Delhi District Court
State vs Ramesh Singh on 31 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIPIN KHARB
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-07 : SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
SC No.2084/2016
CNR No. DLSE01-000166-2012
State Vs. Ramesh Singh
S/o Sh. Lodha Singh
R/o Vill. Bindhin Chuwa
PS Kamdhana,
Distt. Gumla, Jharkhand.
FIR No. : 291/12
Police Station : Okhla
Under Sections : 302/397/411 IPC
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 14.02.2013
Date on which judgment was reserved : 31.07.2025
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 31.07.2025
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. On 12.09.2012 on receiving DD No.2A, IO / SI Bijender Singh along-
with Ct. Singh Raj and Ct. Indraj went to the spot i.e. Transport Office of
Sudarshan Bhasin at DSIDC Shed No.56A, Scheme I, OIA Phase-II and found
dead body of one person aged about 30 years, drenched in blood, lying on
Settee; on inquiry name and address of deceased was revealed as Sadanand
Yadav S/o Ram Harsh Yadav R/o Village Firoz Patti, Police Station Mahauli,
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 1 of 50
District Sant Kabir Nagar (Uttar Pradesh). The office had a store room, toilet,
main room and on the right side of that room, there was office room of the
owner. There was blood on the floor, office table and blood stains on the office
wall. On the office table, the wires of the receiver of 3 land line telephones
were found in broken condition and there was blood stains on the mattress
lying on the bench on the right side and other blood soaked clothes were also
lying there. There were blood stains on the iron frame of the office door and
also on the iron door. One person Virendra Yadav was present there and IO
recorded his statement.
2. In his statement Virender Yadav stated that he works as a driver in
Bhasin Transport for last 7 to 8 years and the owner is Sh. Sudarshan Kumar
Bhasin, who runs his transport business from here. Deceased Sadanand Yadav
was an accountant and used to stay in the office. About 7 days ago i.e. on
05.09.12, a boy Ramesh Singh was employed as servant to make tea, food etc.
and he also used to stay in the office along-with Sadanand. On 11.09.2012,
after getting his vehicle repaired from Punjabi Bagh, he came to the office
after four days and took reimbursement of repairing expenses from Sadanand
and took another vehicle and left for Bawana. When he reached Power House,
Okhla Phase-II then his vehicle broke down and he informed this fact to
Sadanand from his mobile and spent the night in the vehicle. On 12.09.2012 at
about 8:00 a.m. when he reached his office, he saw that the main gate was
open and inside the room Sadanand Yadav was lying drenched in blood on
settee and there was blood all around. He called his name 3-4 times but when
Sadanand did not respond then he informed his employer Nitin Bhasin and
called police. SHO and senior officers also came at the spot.
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 2 of 50
3. During investigation, IO prepared rukka and got the present FIR
registered through Ct. Indraj. Crime team came at the spot and took the
photographs of the spot from different angles. Finger print proficient tried to
lift the chance print but no chance print was found. Dead body of Sadanand
was sent to AIIMS mortuary for postmortem. Unscaled site plan was prepared.
Various blood stain samples and exhibits were collected from the spot.
4. On 13.09.2012, accused Ramesh Singh was arrested and his disclosure
statement was recorded and at his instance the bag containing blood stained
clothes and knife were recovered from bushes between Railway line. Lateron,
an axle like rod was recovered from the spot. IO prepared the inquest papers
and collected postmortem report from AIIMS.
5. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court
for the offence u/s. 302/397/411 IPC. After complying with Sec.207 Cr.PC,
case was committed to the Sessions Court.
6. After hearing arguments, charge u/s. 302/397/411 IPC was framed
against the accused on 19.03.2013 to which accused pleaded “Not Guilty” and
claimed trial and accordingly the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
7. During trial, Viscera Examination Report and FSL reports were received
and supplementary charge-sheet were filed.
8. During the course of the trial, prosecution examined 35 witnesses to
substantiate the accusations leveled against the accused persons.
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 3 of 50
9. PW-1 / ASI Jawahar Singh is duty officer and he proved copy of FIR as
Ex.PW1/A, endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW1/B, DD no.2A and DD
No.3A as Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D respectively.
10. PW-2 / Sh. Nitin deposed that on 12.09.2012 at about 08:00 am, he
received telephone call from his driver Virender, who told him that their
supervisor Sadanand is lying in the office having been stabbed with knife and
is not able to speak and he called No. 100. He went to his office i.e. 56A,
Okhla Phase-II, Scheme-1, New Delhi and saw Sadanand lying on a settee face
down and there was lots of blood on settee and on table which was lying near
settee, as well as on the walls of his office. Police arrived at spot in his
presence and checked four CCTV Cameras installed in his office and he
handed over footage of those cameras in his pendrive to police. Pendrive could
not run on system of police station, therefore, police called an IT team from
Crown Plaza and with the help of them, police was able to run the pendrive.
Wires of two land line phones, CCTV camera as well as one walky system in
his office were found cut and glass of one CCTV camera was also found in
broken condition. Cash Rs.6,600/-, two mobile phones and wallet of Sadanand
were found missing and files were scattered in his office. Next day he went to
police station on being called by the police and he identified the accused
Ramesh as the same person who was employed in his office by Sadanand and
accused used to sleep in night in his office with Sadanand and accused was
employed as attendant to serve tea etc and brother of accused, who was
employed at Okhla, introduced the accused to him. Accused was not found
present in the office when he went there and after two days of incident police
told him that two mobile phones, one belonging to Sadanand and other
provided by them to Sadanand and cash of Rs.6600/- has been recovered.
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 4 of 50
PW-2 identified one wallet and three mobile phones, one of make Samsung
and other of make Haier and he told that mobile phone on which Haier is
written was personal phone of Sadanand and while mobile phone on which
Samsung is written was provided to Sadanand by Bhasin Transport was having
number 9212769196 and proved these phones as Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2
respectively.
11. In cross-examination by Ld counsel for accused, PW-2 stated that he do
not remember whether police recorded his statement when he handed over
CCTV footage in pendrive. CCTV footage was written by him in his pendrive.
It was collected in hard disk. 15 days footage can be recorded. It was written
by him on 12.09.2012 and handed over to the police in same evening. It is true
that instance of theft etc are noticed frequently. The accused gave his address
of Aali Village, Delhi when accused was employed by him. He gave
photograph of the accused to the police. He do not remember how much cash
was distributed or how much was in the office on 11.09.2012. The routine
payments which were spent or given by Sadanand were not brought to his
notice. Without going through the record i.e. Ledger of his office, he cannot
tell where Virender was on 11.09.2012 and 12.09.2012. Steel rods and axles
etc are kept in their office, under the shetty, which were found lying scattered.
Police had already inspected the office till he reached there. Police had not
shown him the mobile phones before he participated in TIP of mobile phone.
He do not remember how much cash was handed over to Sadanand on
11.09.2012. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
12. PW-3 / Sh. Rajkumar deposed that accused came to Delhi in August
2012 and stayed with his brother in PW3’s house for about 10 days. The
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 5 of 50
accused was also arrested from their house and cash of Rs.5,900/-
approximately and three mobile phones were recovered from possession of the
accused. Police seized all these articles. He proved seizure memo as Ex.
PW-3/A, arrest memo as Ex.PW-3/B and personal search as Ex.PW-3/C.
After taking permission from the court, Ld. Addl. PP for State put
a leading question as the witness resiled from his previous statement. In cross-
examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, PW-2 admitted that police recorded his
statement and when police came to their house, the accused and his brother
were ready to leave the tenanted premises and on interrogation by police,
accused admitted the offence and produced one red colour bag to the police
and disclosed to the police in his presence that he killed Sadanand and took
away Rs.5900/-, one ATM card and three mobile phone from the possession of
Sadanand.
13. In cross-examination by Ld counsel for accused, PW-3 stated that police
came to him first and then went to the accused. Police remained at his house
for about 15-20 minutes. His statement was recorded in police station at about
4:00 p.m.. He remained in police station for about 14 hours. He reached police
station at about 5:00 a.m. Accused and his brother were also taken to police
station along-with him. Articles mentioned above were recovered from the
possession of accused in his presence. He was shown those articles i.e. cash
Rs.5,900/- and three mobile phones and these articles were taken out from the
pocket of accused in his presence. There are three rooms in their house on
each floor. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
14. PW-4 / SI Sanjay Kumar deposed that on 12.09.2012 he was posted as
In-charge Mobile Crime Team, South East and he along with HC Kuldeep
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 6 of 50
(fingerprint proficient) and Ct. Amit Photographer went to the spot where they
found dead body with blood lying on settee. Blood was on the floor near dead
body and on the wall and main door of the office. Ct. Amit took photographs
of the spot from different angles and he inspected the spot and prepared report
Ex.PW4/A. Local police was present and IO prepared 5-6 pullandas in his
presence.
15. In his cross-examination by Ld counsel for accused, PW-4 stated that he
reached the spot at about 9:00 a.m. and remained there for about an hour. He
inspected the entire spot carefully. No public persons went inside the shed. IO
did not seize any weapon of offence in his presence. Total 5-6 pulandas were
prepared by the IO.
16. PW-5 / Nitin Kalra deposed that on 14th or 15th September, 2012, on
receiving call from Nitin Bhasin, proprietor of Bhasin Transport, he went to his
office situated at 56A, DSIDC, Okhla where he had installed four CCTV
cameras and recorded footage of CCTV camera in a CD and handed it over to
Sh. Nitin Bhasin. After one or two months, police came to him and recorded
his statement.
After taking permission from the court, Ld. Addl. PP for State put
a leading question as witness was resiling from his previous statement. In
cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, PW-5 admits that on 06.11.2012
police recorded his statement and seizure memo Ex.PW5/A bears his signature
at point A and there is a difference of 27 hours in the time of CCTV camera
and the actual time as battery of CCTV Camera was in the process of being
discharged.
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 7 of 50
17. In his cross-examination by Ld counsel for accused, PW-5 stated that the
incident had already been recorded by the camera despite battery being weak.
He put start time and end time to take the recording. He did not see the footage
after being recorded. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
18. PW-6 / Sh. Virender Yadav deposed that he is driver of Bhasin Transport
and deceased Sadanand was Accountant in office for several years and used to
sleep in the office in night and Sadanand had employed the accused to cook
food and accused also used to sleep in office with Sadanand and he identified
the accused in the court. On 11.09.2012, he was bringing his troller from
Punjabi Bagh, which got broke down near Power House, Okhla Industrial Area
and he contacted Sadanand, who advised him to sleep in the vehicle. On next
day i.e. 12.09.2012, at about 8.00 am, he went to office and found Sadanand
dead on a bench in the office and he informed Nitin Bhasin, his employer over
the phone, who asked him to wait there and police came at spot and
interrogated him and proved his statement as Ex.PW6/A.
19. In his cross-examination by Ld counsel for accused, PW-6 stated that he
saw the accused in the morning of the previous day of incident in the office.
He started from Punjabi Bagh at about 10:00 p.m on 11.09.2012 but he did not
go to office at that time. There are about 40-50 employees including 15 drivers
in the transport office. Sadanand was lying on the bench facing sky. He was in
pant and shirt at that time. He didn’t touch the deadbody. He didn’t enter the
office. He had told to IO in his statement that after getting his vehicle repaired
he went to his office after four days. He denied the suggestion that he told the
IO that he had taken the truck from his office. He was confronted with his
statement Ex.PW-6/A where it is so recorded. He received the amount of his
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 8 of 50
expenses at Punjabi Bagh which was sent by Sadanand. He contacted
Sadanand on his mobile number at about 2:00 a.m. in the intervening night of
11/12.09.2012. He met Sadanand four days before the incident. He did not
disclose to the police that who had killed Sadanand. Accused was not present
in the office when he reached there. He denied the suggestion that he is
deposing falsely.
20. PW- 7 / Ct. Vishwanath was MHC(M) and deposed that HC Satinder
gave him pullanda sealed with seal of ‘MS’ for the purpose of TIP which he
brought to the court and handed over to Ld. MM and after sometime pullanda
was handed over to him, sealed with the seal of Court which is deposited in
Malkhana.
21. PW-8 / Sh. Arjun Singh deposed that he is a teacher in School in which
accused took admission on 05.10.2002 in 2 nd class and in Admission Register
of year 2022 and proved photocopy of relevant page of register as Ex.PW8/A
and proved certificate issued by him as Ex.PW8/B which he handed over to the
IO during investigation of case and proved his statement recorded by IO as
Ex.PW8/C.
22. PW-9 / HC Ravinder Meena was the police official of Police Control
Room, who proved the PCR form as Ex.PW9/A.
23. PW-10 / Ct. Amit Singh was photographer of Mobile Crime Team and
he proved the photographs as PW10/1 to Ex.PW10/17 and negative of
photographs as Ex.PW10/1A to Ex.PW10/17A.
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 9 of 50
24. PW-11 / Sh. M. N. Vijayan was Nodal Officer of TATA Teleservices
Ltd., who proved the call details of mobile phone numbers 9210013949 and
9212769196 from 01.11.2012 to 15.11.2012 as Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW11/B,
certificate as Ex.PW11/C, CAF of Jai Prakash as Ex.PW11/D, copy of ration
card of Jai Prakash as Ex. PW11/E, CAF of Sudershan as Ex.PW11/F and copy
of Voter I Card and DL of Sudershan as Ex. PW11/G. He gave reply to the
request to provide details of handset NEID nos as Ex. PW11/H.
25. PW-12 / HC Kuldeep Singh was the member of Mobile Crime Team and
deposed that he along with SI Sanjay Kumar and Ct. Amit reached the spot and
he checked for the chance print but no chance print could be lifted or
developed.
In his cross-examination by Ld counsel for accused, PW-12 stated
that no weapon of offence was seized by the IO from the spot in his presence.
26. PW-13 / Ct. Virender was the police official who delivered copy of FIR
in DCP Office, Sarita Vihar and to Ld. MM District Court, Saket.
27. PW-14 / Dr. Yogesh Kumar Meena proved the MLC of Sadanand Yadav,
prepared by Dr. Devender Kumar, as Ex.PW-14/A.
28. PW-15 / Ct. Singh Raj deposed that on 12.09.2012 on receiving DD
No.2A he along with SI Bijender and Ct. Indraj went to the spot where they
found one person lying on bench imbued with blood. After some time SHO
along with Addl. SHO and some other police officer reached there. SI Bijender
gave him letter and he took injured to AIIMS hospital where he was declared
brought dead and he deposited dead body in mortuary and filled the
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 10 of 50
application to preserve the dead body. SI Sanjay Bhatt along with relative of
deceased came to mortuary, where they identified the dead body and
postmortem was conducted and dead body was handed over to relatives and
doctor gave blood sample of deceased which was seized by the IO.
29. In his cross-examination by Ld counsel for accused, PW-15 stated that
IO did not interrogate any public person in his presence. IO examined two
relatives of the deceased and those two persons did not express doubt upon
anyone.
30. PW-16 / Ct. Hardeep Singh deposed that on pointing of Insp. Mahender
Singh, he prepared rough notes of site plan and proved the scaled site plan as
Ex.PW-16/A.
31. PW-17 / Ct Brij Mohan deposed that on 13.09.2012 he alongwith IO
Insp. Mahender Singh and Ct. Indraj Singh went to Aali Gaon and secret
informer met them and told them that accused is staying in rented house. They
met owner / Landlord of the house Raj Kumar and they all entered into Room
No.2 at first floor and found accused and his brother Umesh. IO interrogated
the accused and recorded disclosure statement of accused ExPW17/A, arrested
the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW17/B and conducted personal search vide
personal search memo Ex.PW17/C. Accused brought one red colour bag from
the ledge in the house and it found containing three mobile phones, (all make
Tata Indicom), some cash (three notes of Rs.1000/-, five notes of Rs.500/- and
four notes of Rs.100 each) and IO seized the bag vide seizure memo as
Ex.PW17/B. Accused took them to railway line at the back side of a factory in
Sarita Vihar and took out one black colour bag from bushes which was found
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 11 of 50
containing six pair of clothes i.e. one lower, two shirts, one black colour
nikkar, one vest of blue colour having stripes and one other vest of white
colour and all them were seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/C. Nikkar
and Vest were kept in one pullanda and other clothes were kept in other
pullanda and both pullanda were sealed with the seal of ‘MS’. On pointing out
of accused, one kitchen knife was found from the bushes, IO prepared the
sketch of knife Ex.PW17/D and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/E and
prepared a pullanda sealed with seal of ‘MS’. Accused brought them to the
spot i.e. Shed No.56A OIA phase-II and took out one iron rod like excel,
which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/F and prepared a pullanda
sealed with seal of ‘MS’ and prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW17/G and IO
got the accused medically examined in ESI hospital and they deposited the
case property in Malkhana and accused was produced in the court and sent to
JC. He correctly identified the accused in the court case property i.e. vest of
light blue colour, one shirt of dark colour, one other shirt of peach colour
having some designs on it, one lower (pyjama) appearing a piece of track suit
of blue colour and four pieces out of six which were seized from railway line
and produced by accused vide seizure memo as Ex.P3 (vest), Ex.P4 and Ex.P5
(shirts), Ex.P6 (lower), Mobile phone Hair as Ex.P1, mobile phone Samsung
as Ex.P2, wallet along-with other articles as Ex.P-8, cash Rs.5900/- as Ex.P-9
and red colour bag as Ex.P-10, iron rod Ex.P-11, vest Ex.P-12, Nikkar as
Ex.P-13 and knife as Ex.P-14.
32. In his cross-examination by Ld counsel for accused, PW-17 denied the
suggestion that no such knife like knife of case property was recovered at the
instance of the accused. It was about 5:30 a.m. when they reached Ali Village.
They left at about 6:30 – 6:45 a.m. They went there in a private car. It took 20-
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 12 of 50
25 minutes in reaching the spot i.e. near railway track. IO did not take
photographs of spot of recovery. Raj Kumar did not accompany them. He
admitted that iron rod (Axel) was recovered from place of incident on the next
day of incident. He denied that there was blood stain on that iron rod (Axel)
when it was seized and they did not seize said axel on their first visit to spot
deliberately.
33. PW-18 / HC Virender Singh was MHC(M) and deposed that he gave one
sealed pullanda to Ct. Sanjay to be taken to AIIMS hospital vide RC
No.162/21/12 and proved the relevant entry as Ex.PW18/A.
34. PW-19 / Sh. Anuj Aggarwal, Ld. Secretary DLSA proved TIP
proceedings as Ex.PW2/A, application filed by IO for seeking copy of TIP
which was allowed by him as Ex.PW19/B, his order on TIP application dated
04.12.2012 as Ex.PW19/C and certificate about truthfulness of proceedings as
Ex.PW19/D.
35. PW-20 / Dr. Kartik Krishna, PW-28/ Dr. Chitranjan Behra and PW-29 /
Dr. Hari Prasad are doctors from Forensic Medicine Department, AIIMS
Hospital, Delhi. They deposed that PW-20/Dr. Kartik Krishna along with Dr.
Sudeepta Ranjan Singh under the supervision of PW-28 / Dr. Chitranjan Behra,
conducted the postmortem of the dead body of deceased Sadanand and they
prepared postmortem report Ex. PW20/A as per which in their opinion the
cause of death was Haemorrhagic shock as a result of multiple injuries
described in their report. PW29 proves signature of Dr. Sudeepta Ranjan Singh
as point B on the report.
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 13 of 50
36. In his cross-examination by Ld counsel for accused, PW-20 stated that
after the postmortem police produced one sealed envelope and on opening the
same he found one iron rod weighing 4 kg having blackish colour stain on it
and he opined that said weapon has been used in causing injury and proved his
opinion as Ex.PW-20/DA.
37. PW-21 / Ct. Sanjay Kumar deposed that on 08.11.2012, on the direction
of the IO, he took one sealed pullanda duly sealed with the seal of ‘MS’ and
one sample seal from the malkhana and deposited them in AIIMS Mortuary
vide RC No. 162/21/12 and handed over the receipt to MHC(M).
38. PW-22 / Ct. Manoj deposed that he deposited 15 sealed pullandas in
FSL Rohini and proved copy of RC as Ex.PW22/A and receipt as Ex.PW22/B.
39. PW-23 / HC Satender was MHC(M) and proved the relevant entries in
Register No. 19 at Sr No.3107 as Ex.PW-23/A, at Sr.No. 3110 as Ex.PW-23/B
and at Sr. No.3220 as ExPW23/D.
40. PW-24 / Ct. Naveen was MHC(M) who took 04 pullandas and two
sample seals from the maalkhana vide RC No.166/21 and deposited them in
FSL Rohini and proved the copy of receipt Ex.PW24/A.
41. PW-25 / Ct. Praveen Kumar deposed that on 15.11.2012, on the
direction of IO he collected subsequent opinion of doctor about weapon of
offence, from AIIMS hospital and doctor returned him the iron rod i.e. weapon
of offence and an envelope containing subsequent opinion, he deposited the
rod in malkhana and gave envelope to IO. On 21.11.2012, on the direction of
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 14 of 50
IO, he took one box containing viscra of deceased and sample seal from
malkhana vide RC no. 175/12 and deposited the same in FSL, Rohini and gave
receipt and copy of RC given to MHC (M).
42. PW-26 / SI Bijender Singh was the first IO who deposed that Virender
Yadav met them at the spot and he recorded his statement Ex.PW6/A and made
endorsement Ex.PW26/A and sent rukka through Ct. Indraj and Inspector
Mohinder Singh and SHO V.K.P.S. Yadav came there and further investigation
was done by Inspt. Mohinder Singh. He sent dead body to mortuary of AIIMS
through Ct. Singh Raj and gave application Ex.PW26/B and called crime team
at spot and dead body was taken to mortuary of AIIMS, where relatives of the
deceased came and identified dead body. After conducting of postmortem, the
dead body was handed over to them.
43. In his cross-examination by Ld counsel for accused, PW-26 stated that
apart from mentioning name and address of accused Ramesh Singh, Virender
Yadav disclosed identity of accused. No chance print could be developed by
Crime Team at the spot in his presence.
44. PW-27 / SI Sanjay Bhatt deposed that on 13.09.2012 on direction of
SHO, he collected inquest paper from SHO and went to AIIMS hospital and
got conducted postmortem of dead body. Doctor gave him three pullandas; of
viscera of deceased, of blood sample ingauge and of clothes of deceased. He
proved the seizure memo as Ex.PW27/A, statement regarding dead body
identification as Ex.PW27/B and Ex.PW27/C, handing over memo of dead
body as Ex.PW27/D, application given to Medical Superintendent AIIMS as
Ex.PW27/E and deposited the pullandas and sample seal in Malkahana.
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 15 of 50
45. PW-30 / Inspector Mohinder Singh was the second IO of the case and he
deposed about the investigation conducted by him. He deposed that on
12.09.2012 at about 08:15 a.m., the duty officer informed about the incident
and he along with the SHO went to the spot and found SI Bijender, PW/Ct.
Singhraj and Ct. Indraj were already present there and further investigation
was marked to him. Ct. Indraj handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka
to him. Owner of transport, Sudarshan Bhasin and crime team arrived at the
spot. Crime team tried to lift the chance print from the spot but no chance print
could be found. He collected total 15 articles from the spot with the help of Ct.
Indraj and Ct. Singh Raj and proved the seizure memo as Ex.PW30/A. On
13.09.2012, raid was conducted at the house of Raj Kumar on the basis of a
secret information as well as analysis of the mobile phone number given by
Nitin Bhasin. When they reached there, he apprehended the accused Ramesh
Singh on the basis of ID card given to him by Nitin Bhasin. During
investigation, accused got recovered a bag kept in the room which found
containing one black purse, two ATM Cards, two visiting cards, laminated
voter ID card, photocopy of Driving License, Voter ID card and Rs. 5900/- and
three mobile phones. He prove the recovery site plan as Ex.PW-30/B. He
along-with other police officials and accused went to Sarita Vihar Railway
fatak from where accused got recovered one black colour pitthu bag containing
blood stain clothes. The pithu bag was found containing one blood stained half
nikar, one blood stained sandooz baniyan. The blood stained clothes i.e.
baniyan and nikar were converted into separate pullanda. The accused had
further got recovered blood stained knife from nearby bushes. He proved the
site plan of the spot from where accused got recovered the above articles as
Ex.PW-30/C. Accused also got recovered axel rod from underneaths a bench
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 16 of 50
lying in the shed and he proved the rough sketch of the place of recovery as
Ex.PW-30/E. Nitin Bhasin, owner of the transport office also reached in police
station and on seeing the accused Ramesh, he identified the accused stating
that he stayed with the deceased in the night. Accused was arrested from the
tenanted house of Umesh Kumar and Umesh Kumar was the tenant of Raj
Kumar. Later on, Raj Kumar along-with brother of the accused Umesh Kumar
came in the police station and he recorded statement of landlord Raj Kumar.
On 22.09.2012, he obtained subsequent opinion, Ex. PW20/DA with regard to
iron rod used as weapon of offence.
PW-30 further deposed that he played the CCTV footage but nothing
was found visible as the wire connected with the CCTV camera was found to
be disconnected / cut at the time of their visit, post incident. The CD of CCTV
footage was not sent to the FSL for examination though it was seized vide
seizure memo Ex.PW-5/A. He obtained the CDR of the mobile number being
used in the two mobile phones recovered from the rented premises of brother
of accused at Subhash Mohalla, Pusta Road, Ali Gaon, Delhi. One more
mobile was also recovered at the instance of the accused but it was CDMA
mobile having no mobile number. The CDR pertaining to the said mobile
numbers is Ex.PW11/A and Ex. PW11/B. Since the said CDRs were not found
to be helpful for the purpose of investigation, hence, judicial TIP of the said
three mobile phones was got conducted through Nitin Bhasin, proprietor of the
company, who identified them to be the same mobile phone, which were taken
by you from the company with other articles / goods and cash.
46. In his cross-examination by Ld counsel for the accused, PW-30 stated
that he has seen the CCTV footage but no incriminating evidence could be
collected from the said footage. The said CD which he has seen today while
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 17 of 50
playing on the system is the same which was sealed by him and provided by
PW Nitin Kalra. The said footages were blurred and no clear image was being
seen. He did not obtain the record of the employees of Sudershan Bhasin
Transport company and no documentary evidence to prove that accused was
employee of the said company was collected. PW Virender Yadav is the last
seen witness of this case. Accused was arrested about 6:00 a.m. on 13.09.2012
from the rented house of his brother. He denied the suggestion that recovery
was not effected at the instance of the accused from the alleged place and same
is planted by obtaining signature of accused. He denied the suggestion that no
recovery was effected at the instance of the accused and same is planted upon
him. He denied the suggestion that apart from the statement of Virender Yadav
no witness has been examined who could say that the victim and the accused
have been seen together in the night of incident. He has not seized the DVR of
the CCTV system. Except the statement of Nitin Bhasin, he has not verified
the account book of the company to the effect whether such cash amount was
lying in the office. At the time they were inquiring, some public persons were
present at the spot. He examined the owner of the transport office namely Nitin
Bhasin and complainant Virender Yadav and they told that the deceased
Sadanand Yadav and accused used to sleep together in DSIDC Shed No.56A
Scheme-1, OIA, Phase-II. He has collected the CDR of two mobile phones out
of three recovered from the accused. On comparison of these CDRs nothing
incriminating came on record during the investigation. He has not analyzed the
CDR of the transport company mobile phone which was being used by the
deceased and recovered from the accused. Deceased was working as a Munshi
in the said transport office.
47. No witness as PW-31 was examined.
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 18 of 50
48. PW-32 / Dr. Naresh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer, Biology, FSL.
Rohini, Delhi proved the FSL report as Ex.PW-32/A running into three pages.
49. PW-33 / Dr. Adesh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer, FSL Rohini, Delhi
proved the FSL report as Ex.PW33/A.
50. PW-34 / Sh. DS Paliwal, Assistant Director Biology, FSL Rohini, Delhi.
He deposed that DNA profile from the source of exhibit 1 (heavy iron axle
rod) and exhibit 3 (knife) is similar with DNA profile from the source of
exhibit 4 (blood in gauze of deceased Sadanand Yadav) and proved his detailed
report along with the annexure Genotype data of exhibit 1, 3 and 4 as Ex.
PW-34/A.
51. In his cross-examination by Ld counsel for accused, PW-34 admitted
that DNA from the exhibits 2a and 2b i.e. blood stained clothes could not be
isolated.
52. PW-35 / SI Satender was MHC(M) who proved the relevant entries in
Register No.19 as Ex.PW-35/A to Ex.PW-35/H.
53. After completing evidence, prosecution evidence was closed vide order
dated 02.12.2023 and matter was fixed for recording statement of accused
persons.
54. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which
all incriminating evidences came against him during the prosecution evidence
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 19 of 50
were put to him and he replied that he was appointed by the employer 4-5 days
ago from the date of alleged incident and on the day of alleged incident i.e. 11-
12th September 2012, he was on leave for two days and has not committed
robbery of purse or cash on that intervening night. It seems that these articles
have been planted by the police in order to resolve their own case and the
employer on the basis of suspicion has given his name and in order to connect
with the alleged crime and to give motive to the alleged offence the purse and
cash have been stated to be recovered so that the motive of the alleged incident
can be connected with him, however, he has not committed any robbery and
have not committed the alleged murder of Sadanand Yadav. He just completed
the age of 18 years and by physique he was weak and fragile and the deceased
was a young person of 45 years and due to his physique he cannot commit
such a heinous crime. The employer has implicated him so that there is no
resentment in the employees of the transport company. In his four days
employment, he had seen that the employees of the transport company had
multiple issues with deceased Sadanand and there used to be manhandling
with deceased Sadanand by other employees. He was called at the office of the
transport company Okhla Industrial Area and was arrested from there and not
from Aali Gaon. Neither Rs.5900/-, Voter I-card and mobile phones i.e. two
make TATA Indicom and one of Samsung belonging to Sh. Nitin Bhasin owner
of Bhasin, were recovered from him nor he committed the offence. The
deceased was an alcoholic person and has multiple issues with the staff of the
transport company i.e. drivers, conductors and labours working in Bhasin
Transport company. The recovery of mobile phones and Rs.5,000/- has been
planted upon him and police has falsely implicated him in the present case in
order to shield some influential person of the transport company. He led
evidence in his defence.
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 20 of 50
55. DW-1 / Sh. Umesh Singh is the brother of the accused. He deposed that
on 06.09.2012 they reached at Bhasin Transport in search of job, the
concerned person of Bhasin Transport agreed to give a job to his brother as a
clerk and his duty was to serve tea and water to the employees of the company.
On 10.09.2012, his brother Ramesh took leave for 2 days from the company
and came to him and said that he wants to go back to village and do not want
to continue the job. On 12.09.2012 he along-with his brother Ramesh Singh
went to Bhasin Transport to intimate them about the same and to clear the
wages of 2-3 days but concerned person of the company did not agree to pay
the wages and started misbehaving and took them to PS OIA where they made
him sign on some blank papers. Next day in the morning, police officials
released him but did not allow his brother Ramesh to go with him.
56. In his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, DW-1 stated that his
brother / accused did not take leave for 2 days from the company i.e. Bhasin
Transport on 10.09.2012. He did not know why accused did not want to go to
work place on 10.09.2012 and 11.09.2012. On 12.09.2012 at about 9:30 a.m.
he along-with his brother went to Bhasin Transport. When they reached there,
he saw that many public persons were gathered there and 5-6 police officials
were already present there. He cannot tell whether the other official / staff were
present there or not. I do not know why the public persons were gathered there.
He could not meet any official / staff of Bhasin Transport because many public
persons and police officials were gathered there. The police officials did not
misbehave with any other public persons except them. The police official did
not take any other public person at PS except them. He remained in PS whole
day. He denied the suggestion that accused Ramesh was arrested on
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 21 of 50
13.09.2012 from H. No. 39/406, Raj Kumar Ka Makan, Subhash Camp, Ali
Gaon, New Delhi.
57. Court has heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Addl. PP for the
State and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and have perused the record.
58. During arguments Ld. Addl. PP submits that weapon of offence i.e. iron
rod and knife is recovered from the accused person and also mobile phones
and wallet containing Rs.5900/- belonging to deceased have been recovered
from the accused. It is proved that accused and deceased used to stay and sleep
in the office of DSIDC Shed No.56A, Scheme I, OIA Phase-II, where the
deadbody of deceased was found. Accused did not join the office on the next
day of the murder and no explanation given by him for his absence from the
office, which proves that he committed the murder of his colleague. Therefore,
accused is liable to be convicted for the offence u/s. 302 IPC.
59. On the other hand, Ld counsel for the accused submitted that knife is
planted on the accused as per the postmortem report, no incised injuries were
caused to the deceased. The iron rod is also planted on the accused as same
was not found by the crime team from DSIDC Shed No.56A, Scheme I, OIA
Phase-II, despite the fact that crime team did thorough search and collected 15
samples from the spot but it could not find the iron rod there and on the next
day the iron rod was found below the settee, on which deadbody was found, on
the pointing out of accused, it shows either the crime team did not inspect the
crime scene properly or iron rod is planted on the accused. He further submits
that accused was not satisfied with the job and he wants to leave it that is why
he did not come to the office that day. The case is based on the last seen theory
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 22 of 50
but no witness is produced who saw the accused with the deceased on the day
of incident. Proper investigation is not conducted in the present case from PW
Virender as he is the one who met the deceased the previous night and he
called the deceased at 2:00 p.m in the night and in the next morning Virender
was the first person to saw the deadbody. It is possible that some arguments
took place between Virender and the deceased and in the night Virender killed
the deceased. Further, prosecution has failed to prove the motive of the
accused to commit the murder. The prosecution has cooked up a false story
and falsely implicated the accused just to work out the case. The accused is
liable to be acquitted from the charges leveled against him.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
60. There is no eye witness to the murder in the present case and the whole
case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. The
circumstantial evidence on which the prosecution case relies upon are –
(i). Recovery of dead body from Bhasin Transport office where accused
used to stay with the deceased Sadanand.
(ii). Absence of accused from the office on the day when the dead body of
Sadanand was found
(iii) Recovery of Blood Stained Knife at the instance of the accused.
(iv) Recovery of blood stained iron rod at the instance of accused.
(v) Recovery of blood stained clothes worn by the accused while
committing the murder.
(vi) Recovery of mobile phones of deceased from the possession of
accused.
(vii) Recovery of black colour wallet of deceased from the possession of
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 23 of 50
accused.
(viii). Accused seen with deceased Sadanand before murder by PW-6 /
complainant Virender i.e. last seen theory.
(ix) Motive (x) Suspicion on Role of PW-6 / complainant Virender. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Recovery of dead body from Bhasin Transport office where accused used to
stay with the deceased Sadanand.
61. It is not disputed that deadbody of Sadanand was found in the DSIDC,
Shed No.56A, Scheme I, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II, where office of
Bhasin Transport Company is situated. As per the prosecution case, the
deceased along-with the accused used to stay in the office of Bhasin Transport
company at above mentioned address, where dead body was found. PW-2 /
Nitin, who is son of the owner of Bhasin transport company and PW-6 /
Virender, who works as driver in the Bhasin transport company, have
specifically deposed that accused used to stay in night in office along-with the
deceased Sadanand. No question was put to these witnesses regarding the
above mentioned fact in their cross-examination by the accused side, therefore,
it is not disputed by the accused side that he used to sleep in night in Bhasin
Transport office at above-mentioned address with deceased.
62. But the fact that accused slept in the Bhasin Transport office on the
intervening night of 11/12.09.2012 i.e. night when Sadanand got murdered is
disputed by the accused side. Accused examined DW-1 Umesh Singh i.e. his
brother, who deposed that on 10.09.2012 his brother accused Ramesh Singh
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 24 of 50
took 2 days leave as he do not want to do the job anymore and wanted to go
back to his village.
63. The onus was on the prosecution to prove that accused Ramesh Singh
stayed in the office in the intervening night of 11/12.09.2012, when murder of
Sadanand took place. Now, court will examine whether prosecution was
successful in discharging this onus or failed in it.
64. It is admitted that CCTV cameras were installed in the office but wire of
the CCTV cameras were cut down by unknown person on the intervening
night of 11/12.09.2012. No doubt, no recording could have been done by
CCTV cameras after the cutting of wires but in DVR, recording done before
the cutting of wires, must be present which could have been used to show that
accused was present in the office in the evening of 11.09.2012 or during
intervening night of 11/12.09.2012.
65. The previous recordings was stored in the DVR was proved from the
deposition of PW-5 / Nitin Kalra, who installed the CCTVs in the office, as he
deposed that he recorded footage of CCTV cameras in CD and gave to PW-2 /
Nitin and there was difference of 27 hours in the time displayed on recording
done on DVR and the actual time, as the battery of CCTV cameras was in
process of being discharged. Further, in his cross-examination, PW-5 admitted
that recording was done by cameras despite battery being weak. This shows
that CCTV recording was taken from DVR but same was never played in the
court.
66. Discussing further, PW-30 / IO ACP Mohinder Singh has deposed that
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 25 of 50
CD of CCTV footage was not sent to FSL as nothing was visible in the
footage. So, as per Investigating Officer of the case, CCTV footage was not
visible which is only possible if there is some issue with CCTV. PW-2 / Nitin,
who was the son of the owner of the Bhasin Transport Company, did not
depose about non working of the CCTV cameras or any issue with CCTV and
PW-5 / Nitin Kalra, who installed the CCTV in the office, deposed that he took
the recording of the CCTV footage; testimonies of PW-2 and PW-5 clearly
shows that CCTVs were working properly, before wire was cut. So, there must
be previous recording stored in DVR of CCTV which could have easily proved
that accused was in the office on the intervening night of 11/12.09.2012 but
same was not produced in the court.
The best evidence to show the presence of accused at the spot
around the time when the murder took place was not produced by the
prosecution, therefore, adverse inference can be drawn that CCTV footage
would have gone against the prosecution case.
67. Discussing further, CCTV footage was not the only source to show the
presence of accused Ramesh Singh at the office. It is admitted case of
prosecution that around 40 driver and helpers of the trucks used to work in the
office but surprisingly prosecution did not examine any of those workers.
Prosecution also failed to examine any person from the neighbouring offices or
shops of the Okhla Industrial Area, where the Bhasin Transport office was
situated, to prove the presence of the accused Ramesh Singh in the Bhasin
Transport office on 11.09.2012.
68. Prosecution only examined PW-6 / complainant / Virender, who is a
driver in the Bhasin Transport Company, who during his cross-examination
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 26 of 50
deposed that he saw accused Ramesh in the office in the morning of previous
day to the incident; which means he saw the accused in the office on
11.09.2012. But he is contradicted by his previous statement i.e. complaint
Ex.PW-6/A, wherein he did not state that he saw the accused in the office. In
complaint Ex.PW-6/A, PW-6 has stated that on 11.09.2012 after 4 days he
went to his office after getting the truck repaired and in the office took
repairing charges from deceased Sadanand and left the office in other truck.
So, as per Ex.PW-6/A, after 4 days PW-6 went to the office on 11.09.2012.
But, in his cross-examination he admitted that he did not go to the office on
11.09.2012. So, PW-6 was contradicted with his previous statement
Ex.PW-6/A and also in his cross-examination regarding his visit to the Bhasin
Transport company office on 11.09.2012 and regarding him seeing the accused
in the office on 11.09.2012.
69. From the above discussion, it is proved that accused Ramesh Singh used
to stay in the Bhasin Transport office situated at DSIDC, Shed No.56A,
Scheme I, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II with deceased Sadanand but
prosecution has failed to prove that accused Ramesh came to the office on
11.09.2012 or accused was with deceased Sadanand in the office on the
intervening night of 11/12.09.2012, when Sadanand was murdered.
Absence of accused from the office on the day when the dead body of
Sadanand was found
70. As per the prosecution case, accused Ramesh Singh used to stay in the
Bhasin Transport office with deceased Sadanand but he did not return to office
after the murder of Sadanand and was apprehended from the house of his
brother, DW-1 / Umesh, in the morning of 13.09.2012. It is admitted by the
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 27 of 50
accused Ramesh Singh that he did not come to Bhasin Transport office on
12.09.2012. So, it is proved that accused Ramesh Singh did not return to the
office, where he used to stay in night, after the murder of Sadanand and his
absence is a fact which is inculpatory. The reason for his absence from the
office on 12.09.2012 was a fact within his knowledge and as per Sec.106
Indian Evidence Act, the onus was on the accused to prove the reason and the
Sec. 106 Evidence Act, 1872 is reproduced herein below :-
“106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.
When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the
burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Illustrations
(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that
which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden
of proving that intention is upon him.
(b) A is charged with traveling in a railway without a ticket. The
burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.”
71. To discharge his onus, the accused examined his brother Umesh Singh
as DW-1, who deposed that on 10.09.2012 his brother Ramesh took leave for 2
days and in the evening of 10.09.2012 accused came to him and told him that
he do not want to do the job anymore and wants to go back to his village.
Except this statement nothing was brought on record by the accused. DW-1 did
not depose, whom they informed in the office about not coming of accused to
the office and about accused leaving the job. He did not even give any name of
the person to whom accused informed about leaving the job. In absence of any
other corroborated material or details, the reason given by the DW-1 for the
absence of the accused from the office on 12.09.2012 is not proved. Therefore,
the fact that accused was not present in the office, where he should have been
present in ordinary course, on the next day of murder i.e. 12.09.2012, is not
properly explained by the accused and therefore, adverse inference is drawn
against the accused for his absence from the office on 12.09.2012.
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 28 of 50
72. But, it is the case of the prosecution that accused was present in the
office on 11.09.2012, which is denied by the accused as he took the defence
that he did not go to the office on 11.09.2012. A negative fact, a fact which
does not exists, cannot be proved rather a positive fact, a fact which exists, can
be proved. Therefore, the positive fact i.e. accused was present in the office on
11.09.2012 is to be proved and the onus of the same was on the prosecution.
The prosecution could have proved the presence of accused in the office on
11.09.2012 by examining any of the employees of Bhasin transport company
or any person from neighbouring shops or offices situated in Okhla Industrial
Area but it failed to examine any of them. Further, as discussed above,
prosecution has failed to prove the CCTV footage of the office and this fact
goes against the prosecution case.
73. Regarding the presence of accused in the office on 11.09.2012, only
PW-6 / complainant Virender deposed in the court that he saw the accused in
the office in the morning of 11.09.2012. But as discussed above, this
deposition of PW-6 was contradicted by his previous statement i.e. complaint
Ex.PW-6/A and was also contradicted in his cross-examination. Therefore,
court has come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the
presence of accused in the office on 11.09.2012.
Recovery of Blood Stained Knife at the instance of the accused.
74. As per seizure memo of knife Ex.PW-17/E, the accused during police
custody, took police to railway line, Sarita Vihar and from bushes lying
between eletric pole no. 1522/27 and electric pole no. 1522/25 near railway
wall got a knife recovered, which accused used in killing Sadanand. After
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 29 of 50
recovery the said knife was sent to FSL and as per FSL report Ex.PW-34/A, on
the Ex.3 i.e. the knife recovered at the instance of accused, the alleles from the
source of Ex.4 (blood in gauze of deceased Sadanand Yadav) are accounted in
the alleles from the source of Ex.3, which means that blood of the deceased
was found on the Ex.4 and knife was used in inflicting injuries on deceased.
The knife was proved in the court by PW-30 / IO ACP Mohinder Singh as
Ex.P-14
75. But interestingly, as per the postmortem report of the deceased 5 injuries
were found on his body which are reproduced herein below:-
(i) Three lacerated wound of size 4×0.25 cm, 2 x 0.25 cm and 1 x 0.25 cm
present over nose, with fracture of underlying nasal bone. The margins of the
wounds are irregular, abraded and contused which is reddish in colour. An
abrasion, reddish in colour of size 2 x 0.25 cm is present over tip of the nose.
(ii) An incised looking lacerated wound of size 1.5 x 0.25 cm, bone deep is
present over the right mastoid prominence with contused margins which is
reddish in colour.
(iii) A lacerated wound of size 2 x 0.25 cm, cartilage deep present over the
back of right ear pinna. The margins are bloodstained and contused, which is
red in colour.
(iv) A reddish coloured contusion of size 4 x 3 cm is present on the midline of
lower one-third of neck. On dissection of neck, hematoma is present on the
lower one-third of neck. On dissection of neck, hematoma is present on the
lower one-third of neck on lateral and posterior aspects of trachea, upto its
bifurcation. The left common carotid artery is found crushed just below the
cricoid cartilage, surrounded by hematoma chest cavity contained about 1.5
liters of mixed fluid and clotted blood. Both lungs are found to be collapsed.
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 30 of 50
(v) A lacerated wound of size 2 x 0.2 cm, bone deep present over middle part
of right little finger on its dorsal aspect. The margins are irregular and
contused, which is red in colour.
All these 5 injuries found on dead body are lacerated wounds. A
laceration is a wound caused by a tear or jagged cut in the skin and the
underlying tissues, often resulting from blunt force trauma, unlike a clear
incision which is caused by a sharp object. So, all these wounds on the body of
the deceased are caused by a blunt object and not by a sharp object i.e. knife.
No injury is caused on the deceased by any sharp object which includes a
knife, therefore, no knife is used in the commission of the offence.
76. Only in injury no. 2 the word ‘incised’ is used but it is mentioned that
‘an incised looking lacerated wound’, which shows that wound is lacerated but
have appearance of incision and is not an incised wound. If no injury is caused
on the dead body with a knife then no blood stains of deceased should be
found present on knife, but same is not the situation in the case. In such a
situation, the only way the blood stains of deceased can come on knife is that
the blood of the deceased was later on smeared on the knife. This proves that
blood of deceased was planted / smeared on the knife to falsely implicate
accused Ramesh Singh or to make the case of the prosecution stronger and
water tight.
77. Continuing the discussion, the recovery of knife at the instance of
accused also appears to be doubtful. As per prosecution case, accused was
arrested by police team from the house of PW-3 / Raj Kumar, in the presence
of PW-3 and DW-1 / Umesh Singh i.e. accused’s brother. From PW-3’s house,
police took accused to police station and PW-3 and DW-1 also accompanied
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 31 of 50
them. PW-30 / IO has deposed that knife and accused’s clothes were recovered
at the instance of accused by police on way to police station. So, recovery must
have been made in the presence of PW-3 and DW-1 but neither the seizure
memo bears the signatures of PW-3 / Sh. Raj Kumar or DW-1/Umesh nor
PW-3 or DW-1 have deposed that knife and clothes of accused were recovered
in their presence. So, serious doubt has been raised on the alleged recovery of
knife and clothes at the instance of the accused by police while he was being
taken to police station after arrest from his brother’s room.
78. The scientific evidence i.e. FSL report Ex.PW-34/A and medical
evidence i.e. PM report of deceased Ex.PW-20/A falsify and destroy the case
of the prosecution that knife Ex.P-14 was used in committing the offence and
serious doubts have also been raised regarding the recovery of knife at the
instance of the accused. So, the court has no hesitation to come to the
conclusion that knife Ex.P14 has been planted on the accused.
Recovery of blood stained iron rod at the instance of accused.
79. As per the scientific evidence i.e. FSL report Ex.PW-34/A, the alleles
from the source of Ex.4 (blood in gauze of deceased Sadanand Yadav) are
accounted in the alleles from the source of Ex.1 (iron Axel rod), which means
that blood of the deceased was found on the Ex.1. As per medical evidence i.e.
Ex.PW-20/DA i.e. subsequent opinion of doctor, the iron rod can be a weapon
of the offence. So, iron rod is connected with the offence of murder and the
iron axle rod was proved in the court by PW-30 / IO ACP Mohinder Singh as
Ex.P-11.
80. As per the case of the prosecution, in the morning of 12.09.2012, police
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 32 of 50
was informed about the murder and immediately police reached the spot and
after that crime team also reached the spot. Area was protected and no one was
allowed to enter into Bhasin Transport company, DSIDC Shed No.56A,
Scheme I, OIA Phase-II where the deadbody was found. From the spot, 15
exhibits were seized, which shows that spot was inspected thoroughly. On 13 th
morning i.e. next day accused was apprehended and he was brought to the spot
and at his pointing out the iron rod was recovered from under the settee on
which the deadbody was found.
81. The site plan shows that spot i.e. DSIDC Shed No.56A, Scheme I, OIA
Phase-II was a small room and it was thoroughly inspected as 15 exhibits were
taken from there but interestingly the iron rod Ex.P11 was not seen either by
the investigating officer’s team or by the crime team, even though it was lying
under the settee on which the deadbody was found. Interestingly, on the very
next day, when the accused was brought to the spot, the iron rod was found
lying under the settee. The case property i.e. iron rod Ex.P11 is not such a
small object which could not be seen by the investigating team or by the crime
team. Also during examination, no finger prints of accused Ramesh Singh
were found on iron rod Ex.P11. All the above facts raises serious doubt on the
recovery of iron rod on 13.09.2012 at the instance of accused Ramesh Singh
and it is possible that it is planted on the accused by police to workout the
case.
82. Ex.P11 the iron rod might be the weapon of offence with which the
deceased was killed but in view of the above observation, the recovery of iron
rod at the pointing out of accused Ramesh Singh is doubtful; further, no one
has seen accused Ramesh Singh with iron rod and no finger prints of accused
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 33 of 50
were found on iron rod, therefore, court has come to the conclusion that
prosecution has failed to connect iron rod Ex.P11 with the accused Ramesh
Singh beyond reasonable doubt and it is possible that some other person has
used the iron rod to hit and kill the deceased.
Recovery of blood stained clothes worn by the accused while committing the
murder.
83. As per the case of the prosecution, when accused was taken from the
house of PW-3 to the police station on the way he got recovered a black colour
pithu bag containing his clothes, which as per prosecution, he was wearing at
the time of commission of offence. All these clothes Ex.P3 to P6 were sent to
the FSL and as per the FSL report Ex.PW-34/A, DNA could not be isolated
from them, which means no blood of deceased was found on them. One of the
reasons can be that the blood stains on the clothes got putrefied. But
prosecution has failed to examine any person, who has seen the accused
wearing those clothes on 11.09.2012 and also failed to produce any evidence to
show that these clothes belongs to the accused person. Therefore, the alleged
clothes Ex.P3 to P6 recovered at the instance of the accused have no
connection with the present case.
Recovery of mobile phones of deceased from the possession of accused.
84. As per the prosecution case, accused was apprehended from the room of
his brother i.e. DW-1 / Umesh Singh in the presence of PW-3 / Raj Kumar, in
whose house Umesh Singh was staying as tenant. Accused got recovered a bag
kept in the room and from the bag one black colour purse containing two ATM
cards, two visiting cards, voter ID card, copy of driving license and Rs.5900/-
belonging to the deceased were recovered and three mobile phones were also
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 34 of 50
recovered.
85. As per the PW-30 / IO ACP Mohinder Singh, the accused was arrested
on the basis of secret information as well as the analysis of the mobile phone
number given by PW-2 / Nitin Bhasin. PW-2 have deposed that their office has
given mobile number 9212769196 to the deceased and deceased was also
using personal mobile number 9210013949. IO also deposed that third mobile
phone was a CDMA connection and no call details record (CDR) of it could be
obtained. So, on the basis of analysis of mobile number 9212769196 and
9210013949, the IO has arrested the accused Ramesh Singh. But in his cross-
examination, PW-30 / IO admitted that CDRs Ex.PW-11/A & Ex.PW-11/B of
the mobile numbers i.e. 9212769196 and 999147265 respectively were not
helpful for the purpose of investigation.
86. As per CDR of mobile number 9212769196 i.e. Ex.PW-11/A, the last
location of the mobile phone is shown at 2:22 a.m. on 12.09.2012 and it
received call from 999147265, which is the mobile number of PW-6 /
complainant Virender. PW-6 / complainant Virender has admitted during his
cross-examination that he called deceased at 2 a.m. and this shows that at that
time, deceased Sadanand was alive and was in his office. After the call from
the complainant, no call or message is received on the mobile number
9212769196 of deceased, so, either the mobile was switched off or its battery
got drained out. Ex.PW-11/B is the CDR of mobile number 9210013949 which
is the personal phone of the deceased Sadanand and it also shows the last
location at around 11:00 p.m. on 11.09.2012 and after that no message or call
was received on it. So, this mobile also got switched off or its battery got
drained out. It is impossible that after knowing that both of his mobiles have
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 35 of 50
ran out of battery, deceased Sadanand did not charge them; the only possibility
is that both the mobile phones were switched off by someone.
87. Both mobiles are allegedly recovered from the possession of accused on
the next day i.e. 13.09.2012 at around 5:00 a.m. From around 2:22 a.m. on
12.09.2012 till 5:00 a.m. on 13.09.2012, both mobiles were switched off and
only reason for it can be that the person who had taken the mobile phones
doesn’t want that location of the mobile phone to get traced. This shows that
accused was vigilant and smart enough to protect himself.
88. The mobile phones were allegedly recovered from the possession of the
accused at the same time when he was apprehend by the IO i.e. 5:00 a.m. on
13.09.2012 and on the same day, IO got accused identified from PW-2 / Nitin.
But, interestingly, not on the same day but on the next day i.e. 14.09.2012, IO
informed PW-2 / Nitin about recovery of two mobile phones from the
possession of the accused. This raises serious question mark over the
investigation conducted by IO / PW-30 as when mobile phones were already
recovered from the possession of the accused by him and accused was already
shown to the PW-2 / Nitin on 13.09.2012 by him then why information about
recovery of mobile phones were not given to PW-2, then and there; no reason
was given by IO why he waited for whole one day to inform PW-2 about the
recovery of mobile phone.
89. As the mobile phones were switched off and no location can be traced,
therefore, no monitoring through mobile phones can be done and also the
documentary evidence i.e. CDRs Ex.PW-11/A and Ex.PW-11/B does not show
any call or link between the deceased and the accused and also they were
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 36 of 50
obtained on 24.11.2022 i.e. much after the arrest of the accused, therefore, they
could not have been used to arrest the accused. Therefore, IO has deposed
falsely in the court that accused was arrested on the basis of the analysis of the
mobile phone.
90. Further, the mobile phones were recovered in presence of independent
witness PW-3 / Raj Kumar, from whose house accused was apprehended but
he contradicted the case of prosecution and have deposed that the purse and
mobile phones were recovered from the pocket of the accused but as per
Ex.PW-17/B same were recovered from a red colour bag. Considering this fact
along-with the observation that the knife was planted upon the accused person,
reasonable doubt has been raised regarding the recovery of mobile phones
from the possession of the accused.
Recovery of black colour wallet of deceased from the possession of accused.
91. As discussed above, the mobile phone were switched off immediately
after they were taken away from the office where deadbody of Sadanand was
found. Further, as per the case of prosecution accused threw the knife at a
different place and threw his clothes which he was allegedly wearing at the
time of offence at some other place. The above conduct of the accused shows
that he was very vigilant and took every step to protect himself from being
traced and to prevent the recovery of incriminating material. But the above
conduct is totally reversed and he become very negligent, when it comes to the
purse belonging to the deceased. As per Ex.PW-17/B, the purse contains
Rs.5900/- cash, two ATMs belonging to deceased, voter ID, copy of DL and 2
visiting cards. Except the cash, none of the other objects have any monetary
value for the accused but he still kept them with him, so that same can be
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 37 of 50
recovered from his possession and he can be incriminated in the offence.
92. As regarding the recovery of money, same is disputed by the accused
person and it is argued by the counsel for the accused that cash is planted upon
the accused to falsely implicate him. He argued that PW-2 / Nitin have told the
IO that cash of Rs.6600/- were missing from the office but during his cross-
examination when question was put to him regarding how he came to know
about the exact amount of missing cash, PW-2 deposed that he cannot tell
without going through the Ledger and Accounts Book.
93. It is the case of the prosecution that at 8:00 a.m. PW-6 / Virender
informed the police and PW- 2 / Nitin about the deadbody. First the police
reached the spot and after that PW-2 / Nitin reached the spot at around 11:00
a.m. and it is case of prosecution that after arrival of police at the spot, no one
was allowed to enter into the Office. If no one was allowed to enter into the
office, where deadbody was found, then without checking the Ledger or
Accounts Book or without physically verifying the amount of cash missing
from the office, how can PW-2 / Nitin state the exact amount of cash that got
missing. Further, almost the same amount i.e. Rs.5900/- are shown to be
recovered from the accused person. This along-with false recovery of knife
indicates that the cash alongwith two ATM cards, voter ID, copy of DL and 2
visiting cards were also planted upon the accused, so, to make the case of
prosecution water tight.
Accused seen with deceased Sadanand before murder by PW-6 / complainant
Virender i.e. last seen theory.
94. PW-6 / Virender in his complaint Ex.PW-6/A stated that on 11.09.2012
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 38 of 50
he came to the office and met Sadanand and took repairing charges from him
but in court, he deposed that he did not go to the office on 11.09.2012 and
denied that he told IO that he went to the office. He also deposed that he
received the money at Punjabi Bagh and not at his office. So, he denied his
presence with deceased Sadanand on 11.09.2012 and specifically deposed that
he met Sadanand four days before the incident.
95. If PW-6 has deposed truthfully in the court then he has not gone to the
office on 11.09.2012 and went to the office after 4 days. But in his cross-
examination, he again contradicted himself by deposing that he saw the
accused Ramesh in the morning of the previous day of incident in the office. If
PW-6 went to the office after 4 days then how can he saw the accused Ramesh
Singh just one day before the incident. So, it is not proved that PW-6 saw the
accused on 11.09.2012 in the office and it is not even the case of the
prosecution that anyone saw both accused and deceased together on the day
when deceased was murdered.
96. PW-30 / IO ACP Mohinder Singh have deposed during his examination
that the investigation is based on the last seen theory and PW-6 / Virender
Yadav is last seen witness of the case but from the deposition of PW-6 it can be
concluded that PW-6 / Virender Yadav neither saw accused Ramesh Singh nor
saw the deceased Sadanand for last few days, therefore, the last seen theory on
which the prosecution case was based has failed.
Motive
97. The existence of a motive is often an enlightening factor in a process of
presumptive reasoning in cases depending on circumstantial evidence.
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 39 of 50
98. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No. 954 of 2011
titled as “Shankar Vs. The State of Maharashtra” dated 15.03.2023 has held at :
“Para 18. There can be no doubt with respect to the fact that in a case
where the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, motive
assumes great significance. A Three Judge Bench of this Court in
Nandu Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) 2022
SCC Online SC 1454 by its judgment dated 25.02.2022, after
observing thus, held as under:-
“It is not as if motive alone becomes the crucial link in the case to be
established by the prosecution and in its absence the case of
prosecution must be discarded. But, at the same time, complete
absence of motive assumes a different complexion and such absence
definitely weighs in favour of the accused.”
We may add here that just like complete absence of motive
failure to establish motive after attributing one, should also give a
different complexion in a case based on circumstantial evidence and
it will certainly enfeeble the case of prosecution.
“Para 19. In the decision in Nandu Singh‘s case an earlier decision of
this Court in Anwar Ali & Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020)
10 SCC 166, was quoted with agreement, thus: –
“24. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused that in the
present case the prosecution has failed to establish and prove the
motive and therefore the accused deserves acquittal is concerned, it is
true that the absence of proving the motive cannot be a ground to
reject the prosecution case. It is also true and as held by this Court in
Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar (1995 Supp (1) SCC 80) that
if motive is proved that would supply a link in absence the chain
thereof of circumstantial cannot be a evidence ground to but the
reject the prosecution case. However, at the same time, as observed
by this Court in Babu (Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189),
absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is
a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. In paras 25 and 26, it is
observed and held as under: (Babu case, SCC pp. 200-01).
“25. In State of U.P. v. Kishanpal (2008) 16 SCC 73), this Court
examined the importance of motive in cases of circumstantial
evidence and observed: (SCC pp. 87-88, paras 38-39)’38. … the motive is a thing which is primarily known to the
accused themselves and it is not possible for the prosecutionFIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 40 of 50
to explain what actually promoted or excited them to commit
the particular crime.
39. The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is
relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear
and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the
accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a
very strong one. It is also settled law that the motive loses all
its importance in a case where direct evidence of
eyewitnesses is available, because even if there may be a very
strong motive for the accused persons to commit a particular
crime, they cannot be convicted if the evidence of
eyewitnesses is not convincing. In the same way, even if there
may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of the
eyewitnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy
of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction.’
26. This Court has also held that the absence of motive in a case
depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in
favour of the accused. (Vide Pannayar v. State of T. N. (2009) 9 SCC
152)”
Para 20. In the decision in Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of
Maharashtra (2021) 5 SCC 626, after referring to the decision in
Anwar Ali‘s case (supra), this Court observed thus: –
“27. Though in a case of direct evidence, motive would not be
relevant, in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an
important link to complete the chain of circumstances.”
99. In the present case, prosecution has not imputed any motive on the
accused. The absence of motive in the present case which is based upon the
circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in the favour of the accused
Ramesh Singh.
100. The findings on the various facts in issue recorded thus far in the
judgment may be summarized as under:
(i) Prosecution proved the recovery of dead body from Bhasin Transport
office where accused used to stay with the deceased Sadanand.
(ii) Prosecution proved the absence of accused from the office on the
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 41 of 50
day when the dead body of Sadanand was found but failed to prove the
presence of accused in the office on the day when the murder was
committed.
(iii) Prosecution proved blood stains of deceased on knife but no injury
with knife was caused on deadbody and knife was found to be planted
upon the accused.
(iv) Prosecution proved that blood stained iron rod was used in murder
but failed to connect it with the accused.
(v) Prosecution failed to prove presence of blood of deceased on clothes
and failed to connect recovered clothes with the accused.
(vi) Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the recovery of
mobile phones of deceased from the possession of accused.
(vii) Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the recovery
of black colour purse containing Rs.5900/- and other items belonging to
deceased from the possession of accused.
(viii) The last seen theory could not be proved.
(ix) No motive to commit the offence was attributed to the accused.
101. In para 12 of “Hanumant Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh” AIR 1952
SC 343 it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that :
“It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a
circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion
of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established
and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances
should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be
such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be
proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far
complete as not to leave any reasonable ground far a conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to
show that within all human probability the act must have been done
by the accused. ……………………..”
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 42 of 50
102. After doing close analysis of Hanumant (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in “Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra” 1984
AIR 1622 gave five golden principles which constitutes the panchsheel of the
proof of a case based upon circumstantial evidence as follows :
(i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
should be fully established;
(ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be
explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency
(iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be
proved and
(v) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of
the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must
have been done by the accused.
103. In the present case there is no ocular evidence. Only circumstance which
prosecution is able to prove is that dead body of Sadanand was found in the
office, where accused Ramesh Singh also used to sleep in night with Sadanand
but after murder of Sadanand, accused Ramesh Singh did not come to the
office. Except this no other circumstantial evidence was proved against the
accused person. The position of the law is that circumstantial evidence must be
commensurate with no interpretation other than the guilt of the accused and all
links in such circumstantial evidence ought to be proved beyond reasonable
doubt. However, in the present spectrum of evidence, the circumstances suffer
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 43 of 50
critical omissions / loop holes which operate in favour of the accused persons.
There is no cogent evidence on record to prove that accused Ramesh Singh
was in office with deceased on the intervening night of 11/12.09.2012.
Suspicion on Role of PW-6 / complainant Virender
104. PW-6 / Virender was the complainant, who first saw the dead body and
on whose statement present FIR was registered. He is the person who directed
the investigation towards Ramesh Singh. But there are many major
contradictions in his testimony and these contradictions raises suspicion on his
conduct and role. In his complaint, he deposed that after getting a truck
repaired from Punjabi Bagh he came to the office on 11.09.2012 and received
the repairing amount from Sadanand and after that took second truck from the
office, which on its way got broken down near Power House and he informed
Sadanand about it and Sadanand told him to sleep in the truck.
But he totally changed his stance in his deposition and in his
examination-in-chief he stated that after getting truck repaired in Punjabi
Bagh, he was coming to office in truck, but truck got broken down at Power
House and he informed Sadanand about it and slept in the truck.
105. Only thing common in his complaint and examination-in-chief is that he
got a truck repaired in Punjabi Bagh and after getting the truck repaired, he
was driving towards the office and the truck got broken down near Power
House. The truck was repaired after 4 days but it again got broken down after
traveling only some distance and this does not appear to be probable situation
rather what complainant Virender stated in his complaint Ex.PW-6/A appears
to be more probable i.e. he took the 2 nd truck from office for repairing which
got break down at power house, Okhla Phase-II.
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 44 of 50
106. Further, PW-6 also deposed that he received repairing money in Punjabi
Bagh sent by Sadanand and not in office from Sadanand, but, no explanation
came from him by what method, mode or from which person he received
repairing amount in Punjabi Bagh. Rather his statement in the complaint
Ex.PW-6/A that he took repairing charges from Sadanand appears to be more
probable. In the court, he denied his visit to the office and his meeting with
deceased Sadanand on 11.09.2012.
107. Continuing further regarding the suspicion on the role of PW-6 /
Virender, in his complaint Ex.PW-6/A, he stated that after his truck got broke
down at Power House, he informed Sadanand who told him to sleep in the
truck. At that time there was no helper with him in the truck, so, logical
conclusion is that PW-6 informed the Sadanand over mobile phone.
Ex.PW-11/A and Ex.PW-11/B are the CDRs of two mobile phones kept by the
deceased Sadanand. During investigation, it has come on record that PW-6 was
having mobile no. 999147265. As per CDR Ex.PW-11/B there is no call
between deceased and PW-6 on 11.09.2012. but as per Ex.PW-11/A, there are
3 calls between PW-6 and deceased on 11.09.2012 which are as below:-
From To Time Duration
9212769196 999147265 22:49:07 29
9212769196 999147265 1:56:25 43
999147265 9212769196 2:22:34 56
108. First 2 calls were made by deceased Sadanand to PW-6 / Virender and
last call is made by PW-6 to Sadanand that too in late night at 2:22 a.m. on
12.09.2012. In viscera report of dead body Ex.PW-33/A, it has come that Ethyl
alcohol 20.20 mg / 100 ml of blood was found in the deadbody. So, deceased
Sadanand at that time when he was murdered was drunk or was drinking. As
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 45 of 50
PW-6 talked to him over mobile phone, he must have gauzed from the voice or
tone of Sadanand that he was drunk but he did not inform the police about it.
Neither any glass and alcohol bottle were also recovered from the spot. If
PW-6 has informed this fact to the police, then IO must have investigated
about the person with whom deceased was drinking or who removed glass and
bottle from the office. PW-6 also did not inform the police at the time of
making complaint that he called Sadanand at late night at around 2:00 a.m.
109. Discussing further, in his statement Ex.PW-6/A, Virender Singh stated
that he went to the office and met Sadanand and took money from him and
went in second truck, which got broken down at Power House. As per the
statement, both the office and the power house, where truck broke down are in
Okhla Phase-II and the maximum time that PW-6 / Virender would have taken
to reach Power House from the office in late night is 10 minutes. When truck
broke down, PW-6 / Virender must have tried to start it for maximum 10
minutes and after that he must have called Sadanand. The documentary
evidence Ex.PW-11/A shows that he called Sadanand at 2:22 a.m., so, in view
of above discussion, PW-6 must be in office with Sadanand at around 2:00
a.m. It is impossible that after 2:00 a.m., Sadanand would have started
drinking, so, he must be drunk before 2:00 a.m. or was drinking at that time
with PW-6 / Virender. After that Sadanand was found murdered and his
deadbody was first seen by PW-6 / Virender at 8:00 a.m.
So, in case, PW-6 / Virender had informed the IO that he was with
deceased till 2:00 a.m. and deceased was drunk at that time, then the IO must
have directed his investigation towards the PW-6 / Virender and this appears
the reason, why PW-6 / Virender did not disclose about calling deceased at
2:22 a.m. Therefore, PW-6 / Virender diverted the investigation towards the
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 46 of 50
accused Ramesh Singh, who, did not come to ofifce that day and PW-6 came
to know about it from Sadanand or must have gauzed it from the fact that
Ramesh was not seen in the office. Later on, after the investigation got
completed and when he had no apprehension of being investigated as an
accused in the murder of Sadanand, PW-6/Virender disclosed about his calling
Sadanand at 2:22 a.m.
110. PW-2 / Nitin Bhasin deposed in his examination-in-chief that PW-6 /
Virender called and informed him that Sadanand is lying dead and he was
stabbed with knife. All the police officials including investigating team and
crime team have deposed that after they arrived at the spot, no public person
was allowed to enter into the shed, where dead body was found. So, PW-6 /
Virender did not enter into the shed after the arrival of the police. Further, as
discussed in the earlier part of the order, knife was not recovered from the spot
but was recovered next day from the bushes. So, in case PW-6 have entered
into the office, before arrival of the police, he could not have seen the knife.
Neither any knife was present on the spot nor any injury was caused with the
knife but inspite that PW-6 informed PW-2 that deceased was stabbed with the
knife. So, serious doubt have been raised regarding the testimony and role of
PW-6 / Virender Yadav.
111. There is another aspect which raises doubt on the role of the PW-6 /
Virender as he is the last person to talk with the deceased at 2:22 a.m. and the
first person to saw the deadbody at 8:00 a.m. So between these 5½ hours,
murder of Sadanand took place. PW-6/Virender have stated that during those
5½ hours he was sleeping in his truck alone but nothing to corroborate his
presence in the truck and absence from the shed / office was brought and
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 47 of 50
surprisingly, IO did not investigate on this aspect. Since inception, the
investigation was diverted by PW-6 / Virender towards Ramesh Singh only on
the ground that he newly joined the office and used to sleep in the office in
night and on the day of offence did not come to the office.
112. The whole investigation was directed towards Ramesh Singh only on
the basis of apprehension raised by PW-6 / Virender and absence of Ramesh
Singh from the office. No other investigation was done by the police to show
the presence of accused Ramesh Singh on the spot during the intervening night
of 11/12.09.2012. No CDR of mobile by Ramesh Singh was called for during
investigation. If he was not using any mobile phone then IO could have
investigated from other offices situated in the Okhla Phase-II, near the office
where deceased was found or from the neighbours of the accused’s brother’s
room to show the location of the accused on the intervening night on
11/12.09.2012.
113. The documentary evidence i.e. CDR Ex.PW-11/A proves that as
PW-6/Virender called deceased at 2:22 a.m. and he saw deadbody for the first
time in the morning at 8:00 a.m. but his location in the truck in the intervening
night is not corroborated. From the statement Ex.PW-6/A and deposition of
PW-6/Virender Yadav in the court, another version is possible i.e. PW-6 came
to the office and demanded repairing charges from Sadanand and at that time
Sadanand was drunk or drinking and some altercation took place between
them. PW-6 hit Sadanand with iron rod and after that cut the camera wires, as
he was aware about them as he was working in the office for last 6-7 years and
after that took away second truck and slept in it, to create a plea of alibi. Next
day in the morning came to the office and informed the owner / PW-2 / Nitin
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 48 of 50
and police. As PW-6 was in the office till late night, so, he must be aware that
Ramesh Singh has not come to the office and in the morning diverted the
investigation towards Ramesh Singh. Therefore, another interpretation in view
of the evidence brought on the record is possible in the present case which is
exculpatory of the accused.
114. This now brings us to the fag end of the judgment. After a detailed
discussion of the evidence, the circumstances of the case and law on
circumstantial evidence shows that the five golden principles enunciated in
Hanumant case (supra) and Sharad Birdhi Chand case (Supra) have not been
satisfied in the present case. Appreciation of evidence shows that Prosecution
is only successful in showing that accused Ramesh did not come to the office
after the murder of Sadanand. Prosecution recovered iron axle rod, which was
used to kill deceased but same was not connected with the accused Ramesh.
Except these, no other evidence could be proved on record against the accused
Ramesh. Prosecution also failed to prove the motive of accused persons to
commit the offence. Further, reasonable doubts have been raised regarding the
recovery of mobile phones and wallet of deceased from the possession of the
accused.
115. In “Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh” 1973 AIR 2773 Hon’ble
Supreme Court made the following observations :
“Another golden thread which runs through the web of the
administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are
possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt
of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is
favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a
special relevance in cases where in the guilt of the accused is sought
to be established by circumstantial evidence.”
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 49 of 50
116. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt should be
proved beyond any reasonable doubt that a reasonable man with ordinary
prudence can have. There should be no doubt whether the accused is guilty or
not. If there is slightest doubt, no matter how small it is, the benefit will go to
the accused. Prosecution has failed to prove complete chain of evidence which
can lead to the sole conclusion that accused committed murder of Sadanand.
Further, prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that mobile
phones and wallet of the deceased were recovered from accused.
117. Accordingly, accused Ramesh Singh is acquitted of the charges under
section 302/397/411 IPC.
118. Documents, if any, be returned to the rightful owner after due
acknowledgment and endorsement, if any, made on it be canceled accordingly.
119. File be consigned to Record Room after completing necessary
formalities.
Vipin Digitally signed
by Vipin Kharb
Date: 2025.07.31
Kharb 16:19:34 +0530
Announced in open Court today (Vipin Kharb)
on 31.07.2025 Additional Sessions Judge-07
South-East, Saket Courts,
New Delhi
FIR No.291/12 State Vs Ramesh Singh Page 50 of 50