveen, Ct. Anil, SI Bengali
Babu had also reached there. It is further deposed by PW8 HC
Virender Singh that PCR van was also there and one person,
namely, Sonu, who was brother of the deceased, had met and
informed them that Peetam and Om Prakash had taken his
brother along at the night and they had raised suspicion on Om
Prakash and Peetam. It is further deposed by PW8 HC Virender
Singh that Sonu had identified the dead-body to be his brother
Jagdish. It is further deposed by PW8 HC Virender Singh that he
had been searching his brother Jagdish since morning and at
about 01:30 p.m., when he had reached near Yamuna Bank, he
had found the dead-body without head. It is further deposed by
PW8 HC Virender Singh that Sonu had pointed out the place
from where he has taken the dead-body and they had tried to find
out the head of the dead-body but could not find the same. It is
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 36 of 109
further deposed by PW8 HC Virender Singh that during the
proceedings, Inspector Ashok Kumar had also reached at the spot
who recorded the statement of Sonu, prepared the rukka, sent it
to police station for the registration of FIR. It is further deposed
by PW8 HC Virender Singh that he had gone to the police
station, got the FIR registered, come back with original rukka
and copy of FIR to the spot and handed over the same to
Inspector Ashok.

69. PW9 Ct. Sher Singh has deposed that on 02.02.2015,
he was working as a Special Messenger and had received
information from Duty Officer regarding lodging of FIR No.
62/15 under section 302/201/34 IPC. It is further deposed by
PW9 Ct. Sher Singh that a copy of the said FIR was given to him
and was instructed to deliver the said copy to Ld. MM Sh. Ashok
Kumar and as per the instructions, he had gone at the house of
Ld. MM by the government motor cycle vide his departure entry
no.14A and delivered the copy.

70. PW10 Ct. Mohit Kumar has deposed that on
02.02.2015, he was posted in the police station Sunlight Colony
as Constable and on that day, SI Bengali Babu had received an
information regarding a dead-body lying at Gyaspur area,
thereafter, he along with SI Bengali Babu had reached at the spot
where they had found the dead-body was lying. It is further
deposed by PW10 Ct. Mohit Kumar that HC Virender, Ct.
Parveen and in-charge of police post had also reached over there
and one person, namely, Sonu among other persons was also
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 37 of 109
present over there who had identified the dead-body without the
head as his brother Jagdish. It is further deposed by PW10 Ct.
Mohit Kumar that the photographs of the spot were collected and
the investigating officer had recorded statement of Sonu and had
sent it through HC Virender to the police station for registration
of FIR and crime-team and dog-squad were also called at the
spot. It is further deposed by PW10 Ct. Mohit Kumar that the
dead-body was sent to the AIIMS hospital through Ct. Parveen
and the head of the dead-body as well as the weapon of offence
was searched for but could not be found. It is further deposed by
PW10 Ct. Mohit Kumar that Sonu had raised the suspicion on
Peetam and Om Prakash.

71. PW11 Ct. Lokesh Tomar has deposed that on
03.02.2015, he was posted at police station Amar Colony and he
along with Inspector Ashok Kumar had reached at Khadar near
Yamuna Bank where they had made effort to find out the head of
the dead-body in area but the same could not be found, thereafter,
they had reached at police booth railway road, Sarai Kalen Khan
where the investigating had recorded the statement of HC Narpal
Singh. It is further deposed by PW11 Ct. Lokesh Tomar that the
investigating officer had also taken the photocopy of the Log
Book of PCR van into possession vide seizure memo
(Ex.PW11/A) bear his signatures at point A. It is further deposed
by PW11 Ct. Lokesh Tomar that on 12.02.2015, the investigating
officer had given him an application to bring the PCR form from
CPCR PHQ Office and he had gone to the office and had brought
the form and handed over to the investigating officer. It is further
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 38 of 109
deposed by PW11 Ct. Lokesh Tomar that on 17.02.2015, the
investigating officer had given him the custody of Om Prakash
and he had gone to AIIMS Mortuary where he had got medical
examination of Om Prakash conducted. It is further deposed by
PW11 Ct. Lokesh Tomar that in the AIIMS hospital, the doctor
has collected blood-in-gauze, left and right hand nail clippings
and handed over him the same along with the sample seal and he
had brought the same and handed over to the investigating officer
which was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW11/B).

72. It is further deposed by PW11 Ct. Lokesh Tomar that
on 20.02.2015, he along with the investigating officer had come
to the Saket Court where the accused Peetam has surrendered and
the investigating officer had obtained the permission for
interrogation and after interrogation, the investigating officer had
arrested Peetam vide memo (Ex.PW6/D) and his personal search
was conducted vide memo (Ex.PW6/E) and PC remand of the
accused Peetam was sought from the Court. PW11 Ct. Lokesh
Tomar has correctly identified the accused Peetam in the Court. It
is further deposed by PW11 Ct. Lokesh Tomar that the accused
Peetam was taken to AIIMS Hospital where his medical
examination was got conducted and blood-in-gauze and nail
clippings of the accused Peetam were taken at AIIMS Mortuary,
thereafter, they had gone to the spot i.e. Yamuna Khadar and the
accused had pointed out the place where he beheaded Jagdish
vide pointing out memo (Ex.PW1/G) and the accused was taken
to lock-up of the police station H.N. Din. It is further deposed by
PW11 Ct. Lokesh Tomar that on 21.02.2015, the accused was
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 39 of 109
taken out of the lock-up of the police station H.N. Din and was
taken to the spot i.e. at Yamuna Khadar and Divers were called
and were asked to find out the head of the dead-body of Jagdish
and knife. It is further deposed by PW11 Ct. Lokesh Tomar that
the divers could not find head of the dead-body but they got
recovered a knife from the Yamuna River and the investigating
officer had prepared site-plan of the place of recovery, where the
recovery of weapon of offence i.e., knife was affected vide
(Ex.PW1/V) and the investigating officer had prepared sketch of
the knife vide (Ex.PW13/A). It is further deposed by PW11 Ct.
Lokesh Tomar that the seizure memo of knife was prepared after
preparing pulanda of the same vide (Ex.PW11/B). It is further
deposed by PW11 Ct. Lokesh Tomar that the accused had taken
them to his Jhuggi and got recovered the clothes which he had
worn at the time of committing the crime. It is further deposed by
PW11 Ct. Lokesh Tomar that he did not remember the
description of the clothes, however, there were pant and shirt and
the investigating officer had seized all those clothes vide seizure
memo (Ex.PW1/U) and, thereafter, they had come back at police
station and the investigating officer had handed over the pulandas
of the case property to MHC(M). It is further deposed by PW11
Ct. Lokesh Tomar that on 16.03.2015, he had obtained sealed
parcels from Malkhana police station Sunlight Colony and had
taken them to AIIMS Mortuary and deposited the same for
obtaining opinion. It is further deposed by PW11 Ct. Lokesh
Tomar that he had handed over the receipt of deposit of sealed
parcels to MHC(M) police station Sunlight Colony. It is further

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 40 of 109
deposed by PW11 Ct. Lokesh Tomar that on 24.03.2015, he had
collected sealed viscera petti from MHC(M) Sunlight Colony and
deposited the same at FSL, Rohini and he had handed over the
receipt of sealed viscera petti to MHC (M) police station Sunlight
Colony. It is further deposed by PW11 Ct. Lokesh Tomar that on
06.04.2015, he had collected exhibits from MHC(M) Sunlight
Colony and had deposited the same at FSL, Rohini and had
handed over the receipt of exhibits to MHC(M) police station
Sunlight Colony. PW11 Ct. Lokesh Tomar has correctly
identified knife (Ex.PW11/P1), bloodstained pant, shirt and
jacket (Ex.P3 colly.).

73. PW12 Naresh has deposed that he was working as a
labour in cultivation and the deceased Jagdish was his brother
and working as a driver. It is further deposed by PW12 Naresh
that on 01.02.2015 at about 10.30 p.m., when he along with his
mother and Jagdish were having dinner in their jhuggi at the
above-said address, their neighbours, namely, Om Prakash and
Peetam had come to their jhuggi and called Jagdish. It is further
deposed by PW12 Naresh that they had taken away Jagdish with
them and at that time, Jagdish was wearing t-shirt and black
colour pant, he was carrying a mobile phone and when Jagdish
had gone with Om Prakash and Peetam, they were under the
impression that he would have gone on duty and on the next day,
they had seen that his vehicle was stationed near the house but
Jagdish was missing then they started searching of Jagdish and
during search, they had asked Om Prakash and Peetam about
Jagdish while they were working in the field but they replied that
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 41 of 109
they did not know about Jagdish and during search of Jagdish, he
along with Yogesh, Titu and other police official had reached
near the bank of Yamuna where they had found the dead-body of
Jagdish without head. It is further deposed by PW12 Naresh that
they had brought the dead-body of Jagdish to their house, then he
had informed to police at number 100 and they were able to
identify the dead-body of Jagdish as his name was engraved on
the hand of Jagdish and when they had made search of the dead-
body of Jagdish, neither purse nor mobile could be found. It is
further deposed by PW12 Naresh that when they were taking
away the dead-body of Jagdish to their house, some noise was
raised and on hearing the noise, Om Prakash and Peetam, who
were working in the field, had run away from the spot and could
not be apprehended. It is further deposed by PW12 Naresh that
on the way, they had met one Sohan, who was apprehended and
interrogated. It is further deposed by PW12 Naresh that he did
not know what had he disclosed although he was beaten by the
public persons at the spot. It is further deposed by PW12 Naresh
that he had told the police official that Om Prakash and Peetam
had murdered Jagdish. It is further deposed by PW12 Naresh that
Om Prakash and Peetam had disclosed that they had killed
Jagdish and they would also kill another member of the family. It
is further deposed by PW12 Naresh that there was no enmity
between the deceased and the accused persons and Om Prakash
and Peetam had made an allegation that Jagdish used to meet
with the daughter of Peetam. It is further deposed by PW12
Naresh that the head of the dead-body could not be recovered. It

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 42 of 109
is further deposed by PW12 Naresh that he had informed the
police from the mobile phone of his wife. It is further deposed by
PW12 Naresh that he had gone to AIIMS Hospital where dead-
body was handed over to him after the postmortem. PW12
Naresh has correctly identified both the accused persons in the
Court. PW12 Naresh has also correctly identified thirty
photographs (Mark PH-1 to PH-30) belonged to dead-body as
well as the spot, baniyan, one underwear, one shirt and one jacket
of the deceased Jagdish (Ex.C-1 colly.).

74. PW13 G. Shankar has deposed that he was a diver
and at about two years ago, family members of the deceased had
come to him and had asked him to search the head of body of the
deceased in Yamuna Bank. It is further deposed by PW13 Sh. G.
Shankar that he had searched the head of body for about three
days but he could not find the same then he had returned to his
house.

75. During cross-examination done by learned Addl. P.P.
for the State, it was admitted by PW13 G. Shankar that police
officials had come to him and asked to search the head of the
body. It was further admitted that during the search of head, they
had found a knife from Yamuna Bank.

76. PW14 Dr. D.N. Bhardwaj, Professor Forensic
Medicine, AIIMS Hospital has deposed that he has been working
at AIIMS since 1984 in various capacities and working as
Professor since 2008 and on 16.02.2015 he along with Dr. Piyush

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 43 of 109
Sharma and Dr. Hari Prasad had conducted the postmortem on
the body of Mr. Jagdish son of Bachchan Lal who was brought
for postmortem by Sunlight Colony police with history of found
floating in Yamuna River on 02.02.2015 with head missing. It is
further deposed by PW14 Dr. D. N. Bhardwaj that the
postmortem was conducted by the Board of three doctors as
mentioned above and he was Chairman of the Board. It is further
deposed by PW14 Dr. D. N. Bhardwaj that on postmortem, the
deceased was wearing blue colour underwear, green colour
baniyan, yellow coloured check shirt and a brown colour sweat
shirt which was having multiple sharp cuts. It is further deposed
by PW14 Dr. D. N. Bhardwaj that the person was having a tattoo
mark named Jagdish over right forearm and also symbol of lord
Shiva and the head was decapitated at the level of cervical fourth
and fifth vertebra and there was no bleeding at that level
suggesting it was postmortem in nature. It is further deposed by
PW14 Dr. D. N. Bhardwaj that no injury was appreciable on the
available parts and the length of the body was around 170 cm
calculated on the basis of arm span. It is further deposed by
PW14 Dr. D. N. Bhardwaj that the viscera was preserved along
with the blood sample and DNA sample which was handed over
to the police. It is further deposed by PW14 Dr. D. N. Bhardwaj
that the cause of death was kept pending at that time and time
since death was about two weeks and the postmortem report
(Ex.PW14/A) having four pages was signed by all the three
doctors. It is further deposed by PW14 Dr. D. N. Bhardwaj that
subsequently, Inspector Ashok Kumar had submitted an

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 44 of 109
application for opinion on the alleged weapon of offence which
was knife sealed in a parcel and the dimensions along with the
diagram which they had made were also annexed vide
(Ex.PW14/B) and after examination of the alleged weapon of
offence, the Board was of the opinion that decapitation was
possible by the knife shown to them and he had prepared report
(Ex.PW14/C). It is further deposed by PW14 Dr. D. N. Bhardwaj
that Dr. Piyush Sharma and Dr. Hari Prasad had left the services
of the hospital and their whereabouts were not known. It is
further deposed by PW14 Dr. D. N. Bhardwaj that he could
identify their handwriting and signatures as they had worked with
him and he had seen them signing and writing during course of
his duty. It is further deposed by PW14 Dr. D. N. Bhardwaj that
(Ex.PW14/A and Ex.PW14/C) bear signature of Dr. Hari Prasad
and Dr. Piyush Sharma at point B and C respectively and
(Ex.PW14/B) bears signature of Dr. Hari Prasad at point A.

77. PW15 Inspector Lalit Kumar has deposed that on
02.02.2002, he was posted as in-charge of police post Sarai Kale
Khan and on that day, on receiving of DD no.19 regarding dead-
body at Gyas Pur Khadar Colony, he had gone to the spot. It is
further deposed by PW15 Inspector Lalit Kumar that SI Bengali
Babu, HC Virender, Ct. Parveen and Ct. Mohit had also arrived at
the spot and Inspector Ashok Kumar had also reached at the spot
and public persons were gathered at the spot. It is further deposed
by PW15 Inspector Lalit Kumar that a headless dead-body was
lying at the spot and one Sonu along with his brothers and family
members was also present and told that the dead-body was of his
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 45 of 109
brother Jagdish and yesterday at around 10.00-11.00 p.m.,
Peetam and Om Prakash had taken Jagdish with them from his
house and since then he had not returned. It is further deposed by
PW15 Inspector Lalit Kumar that Sonu had also informed that he
had seen the vehicle of the deceased Jagdish near his jhuggi and
he along with his brother-in-law Tittoo were searching Jagdish
since morning and when they had come near Yamuna River and
they had found a headless body and they had identified the said
dead-body of Jagdish on the basis of clothes and the tattoo mark
(Jagdish) on his hand. It is further deposed by PW15 Inspector
Lalit Kumar that the investigating officer Inspector Ashok Kumar
had recorded statement of Sonu, prepared rukka and sent it
through HC Virender to police station Sunlight Colony for
registration of FIR.

78. It is further deposed by PW15 Inspector Lalit Kumar
that the crime-team and dog squad was called at the spot and the
spot was inspected and photographed. It is further deposed by
PW15 Inspector Lalit Kumar that the photographs of dead-body
was also taken and the investigating officer had prepared inquest
paper and the dead-body was sent to AIIMS Mortuary in the
custody of Ct. Parveen. It is further deposed by PW15 Inspector
Lalit Kumar that the then SHO police station Sunlight Colony
and ACP, NFC had also arrived at the spot, thereafter, efforts
were made to search the accused persons Peetam and Om
Prakash. It is further deposed by PW15 Inspector Lalit Kumar
that his statement was recorded in police post Sarai Kale Khan.

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 46 of 109

79. PW16 Retired SI Bangali Babu has deposed that on
02.02.2015, he was posted as SI at police post Sarai Kale Khan
of police station Sunlight Colony and on that day, on receipt of
DD No.19 police post Sarai Kale Khan, he along with Ct. Mohit
had gone to the spot i.e. Jhugii Gyaspur Camp, Sarai Kale Khan
and found many persons had been gathered there. It is further
deposed by PW16 SI Bangali Babu that a dead-body without
head was found lying on the ground at Chowk (a vacant space
outside two jhuggies facing each other) and dead-body was
covered with a cloth sheet. It is further deposed by PW16 SI
Bangali Babu that they had met Sonu, brother of the deceased
Jagdish at the spot, who had identified the dead-body and,
thereafter, SI Lalit Kumar, in-charge of the police post Sarai Kale
Khan and Inspector Ashok Kumar, the investigating officer had
also arrived at the spot and he had briefed them and the
investigating officer had recorded statement of Sonu, prepared
the rukka and got the FIR registered through HC Virender. It is
further deposed by PW16 SI Bangali Babu that one pant was
lying near the dead-body and brother of deceased had told that it
was pant of his deceased brother and the deceased was wearing a
vest and underwear. It is further deposed by PW16 SI Bangali
Babu that the investigating officer had seized the pant vide
seizure memo (Ex.PW1/P) and blood in gauze and earth-control
were also lifted from the spot and seized vide seizure memo
(Ex.PW1/Q). It is further deposed by PW16 SI Bangali Babu that
crime-team was called at the spot and the photographs of the spot
were taken, thereafter, they had gone to the place of incident at

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 47 of 109
Yamuna Khadar near bank of Yamuna River in the field. It is
further deposed by PW16 SI Bangali Babu that blood was lying
on the spot and exhibits were lifted and blood-stained grass and
earth-control were lifted from there vide seizure memo
(Ex.PW1/R). It is further deposed by PW16 SI Bangali Babu that
red colour belt of the deceased was seized vide seizure memo
(Ex.PW1/S). It is further deposed by PW16 SI Bangali Babu that
the dead-body was sent to AIIMS Mortuary through Ct. Parveen
and one person, namely, Sohan Singh was present near the
Jhuggies and Sonu had raised suspicion on him. It is further
deposed by PW16 SI Bangali Babu that Sohan Singh was sent to
police post Sarai Kale Khan and Sonu had also raised suspicion
on two persons, namely, Om Prakash and Peetam with whom his
brother Jagdish had gone in the intervening night of
01/02.02.2015 and, thereafter, he had not come back. It is further
deposed by PW16 SI Bangali Babu that they had made efforts to
search Om Prakash and Peetam but to no avail.

80. PW17 Ct. Wasim Khan has deposed that on
13.02.2015, he was posted as Constable at police station Sunlight
Colony and on that day, he had joined the investigation along
with Inspector Ashok Kumar and HC Manoj. It is further deposed
by PW17 Ct. Wasim Khan that on that day, they had come to
Saket Court where the accused Om Prakash had surrendered in
the Court. It is further deposed by PW17 Ct. Wasim Khan that
Inspector Ashok had taken permission from the Court to
interrogate the accused Om Prakash and the accused Om Prakash
was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded vide
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 48 of 109
(Ex.PW17/A), thereafter, with the permission of the Court, the
accused Om Prakash was arrested and his personal search was
conducted vide memos (Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B). It is further
deposed by PW17 Ct. Wasim Khan that five days PC remand of
the accused Om Prakash was obtained from the Court, thereafter,
the accused got medically examined and sent to the lock-up. It is
further deposed by PW17 Ct. Wasim Khan that on 14.02.2015, he
along with HC Manoj had gone to the lock-up of police station
H.N. Din and had also taken the accused Om Prakash and the
accused was brought to police station Sunlight Colony. It is
further deposed by PW17 Ct. Wasim Khan that in the noon,
Inspector Ashok Kumar had come to the police station Sunlight
Colony, thereafter, he along with Inspector Ashok, ERV Staff and
the accused Om Prakash had gone to Gyaspur, Sarai Kale Khan
Khadar, in ERV Van. It is further deposed by PW17 Ct. Wasim
Khan that the accused Om Prakash had taken them to his jhuggi
and they had requested few public persons to join the
investigation but none of them had agreed. It is further deposed
by PW17 Ct. Wasim Khan that the disclosure statement of the
accused Om Prakash was already recorded in the police station
Sunlight Colony vide (Ex.PW17/B) and the complainant Sonu
had already met them near the jhuggi of Balraj and the
complainant was joined in the investigation. It is further deposed
by PW17 Ct. Wasim Khan that the accused Om Prakash had got
his clothes, which he had worn at the time of committing the
offence, recovered and the said clothes i.e. shirt, white colour
sweater were seized and pullanda was prepared and duly sealed

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 49 of 109
with the seal of ‘AK’ vide seizure memo (Ex.PW1/T). It is
further deposed by PW17 Ct. Wasim Khan that the accused Om
Prakash had also got recovered a mobile phone which was lying
on the cot and the said mobile phone was seized after preparing
pullanda of the same and it was duly sealed with the seal of ‘AK’
vide seizure memo (Ex.PW17/C). It is further deposed by PW17
Ct. Wasim Khan that the accused had taken them to the spot at
Gyaspur Khadar at the bank of Yamuna River near plant nursery
and had pointed out the place vide pointing out memo
(Ex.PW1/F) where the accused Om Prakash along with the
accused Peetam and the deceased had consumed liquor and
where they had murdered the deceased. It is further deposed by
PW17 Ct. Wasim Khan that the accused had also got recovered
liquor bottle, three plastic glasses and a plastic water bottle. It is
further deposed by PW17 Ct. Wasim Khan that Inspector Ashok
Kumar had called the crime-team and the crime-team had arrived
at the spot and had conducted its proceedings. It is further
deposed by PW17 Ct. Wasim Khan that Inspector Ashok had
seized the aforesaid articles after preparing pullanda of the same
and duly sealed the same with the seal of ‘AK’ vide seizure
memo (Ex.PW1/N and Ex.PW1/O). It is further deposed by
PW17 Ct. Wasim Khan that the accused had also pointed out the
place near the bushes where he had thrown the jacket of the
deceased and the jacket was recovered. It is further deposed by
PW17 Ct. Wasim Khan that Inspector Ashok had seized the
aforesaid jacket after preparing pullanda of the same and duly
sealed the same with the seal of ‘AK’ vide seizure memo

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 50 of 109
(Ex.PW17/D and Ex.PW17/F) and seal after use was handed over
to him and the case-property and the accused were taken to the
police station Sunlight Colony.

81. During cross-examination by learned Addl. P.P. for
the State, It is admitted by PW17 Ct. Wasim Khan that the
accused had also pointed out the place where he along with his
co-accused had thrown torso of the deceased and had also the
head of the deceased vide pointing out memos (Ex.PW1/I and
Ex.PW1/K). PW17 Ct. Wasim Khan has correctly identified the
pant, shirt and sweater (Ex.C-1colly.) stating that the said clothes
belonged to the accused Om Prakash, one jacket (Ex.C-2) stating
that the said jacket belonged to the deceased Jagdish, one glass
bottle and three disposal glasses (Ex.C-3colly.) stating that the
same were recovered at the instance of the accused Om Prakash
and one mobile phone Make Lava (Ex.C-4) stating that the said
mobile phone belonged to the accused Om Prakash.

82. PW18 SI Sajjan Kumar has deposed that on
02.02.2015, he was posted as in-charge of the crime-team of the
South-East District and on that day, his duty hours were from
8.00 a.m. to 8.00 a.m. It is further deposed by PW18 SI Sajjan
Kumar that on that day at about 5.00 p.m., on receiving of a
direction from the South-East Control Room regarding a murder
had taken place at Jhuggi of Gyaspur in the area of police post
Sarai Kale Khan at Yamuna bank of the police station Sunlight
Colony, he along with SI Chet Ram, Ct. Mahesh and diver had
gone to the spot i.e., the above-mentioned place in government
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 51 of 109
vehicle. It is further deposed by PW18 SI Sajjan Kumar that they
had seen that public persons were gathered there and the police
officials were also present there and they had seen that one
headless dead-body was lying on the ground. It is further deposed
by PW18 SI Sajjan Kumar that on his instructions, photographer
Ct. Mahesh had taken the photographs of the spot and on his
instructions, SI Chet Ram had tried to lift finger-prints from the
spot, however, no fingerprint was found, thereafter, they along
with the police officials had crossed the Yamuna Bank and
reached the agriculture field near the Yamuna Bank. It is further
deposed by PW18 SI Sajjan Kumar that they had seen that
bloodstains on the ground and they had also found one earphone
lying there. It is further deposed by PW18 SI Sajjan Kumar that
on his direction, Ct. Mahesh had taken the photographs of the
bloodstains and the articles which were lying there, thereafter,
they had gone to the bank of Yamuna along with the police
officials including the investigating officer of the present case
and the investigating officer had pointed out the place from
where the dead-body was lying there as informed by the brother
of the deceased. It is further deposed by PW18 SI Sajjan Kumar
that they had observed that one waist belt was lying there and on
his instructions, Ct. Mahesh had taken the photographs and SI
Chet Ram had tried to lift the chance print on the above-said two
places but no chance print could be lifted from there, thereafter,
they had returned to the spot where the dead-body was lying i.e.
jhuggi Gyaspur, Sarai Kale Khan and the investigating officer
had taken the said articles into possession. It is further deposed

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 52 of 109
by PW18 SI Sajjan Kumar that he had prepared the report and
the same was handed over to the investigating officer. Having
seen the copy of the said report, PW18 SI Sajjan Kumar has
deposed that the said report (Ex.PW18/A) was given to the
investigating officer and the investigating officer had recorded
his statement on the same day, again said, his statement was
recorded on 14.02.2015.

83. It is further deposed by PW18 SI Sajjan Kumar that
on 14.02.2015, his duty hours were from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 a.m.
and at about 06.00 p.m., on receiving a call from the control-
room and SHO Ashok Kumar and SI Bangali Babu thereby he
had called at the police station Sunlight Colony, he along with
staff members HC Kirti Kumar and Ct. Puneet had reached at
polive station Sunlight Colony where they had met SI Bangali
Babu and they along with the investigating officer and other staff
members had gone to bank of Yamuna from where the dead-body
was lifted by the brother of the deceased. It is further deposed by
PW18 SI Sajjan Kumar that he did not know whether the accused
had accompanied them or not, however, one civilian had
accompanied them and on the pointing out of the said civilian,
one empty half bottle, one plastic water bottle and disposal
glasses which were lying on there were lifted by the investigating
officer. It is further deposed by PW18 SI Sajjan Kumar that HC
Kirti Kumar had lifted one chance print from one empty half
bottle and Ct. Puneet had taken the photographer of the said
articles at the spot, thereafter, on the pointing out of the said
civilian, one orange colour jacket was also recovered. It is further
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 53 of 109
deposed by PW18 SI Sajjan Kumar that Ct. Puneet had taken the
photographs of the said jacket, thereafter, he had prepared the
report on Yamuna bank and the same was handed over to the
investigating officer, thereafter, the investigating officer had
recorded his statement and they had left the spot. Having seen the
report, PW18 SI Sajjan Kumar has deposed that the said report
(Ex.PW18/B) was given to the investigating officer and the
investigating officer has recorded his statement on the same day.
Having seen 20 photographs (Mark PH1), PW18 SI Sajjan
Kumar has deposed that the said photographs were clicked by Ct.
Mahesh. Having seen seven photographs, PW18 SI Sajjan Kumar
has correctly identified said photographs (Mark PH2 colly.)
stating that the same were taken by Ct. Puneet.

84. PW18 SI Sajjan Kumar has correctly identified the
water bottle (Ex.PW18/P-1) stating that the same was recovered
from the spot, a liquor bottle and three disposable glasses
(Ex.PW18/P-2 colly) stating that the same were recovered from
the spot, a red colour belt (Ex.P-3) stating that the same was
recovered from the spot, orange colour jacket (Ex.P-1) stating
that the same was recovered from the spot, black colour pant
(Ex.PW18/P3) stating that the same which was recovered from
the spot.

85. PW19 HC Mahesh has deposed that on 02.02.2015,
he was posted as constable photographer at Mobile Crime Team
of the South-East District and on that day, after receiving
message from control room, he along with SI Sajjan Kumar, in-

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 54 of 109

charge Crime Team, SI Chet Ram, fingerprint proficient had gone
to the spot i.e. Jhuggi Giyaspur, Yamuna Khadar. It is further
deposed by PW19 HC Mahesh that he had taken photographs of
the dead-body and he had also taken photographs of the spot at
the bank of Yamuna and those 20 photographs (Ex.PW19/A
colly.) pasted on pages of judicial file from page number 70-79
and the negatives of the said photographs were exhibited as
(Ex.PW19/B colly.)

86. PW20 Ct. Puneet has deposed on 14.02.2015, he
was posted as constable photographer at Mobile Crime Team of
the South-East District and on that day, on receiving information
from control-room, he had reached at Yamuna Khadar area, Sarai
Kale Khan along with SI Sajjan Kumar and HC Kirti. It is further
deposed by PW20 Ct. Puneet that some articles like liquor bottle
(addha), plastic glasses, a water bottle and a jacket were lying
over there and he had taken photographs of the said articles. It is
further deposed by PW20 Ct. Puneet that the said seven
photographs were exhibited as (PW20/A colly.) pasted on pages
of judicial file from page number 81-83 and he had handed over
the negatives (Ex.PW20/B colly.) of the said photographs to the
concerned investigating officer.

87. PW21 ASI Kirti Kumar has deposed that on
14.02.2015, he was posted as HC at Mobile Crime Team of the
South-East District and he had gone to Yamuna Khadar, Sarai
Kale Khan and on the instructions of in-charge of crime-team, he
had lifted chance print from a liquor bottle which was lying at the
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 55 of 109
spot and the chance print was developed and sent to fingerprint
bureau, Kamla Market. It is further deposed by PW21 ASI Kirti
Kumar that the details of lifting of chance print was mentioned in
crime-team report prepared by SI Sajjan Kumar dated 14.02.2015
vide SOC No. 286/15.

88. PW22 HC Sardar Singh has deposed that on
02.02.2015, he was posted as HC at the police station Sunlight
Colony and his duty hours were 04:00 p.m to 12:00 night as Duty
Officer and on that day at about 05.50 p.m., HC Virender had
produced a rukka to him and he had made endorsement
(Ex.PW22/A) on it and had handed over it to the computer
operator for recording of FIR. It is further deposed by PW22 HC
Sardar Singh that he had recorded the FIR (Ex.PW22/B) on the
basis of said rukka and after registration of the FIR, he had
handed over computerized FIR and rukka to HC Virender for
delivering the same to the investigating officer. It is further
deposed by PW22 HC Sardar Singh that he had issued certificate
(Ex.PW22/C) under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act.

89. PW23 Ms. Anju Dixit, MRT, AIIMS Hospital has
deposed that she had been working in AIIMS as Medical
Technician since February, 2007 and she has brought the record
of MLC bearing No.1315/15 dated 02.02.2015 of the patient
Jagdish prepared by doctor Vinod Dhakad. It is further deposed
by PW23 Ms. Anju Dixit that she had worked with Dr. Dhakad
and seen him signing and writing during course of her duty and

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 56 of 109
she has identified his signature on the MLC (Ex.PW23/A) at
point A.

90. PW24 Dr. Om Prakash, SR General Surgery AIIMS
has, having seen the MLC (Ex.PW23/A) bearing No.1315/15
dated 02.02.2015 of the patient Jagdish, deposed that as per the
MLC, the patient was brought ‘dead’ but no external injury was
found.

91. PW25 Dr. Adesh Kumar, Sr. Scientific Officer
(Chemistry), FSL, Rohini, New Delhi has deposed that on
24.03.2015, one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of
DEPARTMENT OF FORENSIC MEDICINE A.I.I.M.S NEW
DELHI was received in the office and the same was marked to
him for the chemical examination. It is further deposed by PW25
Dr. Adesh Kumar that the parcel was properly sealed and the
seals were tallied with specimen seal and on opening the parcel,
it was found to contain exhibits 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D and his
detailed report as on “on Chemical, Microscopic, TLC, GC-HS &
GC-MS examination:-

(i) Exhibits 1A, 1B and 1C were found to contain
Ethyl Alcohol.

(ii) Exhibit 1C was found to contain Ehtyl Alcohol
175.50 mg/100 ml of blood.

(iii) Metalic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol,
cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates,
tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected
in exhibit 1D.

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 57 of 109

92. It is further deposed by PW25 Dr. Adesh Kumar that
after the examination, the remnants of the exhibits have been
sealed with the seal of ‘AY FLS, DELHI and his detailed report
(Ex.PW25/A) bears his signature at point A.

93. PW26 Inspector Fateh Singh has deposed that on
20.11.2016, he was posted as Inspector at the police station
Sunlight Colony and on that day, the present case was marked to
him and MHC(M) of the police station Sunlight Colony had
handed over the FSL result to him, thereafter, he had prepared the
supplementary police report and submitted the same in the Court.

94. PW27 Ct. Parveen Kumar has deposed that on
02.02.2015, he was posted as Constable at police post Sarai Kale
Khan the police station Sunlight Colony and on receiving a call
from Duty Officer of police post Sarai Kale Khan regarding
recovery of dead-body at Sarai Kale Khan Khadar near Yamuna
River, he had gone to the spot and found public persons gathered
and brother of the deceased, namely, Sonu had met him. It is
further deposed by PW27 Ct. Parveen Kumar that the dead-body
without head was lying at the spot and Sonu had identified the
said dead-body to be of his brother, namely, Jagdish. It is further
deposed by PW27 Ct. Parveen Kumar that SI Lalit, in-charge of
police post, SI Bengali Babu, HC Virender, Ct. Mohit and
Inspector Ashok Kumar had also arrived at the spot. It is further
deposed by PW27 Ct. Parveen Kumar that he was instructed to
take care of the spot and the dead-body, thereafter, crime team
had come at the spot and efforts were made to search the head of
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 58 of 109
the dead-body but to no avail. It is further deposed by PW27 Ct.
Parveen Kumar that he was sent to AIIMS Hospital to get the
dead-body preserved and he had gone to the AIIMS Hospital and
got the dead body preserved. It is further deposed by PW27 Ct.
Parveen Kumar that on 16.02.2015, he had again joined the
investigation and had gone to the AIIMS Hospital where
Inspector Ashok had also come and relatives of the deceased had
identified the dead-body of the deceased Jagdish. It is further
deposed by PW27 Ct. Parveen Kumar that postmortem of the
dead-body of the deceased was got conducted and the doctor had
given him the pullandas of exhibits and he had deposited the
pullandas in malkhana of the police station Sunlight Colony vide
seizure memo (Ex.PW27/A).

95. PW28 Woman Ct. Manisha has deposed that on
02.02.2015, she was posted in CPCR, PHQ, ITO as W/Constable
and on that day, she was performing the duty as Call Operator in
‘C’ shift from 02:00 p.m. to 08:00 p.m and during duty at about
02:12 p.m., he had received the call from one mobile
no.9718123625 and caller stated that “mere ladke ki kal raat
death ho gayi thi, dead body mili hai “. It is further deposed by
PW28 Woman Ct. Manisha that after receiving the said
information, he had filled the PCR Form with regard to said PCR
call, thereafter, he had passed the above-said information to
concerned in-charge, PCR van K72 and IO had recorded her
statement.

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 59 of 109

96. Having seen the PCR Form-I (Ex.PW28/A) (Delhi
Police Control Room) from the judicial record, it is further
deposed by PW28 Woman Ct. Manisha that the said PCR call
was received and filled by her.

97. PW29 Dinesh Kumar, Jr. MRO, AIIMS, New Delhi
has deposed that he was working in AIIMS as Jr. Medical Record
Officer since 1997 and he has brought record of MLC bearing
No.1983/15 of one Peetam, aged about 38 years, which was
prepared by Dr. Piyush Sharma on 20.02.2015 who had left the
services of AIIMS. It is further deposed by PW29 Dinesh Kumar
that he had worked with Dr. Piyush Sharma and seen him signing
and writing during course of his duty. PW29 Dinesh Kumar has
identified the signature of Dr. Piyush Sharma as and the said
MLC (Ex.PW29/A) at point A. It is further deposed by PW29
Dinesh Kumar that he has also brought the record of MLC
bearing No.1952/15 of one Om Prakash, aged about 45 years and
the said MLC was prepared on 17.02.2015 by Dr. Rajni Kant,
who had left the services of AIIMS. It is further deposed by
PW29 Dinesh Kumar that he he had worked with Dr. Rajni Kant
and seen him signing and writing during course of his duty.
PW29 Dinesh Kumar has identified the signature of Dr. Rajni
Kant on the MLC (Ex.PW29/B) at point A. It is further deposed
by PW29 Shri Dinesh Kumar that both those patients were
produced by the police for their potency test and their blood
samples were preserved and were given to the police.

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 60 of 109

98. PW30 Dr. Adarsh Kumar, Professor of Forensic
Medicine, AIIMS, New Delhi has deposed that he was working
in AIIMS Hospital since 2005 and Dr. Rajnikanta Swain and Dr.
Piyush Sharma had worked in AIIMS Hospital as SR and JR. It is
further deposed by PW30 Dr. Adarsh Kumar that he could
identify handwriting and signature of Dr. Rajnikanta Swain and
Dr. Piyush Sharma as they had worked under him and he had
seen them signing and writing during the course of his official
duty. It is further deposed by PW30 Dr. Adarsh Kumar that he
has seen Medical Examination and potency test of the accused
Om Prakash dated 17.02.15 (Ex.PW29/B), prepared by Dr.
Rajnikanta Swain which bears his signature at point A. It is
further deposed by PW30 Dr. Adarsh Kumar that blood in gauze,
nail clippings from both hands were preserved, sealed and
handed over to the police officials with sample seal after medical
examination. It is further deposed by PW30 Dr. Adarsh Kumar
that he has also seen Medical Examination and potency test of
the accused Peetam dated 20.02.15 (Ex.PW29/A) prepared by Dr.
Piyush Sharma and bears his signature at point A. It is further
deposed by PW30 Dr. Adarsh Kumar that blood in gauze, nail
clippings from both hands were preserved, sealed and handed
over to the police officials with sample seal after medical
examination.

99. PW31 Ms. Imrana, Senior Scientific Officer
(Biology) FSL Rohini, Delhi has deposed that on 06.04.2015,
the exhibits of the present case were received in the office of FSL
Rohini, Delhi and were marked to her for examination. It is
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 61 of 109
further deposed by PW31 Ms. Imrana that the total parcels sealed
were 26 in number and she had examined the said parcels which
were containing exhibits and prepared her detailed report
(Ex.PW31/A) running into three pages. It is further deposed by
PW31 Ms. Imrana that the biological examination result was at
portion B and DNA examination was at point C. It is further
deposed by PW31 Ms. Imrana that as per her examination, DNA
profile was generated from source (Ex.A-1) bloodstain earth and
(Ex.A-3) earphone were found to be similar with DNA profile
generated from the source of (Ex.11) blood gauze of the deceased
Jagdish. It is further deposed by PW31 Ms. Imrana that the
remnants of the exhibits were sealed with the seal of IM FSL
DELHI.

100. PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar has deposed that on
02.02.2015, he was posted as Inspector (investigation) at the
police station Sunlight colony. It is further deposed by PW32
Inspector Ashok Kumar that on that day at 02.30 p.m., a call
regarding dead-body was received on wire-less set at police post
Sarai Kale Khan which was recorded vide DD No.19
(Ex.PW7/A). It is further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok
Kumar that vide DD No.11 (Ex.PW32/A), he had gone to spot
i.e. Jhuggi Gyas Pur, Yamuna Khadar Sarai Kale Khan, where, SI
Lalit Kumar, SI Bangali Babu, HC Virender, Ct Parveen and Ct.
Mohit were present and one head-less dead-body was found lying
on the above-mentioned place in open area and the dead-body
was wearing dark blue underwear, two baniyans of green and
Khakhi colour and strip shirt, one black colour pant was lying
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 62 of 109
near the dead-body. It is further deposed by PW32 Inspector
Ashok Kumar that one person, namely, Sonu was also present
there and he had inquired from Sonu who had identified the said
dead-body as the same was of his brother Jagdish, aged about 22
years and the name of Jagdish was written on the right arm of the
deceased. It is further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar
that had informed that the said body was recovered from Yamuna
Khadar and he had brought the said dead-body from there. It is
further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that he had
recorded the statement of Sonu and had given information
regarding the said incident to senior police officer and crime-
team and dog squad was called.

101. It is further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok
Kumar that he had reduced the complaint (Ex.PW1/A) into his
own handwriting and got it signed from the complainant, made
endorsement on the complaint and handed over the rukka
(Ex.PW32/B) for registration of the FIR to HC Virender, who had
gone to police station and in meanwhile, SHO Sunlight Colony
and ACP NFC had also reached at the spot, who had given the
necessary instructions and left the spot. It is further deposed by
PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that HC Virender had come back
at the spot and handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to
him. It is further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that
crime-team had inspected the place where dead-body was lying
in the open space and, thereafter, the complainant Sonu had taken
him and the officials of the crime-team at Sundar ka Khet near
the Dam, Khadar Sarai Kale Khan, Sunlight Colony, where blood
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 63 of 109
was lying at two places at the spot and two broken pieces of
earphone was also lying. It is further deposed by PW32 Inspector
Ashok Kumar that photographs of the said place were clicked by
the photographer of the crime-team, he had lifted the earth-
control and blood sample from both the places and sealed the
same with the seal of ‘AK’. It is further deposed by PW32
Inspector Ashok Kumar that he had also seized the above-
mentioned earphone vide seizure memo (Ex.PW1/Q) and sealed
the same with the seal of ‘AK’. It is further deposed by PW32
Inspector Ashok Kumar that thereafter, the complainant Sonu had
taken them to the place from where he had brought the dead-
body of his brother and one belt was lying there which was
seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW1/S) and sealed with the seal of
‘AK’. It is further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that
during the inspection of the said place, officers of the crime-team
had found that some blood was lying in the grass, he had lifted
the blood samples from the said grass and earth-control and had
seized the same vide seizure memo (Ex.PW1/R). It is further
deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that thereafter, they
had come back to the spot where dead-body was lying and he had
seized the pant of the deceased vide seizure memo (Ex.PW1/P)
and prepared the unscaled site-plan where the dead-body was
lying and from where dead-body was brought by his brother and
where the murder was committed vide site-plan (Ex.PWI/E). It is
further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that after
inquest proceedings, the dead-body of the deceased was shifted
to the mortuary of the AIIMS Hospital through Ct. Parveen. It is

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 64 of 109
further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that he had
again recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant
in which complainant stated that Yogesh @ Kalu, Naresh and
Titu had seen deceased in the company of the accused Peetam
and Om Prakash and he had examined the said persons and
recorded their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further
deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that at the instance of
the complainant Sonu, he along with other police officials had
reached at jhuggi of the accused persons Om Prakash and Peetam
at Gyaspur Camp, Sarai Kale Khan, Yamuna Khadar but they
were not present there and thereafter, they all had reached at
police post Sarai Kale Khan with all above mentioned exhibits. It
is further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that he had
recorded the statements of SI Lalit, SI Bangali Babu and Ct.
Mohit at police post Sarai Kale Khan and, thereafter, he had
come back to the police station Sunlight Colony and the said
exhibits were deposited in the Malkhana of the police station
Sunlight Colony.

102. It is further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok
Kumar that on 02.02.2015, Ct. Ved Prakash along with a dog had
also reached at the spot and with the help of dog squad, the head
of the deceased was searched in the nearby area but could not be
traced out and the statements of said officials under section 161
Cr.P.C. were recorded.

103. It is further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok
Kumar that on 03.02.2015, statement of Ct. Sher Singh, Special
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 65 of 109
Messenger was recorded and, thereafter, he along with Ct.
Lokesh had gone to the spot i.e. jhuggi Gyaspur, Sarai Kale
Khan, where, SI Shailender, HC Virender and Ct. Parveen had
met him and divers Shankar and Jogesh were called at the spot to
search the missing head of the deceased in the Yamuna river area
and they had tried to trace out the missing head in the Yamuna
river area but could not be traced out. It is further deposed by
PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that he along with other police
officials had tried to search the accused persons in the nearby
area but they could not be traced out, thereafter, statements of Ct.
Parveen and HC Narpat Singh and in-charge, PCR van were
recorded and SI Lalit Kumar was directed to obtain the CDRs of
the accused persons to locate them. It is further deposed by
PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that on 04.02.2015, statement of
crime-team officials SI Sajan Singh and Ct. Mahesh were
recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further deposed by PW32
Inspector Ashok Kumar that he along with other police officials
had tried to search the accused persons in the nearby area but
they could not be traced out. It is further deposed by PW32
Inspector Ashok Kumar that on 05.02.2015, SI Lalit had
informed him that on scrutiny of the CDRs of mobile phone of
the accused Om Prakash, his location was showing in the area of
Shivala, Distt. Aligarh, UP and, accordingly, SI Lalit had reached
to verify/trace out the accused Om Prakash but he could not be
traced out/located. It is further deposed by PW32 Inspector
Ashok Kumar that on 13.02.2015, he had come to know that the
accused had surrendered in the Court, he along with Ct. Wasim

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 66 of 109
and HC Manoj had reached at the Saket Court Complex and the
accused Om Prakash was arrested in this case. It is further
deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that he had prepared
arrest memo (Ex.PW6/A), conducted his personal search vide
memo (Ex.PW6/B) and had also recorded his disclosure
statement vide memo (Ex.PW17/A). It is further deposed by
PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that the accused Om Prakash was
produced in the Court and he had made an application for taking
five days police custody of the accused and the same was
granted. It is further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar
that thereafter, he along with above-mentioned police officials
and the accused Om Prakash had reached at AIIMS Trauma
Center where the medical examination of the accused was got
conducted and, thereafter, they had come back to the police
station and the accused was sent to the lock-up.

104. It is further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok
Kumar that on the next day i.e. 14.02.2015, the accused Om
Prakash was taken out from the lock-up and he was interrogated
by him, whose detailed disclosure statement was recorded vide
(Ex.PW17/B). It is further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok
Kumar that thereafter, he along with other police officials and the
accused Om Prakash had reached at the spot i.e. Jhuggi, Gyaspur,
Sarai Kale Khan and asked three/four public persons from the
jhuggi to join the investigation but none had agreed. It is further
deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that on seeing them,
the complainant Sonu had joined the investigation and, thereafter,
the accused Om Prakash had led them to the spot i.e. Sundar ka
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 67 of 109
Khet near Dam, Khadar, Sarai Kale Khan where initially, the
blood and earphone were found. It is further deposed by PW32
Inspector Ashok Kumar that the accused Om Prakash had pointed
out the spot where the deceased was murdered by him and his
Jija Peetam, vide pointing out memo at the instance of the
accused Om Prakash (Ex.PW1/F). It is further deposed by PW32
Inspector Ashok Kumar that thereafter, Om Prakash had led them
to the spot where the accused persons Om Prakash, Peetam and
the deceased Jagdish had taken liquor, and the said place was 30
meters away from the place from where the said incident had
taken place. It is further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok
Kumar that one empty quarter bottle made of aquafina, one
empty half liquor bottle and three empty plastic disposable
glasses were recovered at the instance of the accused Om
Prakash. It is further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar
that he had immediately called crime-team to the said place. It is
further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that SI Sajan
Singh, SI Kirti Kumar (fingerprint expert) and Ct. Puneet
(photographer) had reached at the spot and he had taken the
photographs of the above-mentioned articles and had lifted the
chance print from the empty bottle of liquor. It is further deposed
by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that he had seized one empty
quarter bottle having label of Aquafina, one empty half liquor
bottle and three empty plastic disposable glasses vide seizure
memos (Ex.PW1/N and Ex.PWI/O) and sealed with the seal of
‘AK’. It is further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar
that thereafter, as per the disclosure statement of the accused Om

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 68 of 109
Prakash, he had led them to the spot from where they had thrown
the dead-body of the deceased in Yamuna river. It is further
deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that as per the
disclosure statement of the accused Om Prakash, he had got
recovered one jacket of yellow colour from the bushes near the
place from where they had thrown the dead-body of the
deceased. It is further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar
that the jacket was of yellow and orange colour with white strips
which usually worn by the employees/worker of metro as the
deceased used to work in the metro and he had seized the said
jacket vide seizure memo (Ex.PW17/D). It is further deposed by
PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that he had also prepared the
pointing out memo of the said place vide (Ex.PW1/H). It is
further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that they had
come back to the jhuggi of the accused Om Prakash, who had got
recovered his clothes i.e. cream colour pant, shirt and sweater,
which was worn by the accused Om Prakash at the time of
incident, from the inside of his jhuggi. It is further deposed by
PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that he had seized the said clothes
vide seizure memo (Ex.PWI/T) and sealed with the seal of ‘AK’.
It is further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that he
had also seized one mobile phone which was recovered from the
inside of the jhuggi of the accused and had seized the same vide
seizure memo (Ex.PW17/C) and tried to search of other co-
accused, namely, Peetam in the nearby area but he could not be
traced out. It is further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar
that he had also made search to trace out the head of the deceased

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 69 of 109
but could not be traced out, thereafter, he had come back to the
police station and had recorded the statement of police official. It
is further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that case-
property was deposited in the malkhana and the accused was sent
to lock-up of the police station Nizamuddin. It is further deposed
by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that on the next day, the
accused was taken out from the lock-up and he had reached at
Yamuna river where above-mentioned diver had met them. It is
further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that at the
instance of the accused Om Prakash, the said diver had tried to
search the head of the deceased in Yamuna River but could not be
traced out, thereafter, he along with other police officials and the
accused Om Prakash had gone to his native place at Jharara
village, police station Arniya, Distt. Bulandsher, UP for search of
the co-accused Peetam but he could not be traced out.

105. It is further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok
Kumar that on the next day, the accused Om Prakash was taken
to the Forensic Department AIIMS Hospital, where his nail
clipping and blood sample were taken and preserved/seized by
the doctor, thereafter, Ct. Lokesh had handed over him the
exhibits in sealed pullanda and had seized the same vide seizure
memo (Ex.PW11/B). It is further deposed by PW32 Inspector
Ashok Kumar that during investigation, he had also seized the
log book of PCR van vide seizure memo (Ex.PW32/C) and after
completing the police custody, the accused Om Prakash was
produced in the Court and sent to judicial custody.

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 70 of 109

106. It is further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok
Kumar that on 20.02.2015, the accused Peetam had surrendered
in the Court and he along with Ct. Lokesh had reached in the
Saket Court Complex and arrested the accused Peetam in the
present case vide arrest memo (Ex.PW6/D), conducted his
personal search vide personal search memo (Ex.PW6/E) and
recorded his disclosure statement vide memo (Ex.PW6/C). It is
further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that the
accused Peetam was produced in the Court and he had made an
application and obtained two days police custody remand,
thereafter, he along with the said police officials and the accused
Peetam had reached at AIIMS Trauma Center where his medical
examination was got conducted. It is further deposed by PW32
Inspector Ashok Kumar that doctor had taken the nail clipping,
blood sample, seized the same and handed over to Ct. Lokesh
and he had seized the same vide seizure memo (Ex.PW32/D). It
is further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that they
had come back to the police station, where he had interrogated
and recorded the disclosure statement (Ex.PW32/E) and as per
the disclosure statement of the accused Peetam, he had led them
to the spot where he had committed the murder of the deceased
and, in the meanwhile, the complainant Sonu had also reached
there. It is further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that
he had prepared the pointing out memo (Ex.PW1/G) at the
instance of the complainant. It is further deposed by PW32
Inspector Ashok Kumar that the accused had led them to the spot
where they had taken liquor with the deceased and he had

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 71 of 109
prepared the pointing out memo (Ex.PW1/M). It is further
deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that the accused
Peetam had led them to the spot from where they had thrown the
dead-body of the deceased and had thrown the head of the
deceased in Yamuna River and he had prepared pointing out
memos (Ex.PW1/J, Ex.PW1/K, Ex.PW1/L, respectively). It is
further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that the
accused Peetam had led them to the spot where he had hidden the
jacket of the deceased and he had prepared pointing out memo
(Ex.PWI/H) and, thereafter, he along with other police officials
and the accused Peetam had come back to the police station. It is
further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that the
accused was sent to the lock-up of the police station Nizamuddin
and the case-property was deposited in the Malkhana of the
police station Sunlight Colony and he had recorded the statement
of witnesses. It is further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok
Kumar that on 21.02.2015, the accused was taken out from the
lock-up and as per the disclosure statement of the accused
Peetam, they had reached the spot where dead-body of the
deceased was thrown. It is further deposed by PW32 Inspector
Ashok Kumar that the complainant Sonu had joined the
investigation and diver Shankar was also called to search the
missing head of the deceased, weapon of offence i.e. knife and
purse of the deceased in the Yamuna river area, he had tried to
trace out the said articles but the same could not be traced out,
however, but one knife was got recovered from the river and

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 72 of 109
which was identified by the accused Peetam stating that it was
the same weapon which was used in the crime.

107. It is further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok
Kumar that he had prepared the sketch of the knife vide memo
(Ex.PW3/A) and seized the same vide seizure memo
(Ex.PW11/B), thereafter, the accused Peetam had led them to his
jhuggi at Gyaspur, Yamuna Khadar and Peetam got recovered his
bloodstained clothes i.e. pant shirt and jacket, which were worn
by the deceased at the time of incident, from the inside of his
jhuggi and the same were seized vide memo (Ex.PW1/U).

108. It is further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok
Kumar that he had prepared the site-plan of the spot from where
the weapon i.e. knife was got recovered and the site-plan
(Ex.PW1/V), thereafter, the accused Peetam was sent to judicial
custody. It is further deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar
that during investigation source/supplier of weapon could not be
traced out and postmortem report of the deceased got conducted
and exhibits were handed over to Ct. Parveen, who had handed
over the said exhibits to him. It is further deposed by PW32
Inspector Ashok Kumar that he had prepared the seizure memo
vide memo (Ex.PW27/A) and the case-property was deposited in
the malkhana of the police station Sunlight Colony. It is further
deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that during
investigation exhibits were sent to FSL, certified copy of CDRs
of the deceased and the accused persons were obtained and PCR
form was collected from the CPCR and the statement of W/Ct.

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 73 of 109

Manisha was recorded. PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar has
correctly identified the accused persons in the Court. It is further
deposed by PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that after completion
of investigation, he had filed the charge-sheet in the present
case.

109. In the light of the charge framed against accused
persons and the arguments advanced before the Court, following
are the points for determination:

1. Whether the accused persons, in furtherance of
the common intention of both of them, have caused
death of the deceased Jagdish, with the intention of
causing death, or with the intention of causing such
bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to
cause death of the person to whom harm is caused., or
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 with the knowledge that the fact is so
imminently dangerous that it must in all probability
cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death.

2. Whether the deceased Jagdish was last seen together
with the accused persons in the night and on the next
day the dead-body of the deceased was recovered.

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 74 of 109

3. If the second point is determined in affirmative,
whether the accused persons have offered a reasonable
explanation.

2. Whether the accused persons committed the afore-

stated offence and have caused disappearance of the
evidence thereof with an intention to screen the
offenders from legal punishment.

3. Whether the accused persons, while committing the
afore-stated offences have acted in concern.

DISCUSSION ON THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

110. In the present case, the criminal justice system was
set into motion on receiving of an information at the police post
Sarai Kale Khan of the police station Sunlight Colony which was
recorded vide DD No.19 (Ex.PW7/A).

111. PW7 ASI Rajender Singh, who was working as DD
writer at the police post Sarai Kala Khan of the police station
Sunlight Colony on 02.02.2015, had received the above
information and reduced it in writing vide DD no.19. As per the
testimonies of PW7 ASI Rajender Singh, on that day at about
2:30 p.m., an information was received whereby the caller had
informed that his son died yesterday in the night and his dead
body was found and he had reduced the said information in
writing vide DD no. 19. PW7 ASI Rajender Singh has proved the
DD no. 19 (copy of the same is Ex. PW7/A) and has also
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 75 of 109
identified his signatures at point A. It is also in the evidence of
PW7 ASI Rajender Singh that after recording DD entry, he had
handed over copy of the same to SI Bangali Babu for further
inquiry.

112. As per the testimonies of PW16 SI Bangali Babu, on
receipt of DD No.19 of police post Sarai Kale Khan on
02.02.2015, he along with Ct. Mohit had gone to the spot i.e.
Jhuggi Gyaspur Camp, Sarai Kale Khan and found many persons
gathered there and a dead-body without head covered with a
cloth sheet was found lying on the ground at chowk (a vacant
space outside two jhuggies facing each other). It is also in the
evidence of PW16 SI Bangali Babu that at the spot they had met
Sonu, brother of the deceased Jagdish, who had identified the
dead body. It is also in the evidence of PW16 SI Bangali Babu
that SI Lalit Kumar, in-charge of the police post Sarai Kale Khan
and the investigating officer Inspector Ashok Kumar had also
arrived at the spot and he had briefed them about the
circumstances.

113. The above testimonies of SI Bangali Babu have been
corroborated by PW8 HC Virender Singh who was posted at the
police post Sarai Kale and on receiving the information about the
dead-body of the deceased, he had reached at the spot and found
the dead-body was lying there. As per the testimonies of PW8
HC Virender Singh, Ct. Parveen, Ct. Anil, SI Bangali Babu and
PCR Van had also reached there.

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 76 of 109

114. Regarding registration of FIR, testimonies of PW1
Sonu, PW8 HC Virender Singh, PW9 Ct. Sher Singh, PW10 Ct.
Mohit Kumar, PW22 HC Sardar Singh, PW32 Inspector Ashok
Kumar are relevant.

115. PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar, the investigating
officer of this case, has proved the rukka for registration of FIR.
It is in the evidence of PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that when
he reached at the spot vide DD No.11(Ex.PW32/A), he had found
the dead-body lying in the open area and one person, namely,
Sonu was also present there and he had made inquiry from him
and Sonu had identified the said dead-body to be of his brother
Jagdish aged about 22 years. It is also in the evidence of PW32
Inspector Ashok Kumar that he had recorded the statement
(Ex.PW1/A) of Sonu, made endorsement thereon and handed
over the rukka (Ex.PW32/B) to HC Virender for registration of
FIR.

116. PW1 Sonu, brother of the deceased on whose
statement this case FIR was registered has also proved his
statement (Ex.PW1/A) recorded by the investigating officer for
registration of FIR and he has also identified his signature at
point A on it.

117. PW8 HC Virender Singh has proved the fact of
taking of rukka to the police station Sunlight Colony for
registration of FIR.

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 77 of 109

118. PW22 HC Sardar Singh, who was working as Duty
Officer at the police station Sunlight Colony on 02.02.2015 has
proved that he had made endorsement (Ex.PW22/A) on the rukka
and got the FIR registered by the computer operator, the
computerized copy of which (Ex.PW22/B) and he had given
certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act
(Ex.PW22/C) regarding the correctness of contents of FIR.

119. PW9 Ct. Sher Singh was working as a Special
Messenger in the police station Sunlight Colony and as per his
testimonies, on 02.02.2015, he had received information from the
Duty officer regarding lodging of FIR No. 62/15 under sections
302/201/34 IPC and he was given a copy of said FIR and as per
instructions he received, he had gone to the house of Ld. MM Sh.
Ashok Kumar by the govt. motor cycle vide departure entry
no.14A and delivered the said copy.

120. PW10 Ct. Mohit Kumar has also corroborated the
testimonies of the above named witnesses regarding recording of
statement of the complainant, sending the rukka for registration
of FIR.

121. From the testimonies of PW1 Sonu, PW8 HC
Virender Singh, PW9 Ct. Sher Singh, PW10 Ct. Mohit Kumar,
PW22 HC Sardar Singh, PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar, the
prosecution has been successful in proving the registration of FIR
against the accused persons. During the cross-examination of
prosecution witnesses and in the course of arguments, the

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 78 of 109
registration of FIR against the accused persons have not been
disputed by the defence counsel. No delay in the registration of
FIR has been pointed out by the defence.

122. It is important to note here that there is no
eyewitness of the crime committed in the present case.

123. The prosecution has also set up the present case on
the basis of last seen together theory against the accused persons.

124. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Gopal v. State
of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 120 has analysed
various judgments on last seen theory and held as follows:

6. It may be noted that once the theory of “last seen
together” was established by the prosecution, the
accused was expected to offer some explanation as
to when and under what circumstances he had parted
the company of the deceased. It is true that the
burden to prove the guilt of the accused is always on
the prosecution, however in view of Section 106 of
the Evidence Act, when any fact is within the
knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that
fact is upon him. Of course, Section 106 is certainly
not intended to relieve the prosecution of its duty to
prove the guilt of the accused, nonetheless it is also
equally settled legal position that if the accused does
not throw any light upon the facts which are proved
to be within his special knowledge, in view of
Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such failure on the
part of the accused may be used against the accused
as it may provide an additional link in the chain of
circumstances required to be proved against him. In
the case based on circumstantial evidence, furnishing
or non-furnishing of the explanation by the accused
would be a very crucial fact, when the theory of “last
seen together” as propounded by the prosecution was
proved against him.

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 79 of 109

In case of Rajender vs. State (NCT of Delhi), it
was observed as under:

“12.2.4. Having observed so, it is crucial to note
that the reasonableness of the explanation offered
by the accused as to how and when he/she parted
company with the deceased has a bearing on the
effect of the last seen in a case, Section 106 of the
Evidence Act, 1872 provides that the burden of
proof for any fact that is especially within the
knowledge of a person lies upon such person.
Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he
must offer an explanation as to how and when he
parted company with the deceased. In other words,
he must furnish an explanation that appears to the
court to be probable and satisfactory, and if he fails
to offer such an explanation on the basis of facts
within his special knowledge, the burden cast upon
him under Section 106 is not discharged.
Particularly in cases resting on circumstantial
evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable
explanation in discharge of the burden placed on
him, such failure by itself can provide an
additional link in the chain of circumstances
proved against him. This, however, does not mean
that Section 106 shifts the burden of proof of a
criminal trial on the accused. Such burden always
rests on the prosecution. Section 106 only lays
down the rule that when the accused does not
throw any light upon facts which are specially
within his/her knowledge and which cannot
support any theory or hypothesis compatible with
his innocence, the court can consider his failure to
adduce an explanation as an additional link which
completes the chain of incriminating
circumstances.”

In Satpal Vs. State of Haryana, this Court observed
as under: –

“6. We have considered the respective submissions
and the evidence on record. There is no eyewitness
to the occurrence but only circumstances coupled
with the fact of the deceased having been last seen
with the appellant. Criminal jurisprudence and the
plethora of judicial precedents leave little room for
reconsideration of the basic principles for
invocation of the last seen theory as a facet of
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 80 of 109
circumstantial evidence. Succinctly stated, it may
be a weak kind of evidence by itself to found
conviction upon the same singularly. But when it is
coupled with other circumstances such as the time
when the deceased was last seen with the accused,
and the recovery of the corpse being in very close
proximity of time, the accused owes an
explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act
with regard to the circumstances under which
death may have taken place. If the accused offers
no explanation, or furnishes- a wrong explanation,
absconds, motive is established, and there is
corroborative evidence available inter alia in the
form of recovery or otherwise forming a chain of
circumstances leading to the only inference for
guilt of the accused, incompatible with any
possible hypothesis of innocence, conviction can
be based on the same. If there be any doubt or
break in the link of chain of circumstances, the
benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Each case
will therefore have to be examined on its own facts
for invocation of the doctrine.”

In view of the afore-stated legal position, it is
discernible that though the last seen theory as
propounded by the prosecution in a case based on
circumstantial evidence may be a weak kind of
evidence by itself to base conviction solely on such
theory, when the said theory is proved coupled
with other circumstances such as the time when the
deceased was last seen with the accused, and the
recovery of the corpse being in very close
proximity of time, the accused does owe an
explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act
with regard to the circumstances under which
death might have taken place. If the accused offers
no explanation or furnishes a wrong explanation,
absconds, motive is established and some other
corroborative evidence in the form of recovery of
weapon etc. forming a chain of circumstances is
established, the conviction could be based on such
evidence.

125. For establishing and proving the last seen together
theory, the prosecution has examined PW1 Sonu, brother of the
deceased, PW2 Yogesh, cousin of the deceased and PW12
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 81 of 109
Naresh, brother of the deceased. Testimonies of PW5 HC Narpat
Singh, PW8 Virender Singh and PW15 Inspector Lalit Kumar are
also relevant to prove the last seen together theory.

126. As per the testimonies of PW1 Sonu, he along with
his brother Jagdish were residing above-said address and he was
working as a helper in the company, namely, Pratibha at Sarai
Kale Khan and his brother Jagdish was also working as driver in
the said company on a vehicle Mahindra pick-up. It is also in the
evidence of PW1 Sonu that on 01.02.2015 at about 10.00 p.m.,
his brother had come to their house and after having dinner
handed over the utensils and in the meantime, Peetam and Om
Prakash, who resided in the same area, had come there and they
had called his brother and they all three had proceeded towards
Yamuna Khadar.

127. Another important witness examined by the
prosecution to establish last seen together theory is PW2 Yogesh
(cousin of the deceased). As per the testimonies of PW2 Yogesh,
on 01.02.2015 at about 10.00 p.m., he was coming to attend
natural call from Yamuna Khadar when he had seen Om Prakash,
Peetam and Jagdish were going towards Yamuna Pushta and at
that time, Jagdish had worn black pant, green vest and yellow
jacket. It is also in the evidence of PW2 Yogesh that he had asked
them where they were going but he had not replied, thereafter, he
had come at his Jhuggi and had gone to sleep.

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 82 of 109

128. For proving the fact that the deceased was last seen
together with the accused persons, the prosecution has also
examined PW12 Naresh, another brother of the deceased.

129. It is in the evidence of PW12 Naresh that on
01.02.2015 at about 10.30 p.m. when he along with his mother
and Jagdish were having dinner in their Jhuggi at their home, in
the meantime, their neighbours Om Prakash and Peetam had
come to their Jhuggi and called Jagdish and they had taken away
Jagdish with them and at that time, Jagdish was wearing t-shirt
and black colour pant and he was carrying a mobile phone. It is
also in the evidence of PW12 Naresh that when Jagdish had gone
with Om Prakash and Peetam, they had thought that he would
have gone to his work. It is also in the evidence of PW12 Naresh
that on the next day, when they had seen the vehicle of the
deceased stationed near the house and Jagdish was missing, they
had made search for him.

130. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for
the accused persons has drawn my attention to the cross-
examination of PW1 to contend that PW1 has deposed in his
cross-examination that after having his meal at 09.00 p.m., he
had gone to sleep, therefore, he should not have seen the
deceased Jagdish accompanying the accused persons after 10.00
p.m. The relevant portion of the cross-examination of PW1
Jagdish is reproduced as under:

“On 01.02.2015, after getting from my job, I returned
back to my home and after having food at around 09.00
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 83 of 109
pm, I went to sleep. I do not know what happen
thereafter. On next day, I awake at 06.00 am.”

131. Although, it is in the cross-examination of PW1
Sonu that after taking his dinner at around 09.00 p.m., he had
gone to sleep and he was not aware what had happened thereafter
till he got up at 06.00 a.m., however, the testimonies of PW2
Yogesh (cousin of the deceased) have remained intact and were
not shaken on the point of his having seen the accused persons
and the deceased Jagdish together on 01.02.2015 at about 10.00
p.m. During the cross-examination done on behalf of the State,
PW2 Yogesh has admitted that he had seen the deceased and the
accused persons at 11.00 p.m. on 01.02.2015. PW2 Yogesh has
also admitted that he had inquired about the missing of the
deceased from Om Prakash and Peetam but they had not
disclosed anything. PW2 Yogesh was also residing in the
jhuggies where the deceased and the accused persons were
residing and his presence at the place where he had seen the
deceased in the company of the accused persons was quite
natural.

132. The testimonies of PW12 Naresh, another brother of
deceased have also remained intact and were not shaken during
his cross-examination to prove the fact that the deceased Jagdish
was last seen with the accused persons when the accused persons
had come to the Jhuggi of the deceased and had taken him along.

133. The testimonies of PW1 Sonu, PW2 Yogesh and
PW12 Naresh regarding the deceased was last seen together with
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 84 of 109
the accused persons have been corroborated by the testimonies of
PW5 HC Narpat Singh, who was posted as in-charge in PCR and
it is in the evidence of PW5 HC Narpat Singh that on receiving a
call on 02.02.2015 at 02.20 p.m. from police control room, he
had gone to the spot and one Naresh (PW12), brother of the
deceased had met him and informed that his brother has been
murdered by the accused persons Om Prakash and Peetam.

134. The testimonies of PW1 Sonu, PW2 Yogesh and
PW12 Naresh regarding last seen together theory have also been
corroborated by PW8 HC Virender Singh, who had reached the
spot on receiving an information on 02.02.2015 at 02.30 p.m. As
per the testimonies of PW8 HC Virender Singh, when on
receiving of information, he had gone to Yamuna Khadar,
Gayaspur, he had seen the crowd there and a dead-body was
lying on the ground and one person, namely, Sonu from the
crowd had met them and informed them that Peetam and Om
Prakash had taken away his brother in the last night and they had
raised suspicion on Om Prakash and Peetam.

135. PW15 Inspector Lalit Kumar has also corroborated
the above testimonies. He was posted as in-charge of the police
post Sarai Kale Khan and receipt of DD, he had gone to the spot.
As per his testimonies, one Sonu along with family members was
present, who had identified the dead-body was of his brother
Jagdish and told that the previous day at about 10.00-11.00 p.m.,
the accused persons Peetam and Om Prakash had taken Jagdish
along with them and since then, he had not returned.

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 85 of 109

136. The above-mentioned testimonies of PW5 HC
Narpat Singh, PW8 HC Virender Singh and PW15 Inspector Lalit
Kumar are very much relevant as on their reaching at the spot,
Sonu (PW1) and Naresh (PW12), brothers of the deceased had,
in their first reaction, named the accused persons Om Prakash
and Peetam to be the offenders as they were having strong
suspicion on the accused persons for the very obvious reason that
in the late hours of night of 01.02.2015, the deceased was called
from his home and taken away by the accused persons along with
them.

137. From the statement (Ex.PW1/A) made by PW1
Sonu, brother of the deceased for registration of FIR till his
evidence given by him in the Court during trial and from the
testimonies of PW2 Yogesh, PW12 Naresh corroborated by PW5
HC Narpat Singh, PW8 HC Virender Singh and PW15 Inspector
Lalit Kumar, the consistent case of the prosecution is that on
01.02.2015 at about 11:00 p.m., the accused persons Om Prakash
and Peetam had called the deceased Jagdish from his house and
the accused persons had taken the deceased along. The said
testimonies of PW2 Yogesh, PW12 Naresh, PW5 HC Narpat
Singh, PW8 HC Virender Singh and PW15 Inspector Lalit
Kumar made in their examination-in-chief have not been rebutted
on behalf of the accused persons during their evidence and they
were not cross-examined by the defence on this point. During the
cross-examination of PW2 Yogesh, only a suggestion has been
given by counsel for the accused persons and he deposed that it is

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 86 of 109
incorrect to suggest that he had not seen the accused persons
along with the deceased on 01.02.2015 at night.

138. It is well settled law that cross-examination is a
matter of substance and not of procedure, one is required to put
one’s version in the cross-examination of an opponent. The effect
of non-cross-examination is that the statement of the witness has
not been disputed.

139. It has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
in Rakesh Kumar & Ors. v. State (Delhi), 2009 (163) DLT 658 as
under: –

“175. It is settled law that where a witness is not
cross- examined on any relevant aspect, the
correctness of the statement made by a witness cannot
be disputed. (See the decisions of Supreme Court
reported as State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh AIR 1988
SC 1328 and Rajinder Prasad v. Darshana Devi AIR
2001 SC 3207).”

140. Further, the Hon’ble MP High Court in Moti Lal and
Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1990 Crl.L.J (NOC) 125 has
held that it is a well settled principle of law that when the
accused does not challenge a prosecution witness in his cross-
examination on certain facts, it leads to inference of admission of
that fact. In Moti Lal‘s case (supra), the Hon’ble MP High Court
observed as follows:-

“In Velu Pillai Padikalingam v. Paramandam it was
observed; “every cross-examiner should and can if he
is careful indicate in cross-examination whichever part
of the evidence given in examination-in-chief is chal-
lenged and an omission to do so would lead to the in-
ference that the evidence is accepted subject of course
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 87 of 109
to its being assailed as inherently improbably.” Again
in Sayed Aleem v. State of Karnataka it was observed
that non-cross-examination of prosecution witnesses
of certain facts leds to admission of that fact, circum-
stances could be taken for consideration. Thus, non-
consideration, particularly P.W3 Achhelal and P.W.4
Bhajna, on what is being projected in the defence has
been rightly held by the trial as sheer afterthought.”

141. Similarly, The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh v.
State of Punjab, 2002 (4) RCR (Crl) 471 held as follows:

“It is a rule of essential justice that whenever the
opponent has declined to avail himself of the
opportunity to put his case in cross-examination it
must follow that the evidence tendered on that issue
ought to be accepted. A decision of the Calcutta High
Court lends support to the observation as above. (See
in this context AEG Carapiet v. AY Derderian : AIR
1961 Calcutta 359 (P.B. Mukherjee, J. as he then
was)].”

142. In the light of the above testimonies and judgments in
Rakesh Kumar‘s case (supra), Moti Lal‘s case (supra) and Sar-
wan Singh‘s case (supra) and the statement made by PW2 Yo-
gesh, PW12 Naresh duly corroborated by PW5 HC Narpat Singh,
PW8 HC Virender Singh and PW15 Inspector Lalit Kumar in
their examination-in-chief to the effect that the deceased was
called and taken away by the accused persons Om Prakash and
Peetam from the house of the deceased on 01.02.2015, the prose-
cution has been able to establish that during late hours in the
night of 01.02.2015, the accused persons Om Prakash and Pee-
tam had called the deceased Jagdish from his home and they had
taken the deceased along.

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 88 of 109

143. The dead body of the deceased Jagdish was
recovered on 02.02.2015 at about 02.00 p.m. from the bank of
Yamuna River by the family members of the deceased.

144. In the light of afore-stated settled legal position
regarding the last seen together theory, the deceased Jagdish was
last seen together with the accused persons Om Prakash and
Peetam on 01.02.2015 at about 11:00 p.m., and recovery of dead
body of the deceased on 02.02.2015 at about 2:00 p.m., being in
very close proximity of time, the accused persons Om Prakash
and Peetam owe an explanation with regard to the circumstances
under which the death might have taken place.

145. Another important piece of evidence against the
accused persons are the facts discovered in an information
supplied by the accused persons in their disclosure statements
that are admissible in evidence as something new was discovered
or recovered from the accused persons which was not within the
knowledge of the police before recording the disclosure
statement of the accused persons and the testimonies of PW6 Ct.
Sumit Kumar and PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar.

146. PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar is the investigating
officer of the present case. As per the testimonies of PW32
Inspector Ashok Kumar, on coming to know about the surrender
of the accused Om Prakash in the Court, he along with Ct. Wasim
and HC Manoj had come to the Saket Court Complex on
13.02.2015 and arrested the accused Om Prakash in the present

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 89 of 109
case vide arrest memo (Ex.PW6/A), conducted his personal
search vide memo (Ex.PW6/B) and recorded his disclosure
statement vide memo (Ex.PW17/A). It is also in the evidence of
PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that five days police custody
remand of the accused Om Prakash was obtained and on
14.02.2015, he was interrogated and his detailed disclosure
statement (Ex.PW17/B) was recorded and pursuant to the
disclosure statement, the accused Om Prakash had led the
investigating officer and other officials, who were joined by the
complainant Sonu in investigation, to the spot i.e. Sundar ka khet
near Dam, khadar, Sarai Kale Khan where the blood and
earphone was initially found and the accused had pointed out the
spot where the deceased was murdered by him and his Jija
Peetam. PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar has also proved the
pointing out memo (Ex.PW1/F) and identified his signature on it
and thereafter, the accused Om Prakash had led them to the spot
where the accused persons Om Prakash, Peetam and the deceased
Jagdish had consumed liquor and the said place were 30 meters
away from the place where the incident had taken place. It is also
in the evidence of PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that one empty
quarter bottle of Make Aquafina, one empty half liquor bottle and
three empty plastic disposable glasses were recovered at the
instance of the accused Om Prakash and thereafter, as per the
disclosure statement of the accused Om Prakash, he had led the
police team to the spot from where they had thrown the dead-
body of the deceased in Yamuna river and as per the disclosure
statement of the accused Om Prakash, he had got one jacket of

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 90 of 109
yellow and orange colour with white stripes, which usually worn
by the employees/workers of metro as the deceased was working
in the metro, recovered from the bushes near the place from
where they had thrown the dead-body of the deceased, which
jacket was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW17/D) and pointing
out memo of the said place is Ex.PW1/H. It is also in the
evidence of PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that the accused Om
Prakash had also got his clothes worn by him at the time of
incident recovered from inside his jhuggi which were seized vide
seizure memo (Ex.PW1/T) and one mobile phone was also
recovered from inside the jhuggi of the accused which was seized
vide seizure memo (Ex.PW17/C).

147. Regarding arrest of the accused Peetam, as per the
testimonies of PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar, the accused
Peetam had surrendered in the Court and he along with Ct.
Lokesh had come in the Saket Court Complex on 20.02.2015 and
the accused Peetam was arrested in the present case vide arrest
memo (Ex.PW6/D), his personal search was got conducted vide
personal search memo (Ex.PW6/E), his disclosure statement was
recorded vide memo (Ex.PW6/C). It is also in the evidence of
PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that as per the disclosure
statement of the accused Peetam, the accused Peetam had led
them to the spot where he had committed the murder of the
deceased and he had prepared the pointing out memo
(Ex.PW1/G) at the instance of the accused and in the meantime,
the complainant Sonu had also reached there. It is also in the
evidence of PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that the accused had
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 91 of 109
led them to the spot where they had taken liquor with the
deceased and he had prepared the pointing out memo
(Ex.PW1/M), thereafter, the accused Peetam had led them to the
spot from where they had thrown the dead-body of the deceased
and had thrown the head of the deceased in Yamuna River and he
had prepared pointing out memos (Ex.PW1/J, Ex.PW1/K,
Ex.PW1/L, respectively), thereafter, the accused Peetam had led
them to the spot where he had hidden the jacket of the deceased
and he had prepared pointing out memo (Ex.PWI/H).

148. It is also in the evidence of PW32 Inspector Ashok
Kumar that as per the disclosure statement of the accused
Peetam, they had reached the spot where dead-body of the
deceased was thrown and the complainant Sonu had joined the
investigation and diver Shankar was also called to search the
missing head of the deceased, weapon of offence i.e. knife and
purse of the deceased in the Yamuna river area. It is also in the
evidence of PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that the diver had
tried to trace out the said articles but the same could not be traced
out, however, one knife was got recovered from the river and
which was identified by the accused Peetam stating that it was
the same weapon which was used in the crime and he had
prepared the sketch of the knife vide memo (Ex.PW3/A) and
seized the same vide seizure memo (Ex.PW11/B). It is also in the
evidence of PW32 Inspector Ashok Kumar that he had prepared
the site-plan (Ex.PW1/V) of the place from where weapon i.e.
knife was got recovered.

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 92 of 109

149. It is also in the evidence of PW32 Inspector Ashok
Kumar that the accused Peetam had also got his clothes, which
were worn by him at the time of incident, recovered from inside
his jhuggi which were seized by the investigating officer vide
seizure memo (Ex.PW1/U).

150. The above-testimonies of PW32 Inspector Ashok
Kumar regarding his joining the investigation, pointing out of the
spot by the accused Peetam, recovery of knife by the diver
Shanker, identification of knife by the accused Peetam, preparing
of sketch of the said knife, recovery of clothes of the accused
Peetam, pointing out of spot where he had thrown the glass of
liquor in the farm land by the accused Peetam, preparing of site-
plan of the said spot, recovery and handing over clothes by the
accused Om Prakash, pointing out of the spot where accused
persons had consumed liquor in the farm land by the accused Om
Prakash, taking of photographs of the spot by the police officials
have been corroborated by PW1 Sonu (complainant).

151. PW1 Sonu has also identified the jacket (Ex.P1) of
the deceased, clothes (Ex.P2) of the accused Om Prakash, clothes
(Ex.P3) of the accused Peetam, other clothes (Ex.P4) of the
deceased, one belt (Ex.P5) belonging to the deceased and one
knife (Ex.P6) recovered near the bank of Yamuna river.

152. The above disclosure made by the accused persons,
namely, Om Prakash and Peetam, whereby admitting their guilt
have been made by them during police custody. The relevant

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 93 of 109
provisions regarding confession are provided for under sections
25,26 & 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which read as follows.

25. Confession to police officer not to be proved- No
confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as
against a person accused of any offence.

26. Confession by accused while in custody of police not to
be proved against him- No confession made by any person
whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be
made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be
proved as against such person.

[Explanation.- In this section “Magistrate” does not include
the head of a village discharging magisterial functions in the
Presidency of Fort St. George or elsewhere, unless such
headman is a Magistrate exercising the powers of a
Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882 (10
of 1882)]

27. How much of information received from accused may
be proved- Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as
discovered in consequence of information received from a
person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police
officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to
a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby
discovered, may be proved.

153. It is well settled that in the light of provisions of
section 25, 26 & 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, confessional
statements of the accused persons made before the police officers
are inadmissible in evidence which cannot be made basis by the
prosecution to obtain conviction, however, a fact discovered in an
information supplied by the accused persons in their disclosure
statements is a relevant fact that is only admissible in evidence if
something new is discovered or recovered from the accused
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 94 of 109
persons which was not within the knowledge of the police before
recording the disclosure statement of the accused persons.

154. As noted above, pursuance to the disclosure
statement made by the accused Om Prakash, one empty quarter
bottle of Aquafina, one empty half liquor bottle and three empty
plastic disposable glasses were recovered. As per the disclosure
statements made by the accused persons, they had taken liquor
with the deceased before killing the deceased.

155. It has also been noted above that in pursuance to the
disclosure statement made by the accused Om Prakash, a jacket
of the deceased was also got recovered by the accused, which
was worn by the deceased at the time of incident but the same
was removed from his body while the accused persons were
dragging the dead-body after killing the deceased. The said jacket
was recovered from the bushes near the place where the accused
persons had thrown the body of the deceased. The said jacket has
been identified to be belonging to the deceased by PW1 Sonu,
brother of the deceased.

156. It has also been discussed above that the accused
Peetam had also got recovered one knife in pursuance of the
disclosure statement made by him and as per his disclosure
statement, it was the same knife which was used by them in the
commission of offence of killing the deceased. The knife has
been identified by PW1 Sonu (the complainant).

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 95 of 109

157. Pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the
accused persons, they had also got recovered their clothes worn
by them at the time of incident. The said clothes were sent to FSL
for forensic examination for finding about the presence of blood
of the deceased on the clothes of the accused persons, however,
as per FSL report (Ex.PW31/A), blood could not be detected on
the said exhibits containing the clothes of the accused persons.
The reasons for non-detection of the blood the deceased on the
clothes of the accused persons may be for the plausible
explanation, as per the postmortem report, the decapitation was
postmortem in nature, meaning thereby, the deceased was
beheaded after his death, which also corroborates the disclosure
statements of the accused persons regarding the manner in which
they had killed the deceased whereby they had disclosed that first
they had strangulated the deceased and after the deceased was
motionless, they had beheaded the deceased, therefore, much
blood did not ooze out as the deceased was beheaded after he
was already dead.

158. However, recovery of jacket of the deceased,
recovery of empty half water bottle aquafina, empty half liquor
bottle and three empty plastic disposable glasses and recovery of
knife (weapon of offence) pursuant to the disclosure statements
made by the accused persons are relevant facts and are
admissible in evidence as such are discovery of new facts
pursuant to the disclosure statements made by the accused
persons.

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 96 of 109

159. Although, no fingerprints of the accused persons
were found on the knife recovered at the instance of the accused
Peetam, but, it is of no avail to the accused persons as the knife
was submerged in the river when it was recovered at the instance
of the accused Peetam and in pursuance to the disclosure
statement made by him and it was recovered after several days of
the incident when its recovery and identity had been duly proved
by the prosecution witnesses.

160. It is important to note here that the knife
(Ex.PW1/B) was sent to Department of Forensic Medicine,
AIIMS hospital, New Delhi for seeking subsequent opinion if the
decapitation was possible by the knife shown to them. As per the
evidence of PW14 Dr. D.N. Bhardwaj, Professor of Department
of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS hospital, New Delhi, decapitation
was possible by the knife shown to them. As per the report on
subsequent opinion (Ex.PW14/C), the opinion given by the
Board of Doctors is as follows:

Opinion: After perusal of the PM report and
examination of the weapon we are of the considered
opinion that the decapitation that is postmortem in
nature mentioned in PM report could be possible with
the knife submitted for examination.

161. It is also in the evidence of PW32 Inspector Ashok
Kumar that he had called crime-team at the said place and SI
Sajjan Singh, SI Kirti Kumar (fingerprints expert), Ct. Puneet
(Photographer) had reached at the spot and they took

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 97 of 109
photographs of the above-mentioned articles and took the chance
print from the empty bottle of liquor and he has seized the same.

162. PW18 SI Sajjan Kumar was in-charge of the crime-
team and as per his testimonies, on receiving of a direction from
South-East Control Room regarding murder that had occurred at
Jhuggies of Gyaspur at Yamuna bank in the area of police post of
Sarai Kale Khan police station Sunlight Colony, he along with SI
Chet Ram, Ct. Mahesh and driver went to the spot by govt.
vehicle on 02.02.2015 at about 5.00 p.m. and had seen that public
persons gathered and the police officials were also present there.

163. It is also in the evidence of PW18 SI Sajjan Kumar
that they had seen one headless dead body was lying on the
ground and on his instructions, photographer Ct. Mahesh had
taken the photographs of the spot and SI Chet Ram had tried to
lift fingerprints from the spot, however, no fingerprint was found.

164. As per the testimonies of PW21 ASI Kirti Kumar
(fingerprints proficient) on 14.02.2015, he had gone to Yamuna
Khadar, Sarai Kale Khan and on the instruction of in-charge
crime-team, he had lifted chance print from a liquor bottle which
was lying at the spot and the chance print was developed and it
was sent to fingerprint bureau, Kamla Market and the details of
lifting of chance print is mentioned in crime-team report prepared
by SI Sajjan Kumar dated 14.02.2015 vide SOC No. 286/15.

165. Another important circumstance which goes to
indicate towards guilt of the accused persons is their conduct. It
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 98 of 109
is in the evidence of PW1 Sonu, PW2 Yogesh and PW12 Naresh
that when the dead body of the deceased was recovered on
02.02.2015, the accused persons had absconded from the farms
they were working in and could not be arrested they continued to
be absconding until they made applications for surrender in the
Court and were arrested on 13.05.2015 and 20.05.2015.

166. From the testimonies of PW1 Sonu, PW2 Yogesh
and PW12 Naresh, the presence of the accused persons on the
date and time of the incident at the place of the incident is also
established.

167. Although, during their statements under section 313
Cr.P.C., the accused persons have tried to take the plea of alibi by
stating that they were not present there at the time of incident.

168. It is well settled law where the accused takes an
alibi, the burden of proof is on him. The plea can therefore
succeed only if it is shown that the accused was so far away at
the relevant time that he could not be present at the place where
crime was committed. Such plea taken by the accused persons
can not succeed for two reasons, namely, (i) the accused persons
have simply stated that they were not present there at the time of
incident but have not stated where they actually were at the time
of incident if not at the place of incident, and (ii) they have not
produced any cogent evidence to prove the alibi.

169. Further, during the cross-examination of PW2
Yogesh, a suggestion was put to the witness which was admitted
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 99 of 109
by him to be correct that all the jhuggies residents had wives of
Peetam Singh and Sohan Lal. Sohan Lal is relative of the accused
persons. This suggestion given to PW2 Yogesh itself indicates
that when dead-body of the deceased was recovered, all the
residents of the area had pointed their fingers and raised their
suspicion towards the accused persons and their reaction was
obvious for the reason that the deceased was last seen together
with the accused persons at about 11.00 p.m. on 01.02.2015 and
his dead-body was recovered at about 02.00 p.m. on 02.02.2015,
which recovery was within in proximity of time and area as well,
therefore, the accused persons owed an explanation but they
failed to do so.

170. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for
the accused persons has contended that when the deceased was
missing in the morning who prevented the family members of the
deceased from going to the police station. The said argument
seems to be illogical. Missing of a person does mean that the
family members of the deceased would have ever thought that
such an extreme act shall be done to the missing person.
Generally, the family members of the missing person believes
that he is alive until they see the dead-body.

171. Furthermore, the motive behind the commission of
the offences has also been successfully established by the
prosecution. It is in the evidence of PW1 Sonu that his brother
Jagdish was used to sit with the accused persons Peetam and Om
Prakash. During the arguments, learned counsel for the accused
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 100 of 109
persons has himself contended that the accused persons and the
deceased were used to sit and drink together. It is also in
evidence of PW1 Sonu that the accused Peetam was also used to
tell Jagdish to make him his son-in-law; there was no enmity
between Jagdish and Peetam family and one day, Peetam had
threatened his brother Jagdish on the pretext of following his
daughter. It is in the evidence of PW12 Naresh also that Om
Prakash and Peetam had made an allegation that Jagdish was
used to meet with the daughter of Peetam. The said testimonies
of PW1 Sonu and PW12 Naresh have either not controverted or
as noted above, have been admitted during arguments by the
defence.

172. PW23 Ms. Anju Dixit, MRT, AIIMS Hospital has
has identified the signature of Dr. Dhakad on the MLC bearing
No.1315/15 dated 02.02.2015 (Ex.PW23/A) of the patient
Jagdish prepared by doctor Vinod Dhakad. It is in the evidence of
PW24 Dr. Om Prakash, SR General Surgery AIIMS that as per
the MLC (Ex.PW23/A) of the patient Jagdish, the patient was
brought ‘dead’ but no external injury was found.

173. As per the testimony of PW14 Dr. D. N. Bhardwaj,
the viscera of the deceased was preserved. It is in the evidence of
PW11 Ct. Lokesh Tomar that on 24.03.2015, he had collected
sealed viscera petti from MHC(M) Sun Light Colony, deposited
the same at FSL, Rohini and handed over the receipt to MHC
(M).

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 101 of 109

174. It is in the evidence of PW25 Dr. Adesh Kumar, Sr.
Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini, New Delhi that on
24.03.2015, one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of
DEPARTMENT OF FORENSIC MEDICINE A.I.I.M.S NEW
DELHI was received in the office and the same was marked to
him for the chemical examination. It is also in the evidence of
PW25 Dr. Adesh Kumar that the parcel was properly sealed and
the seals were tallied with specimen seal and on opening the
parcel, it was found to contain exhibits 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D and
his detailed report as on “on Chemical, Microscopic, TLC, GC-
HS & GC-MS examination, the Exhibits 1A, 1B and 1C were
found to contain Ethyl Alcohol and Exhibit 1C was found to
contain Ehtyl Alcohol 175.50 mg/100 ml of blood. As per the
viscera report (Ex.PW25/A) duly proved by PW25, the viscera of
the deceased was found to be containing Ethyl Alcohol, which
also goes to corroborate the disclosure statements made by both
the accused persons that the accused persons first made the
deceased drunk and then they strangulated him and after the
deceased was motionless, they captivated the deceased.

175. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted by
the Board of three doctors, namely, Dr. Piyush Sharma and Dr.
Hari Prasad and Dr. D. N. Bhardwaj. The prosecution has
examined Dr. D. N. Bhardwaj, Professor Forensic Medicine,
AIIMS Hospital (Chairman of the Board) as PW14. As per the
testimonies of PW14 Dr. D. N. Bhardwaj, he along with Dr.
Piyush Sharma and Dr. Hari Prasad had conducted postmortem
on 16.02.2015 on the body of Jagdish son of Bachchan Lal who
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 102 of 109
was brought for postmortem by Sunlight Colony police with
history of found floating in Yamuna River on 02.02.2015 with
head missing.

176. It is also in the evidence of PW14 Dr. D. N.
Bhardwaj that on postmortem, the deceased was wearing blue
colour underwear, green colour baniyan, yellow coloured check
shirt and a brown colour sweat shirt which was having multiple
sharp cuts and the person was having a tatoo mark named Jagdish
over right forearm and also symbol of lord Shiva and the head
was decapitated at the level of cervical fourth and fifth vertebra;
there was no bleeding at that level suggesting it was postmortem
in nature; no injury was appreciable on the available parts and the
length of the body was around 170 cm calculated on the basis of
arm span.

177. It is also in the evidence of PW14 Dr. D. N.
Bhardwaj that the viscera was preserved along with blood sample
and DNA sample which was handed over to the police and the
cause of death was kept pending at that time and time since death
was about two weeks. The viscera report (Ex.PW25/A) has been
proved by Dr. Adesh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer,
(Chemistry), FSL Rohini, New Delhi. As per the peport
(Ex.PW25/A), Ethyl Alcohol was found in the body of the
deceased which also corroborates the disclosure statements made
by the accused persons that after making the deceased drunk,
they had first strangulated and then captivated the deceased.

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 103 of 109

178. As per the testimonies of PW14 Dr. D. N. Bhardwaj,
the report containing four pages is signed by all the three doctors;
Dr. Piyush Sharma and Dr. Hari Prasad had left the services of
the hospital and their whereabouts were not known and he could
identify their handwriting and signatures as they had worked with
him and he had seen them signing and writing during course of
his duty. PW14 Dr. D. N. Bhardwaj has identied his signature at
point A and signatures of Dr. Hari Prasad and Dr. Piyush Sharma
at point B and C, respectively, on each page of the postmortem
report (Ex.PW14/A) and thus, he has proved the postmortem
report.

179. It is also in the evidence of PW14 Dr. D. N.
Bhardwaj that subsequently, Inspector Ashok Kumar had made
an application for opinion on the alleged weapon of offence
which was knife sealed in a parcel and the dimensions along with
the diagram which they had made were also annexed vide
Ex.PW14/B. It is also in the evidence of PW14 Dr. D. N.
Bhardwaj that after examination of the alleged weapon of
offence, the Board was of the opinion that decapitation was
possible by the knife shown to them. PW14 Dr. D. N. Bhardwaj
has proved their report (Ex.PW14/C) and also identified his
signature at point A and signature of Dr. Hari Prasad at point A
on Ex.PW14/B.

180. Regarding identity of the accused persons, PW1
Sonu, PW2 Yogesh, PW12 Naresh and PW32 Inspector Ashok

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 104 of 109
Kumar (Investigating Officer) have correctly identified the
accused persons Om Prakash and Peetam in the Court.

181. For proving the identity of the deceased/dead-body
testimonies of PW1 Sonu, PW2 Yogesh, PW12 Naresh are
relevant.

182. As per the testimonies of PW1 Sonu (brother of the
deceased), he had gone to AIIMS hospital where he had
identified the dead-body of his brother Jagdish and received his
body after postmortem vide memo (Ex.PW1/U). PW1 Sonu has
also identified the clothes of the deceased which were worn by
the deceased when his body was recovered. PW2 Yogesh is the
cousin of the deceased and he had taken the dead-body of the
deceased from the place where it was recovered to their house.
PW12 Naresh is another brother of deceased Jagdish and as per
his testimonies, he had identified the body of the deceased as
they were able to identify the dead-body of the deceased Jagdish
as his name was engraved on the hand of the deceased Jagdish.

183. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for
the accused persons has contended that since DNA analysis of
the deceased was not got conducted by the investigating officer,
therefore, it can not be established that the body recovered on
02.02.2015 was of Jagdish.

184. During the cross-examination of PW12 Naresh,
brother of the deceased, a suggestion was given to him that he
had wrongly identified the dead-body recovered to be that of
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 105 of 109
Jagdish, which was denied by him. During the examination of the
accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. also the accused
persons have taken the defence that dead-body recovered was not
of Jagdish.

185. In the present matter, a very strange defence has
been taken by the accused persons whereby they have disputed
the identity of the dead-body/deceased. As per the discussion
above-stated, it has been proved that the accused persons had
called the deceased Jagdish from his home and had taken the
deceased along with them at about 11.00 p.m. in the night of
01.02.2015 and on 02.02.2015 at about 02.00 p.m., the dead-
body of the deceased was found on the bank of river of Yamuna
in the water and the dead-body was correctly identified by the
family members of the deceased from the clothes, physique and
the name engraved on his right hand. The dead-body of the
deceased was recovered on the next day only, therefore, the dead-
body was not decayed. Just because the head of the body was not
recovered which the accused persons had thrown on the opposite
side of Yamuna river, it cannot be said that the family members
of the deceased were unable to identify the dead-body of the
deceased and the contention raised by learned counsel for the
accused persons is ill-founded. Another reason for which the
identification of the dead-body of the deceased cannot be
doubted is that the deceased had gone with the accused persons
in the late hours of night of 01.02.2015 and when he did not
return to home, his family members started searching for him in
the nearby areas and the dead-body of the deceased was
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 106 of 109
recovered in the nearby area i.e. Yamuna river where the accused
persons and the deceased were residing in Jhuggies within close
proximity of time and place.

186. From the testimonies of PW1 Sonu, PW2 Yogesh,
PW12 Naresh, the identity of the dead-body of the deceased
Jagdish is duly proved.

187. PW4 Inspector Mahesh Kumar has proved the
scaled site-plan (Ex.PW4/A) of the place of occurrence and as
per his testimonies, on 07.04.2015, he along with Inspector
Ashok Kumar had visited the place of occurrence at Yamuna
Khadar, near Gayaspur Jhuggies where on the pointing of
Inspector Ashok Kumar, he had taken rough notes and
measurements of the place of incident, thereafter, on the basis of
rough notes and measurements, at the instance of Inspector
Ashok Kumar, he had prepared scaled site-plan (Ex.PW4/A) of
the place of occurrence and he had destroyed the rough notes
after preparation of the scaled site-plan.

188. All the prosecution witnesses who have joined the
investigation with the investigating officer of other officers have
duly corroborated such facts.

189. It is noteworthy here that nothing material has been
brought to my notice from the cross-examination of above
prosecution witnesses for suspecting the truth of the version
given by either of them and their testimonies have remained
consistent to prove that (i) on the date of incident, the accused
FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 107 of 109
persons Om Prakash and Peetam had called the deceased Jagdish
from his home and taken him along on 01.02.2015, ( ii) the dead-
body of the deceased was found on 02.02.2015 i.e. in close
proximity of time when the deceased was last seen together with
the accused persons Om Prakash and Peetam, (iii) the accused
persons Om Prakash and Peetam were arrested and made
disclosure confessing their guilt and also about involvement of
the accused persons Om Prakash and Peetam in the commission
of offence, (iv) pursuant to their disclosure statements, the
accused persons got recovered jacket of the deceased Jagdish
which they had hidden in the bushes of farm ( v) pursuant to the
disclosure made by the the accused Peetam, he had got recovered
the knife used by them in the commission of offence, ( vi) as per
the subsequent opinion on the use of weapon of offence (knife), it
could be used for decapitation, (vii) motive to commit the
offence is also established.

190. In view of the above, the accused persons owe but
did not tender any reasonable explanation of their conduct.

191. The accused persons Om Prakash and Peetam have
not been able to spell out any reason for their false implications.

192. It is important to note here that the accused persons
have not examined any witness in their defence.

193. As per the evidence led by the prosecution, it has
been proved that the accused persons, Om Prakash @ Om
Prakash Rana and Peetam had thrown the head of the deceased

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 108 of 109
Jagdish on the opposite side of Yamuna river in order to conceal
the identity of the deceased which head of the deceased could not
be recovered despite several efforts made by the investigating
officer.

194. To sum up, in view of above-discussion, the
prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the charge
under section 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the
accused persons, Om Prakash @ Om Prakash Rana and Peetam,
so the accused persons, Om Prakash @ Om Prakash Rana and
Peetam are found guilty of having committed the said offence
and hence, they are convicted of offence punishable under
sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

195. Let both the convicts be heard on the question of
Digitally
sentence. signed by
RAKESH
RAKESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:

2025.05.22
17:40:39
+0530

Pronounced in the open Court (DR. RAKESH KUMAR)
th
on 22 May, 2025. Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC)-02,
South-East, Saket Court Complex,
New Delhi

FIR No.62/2015 P.S. Sunlight Colony State Vs. Om Prakash and Peetam Page 109 of 109