Delhi District Court
State vs Surender Kumar on 15 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI BANSAL,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02, SOUTH-WEST
DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 726/2018)
FIR No. 126/18
Police Station Dwarka South
Charge-sheet filed under Sections 302/201 IPC
Charges framed against accused U/s 302/ 2 0 1 / 3 4 IPC
Mamta
Charges framed against accused U/s 201/34 IPC
Surender
Charges framed against accused U/s 201/34 IPC
Chanu Paswan
State VERSUS 1. Surender Kumar
S/o Sh. Babu Ram
R/o H.No. B-234,
Bagdola Village, Dwarka,
New Delhi.
2. Ms. Mamta
W/o Sh. Surender Kumar
R/o H.No. B-234,
Bagdola Village, Dwarka,
New Delhi.
3. Chanu Paswan
S/o Late. Sh. Chathu Paswan
R/o H.No. B-192,
Bagdola Village Dwarka,
New Delhi. ... Accused persons
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 1 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:05 +0530
Date of Institution of case 06.09.2018
Case committed to Court of Sessions 11.09.2018
Judgment reserved on 15.07.2025
Judgment pronounced on 15.07.2025
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons namely Mamta, Surender and Chanu
Paswan are facing trial for the offences alleged to be
committed under section 302/201/34 IPC. Mamta is
accused of committing murder of Karan on 25.04.2018 at
about 5:30 PM, at Khasra No. 499/500, Gali no. 19, Sadh
Nagar, Dwarka, New Delhi. It is further alleged that the
accused person Surender and Chanu Paswan along with
Mamta after commission of murder has disposed of the
dead body of deceased Karan near boundary wall of SPG
Complex so as to screen themselves from the legal
punishment.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under: –
(a) The story of the prosecution is that on 08.05.2018 at
about 7:15 P.M on receipt of DD No. 31 A, ASI Lal
Chand and Ct. Sandeep Kumar reached near
boundary wall of SPG Complex where Inspector
Ashok Kumar, Ct. Rajesh Kumar and Ct. Som Dutt
were found present on the spot. A colorful brown
printed quilt was lying in the middle of the grass and
bushes, in which the deceased was visible. The body
seemed to have been composed. And the quilt was
tied with pink chunni and green cloth. Body wasFIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 2 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:01 +0530
smelling bad. The dead body was lifted along with
the quilt and kept on the pavement, on opening the
quilt, it was found that the body was infested with
maggots and his bones were visible. The deceased
was tall about 5`6″ and his age would be about 25-
30 years, there was no flesh on the face. The dead
body was tied with a colorful plastic rope. Only the
bones were visible, deceased was wearing a full
sleeved shirt which had black stripe and a black
pant. There was a sticker of Muskan on back pocket
of the pant. Due to decomposition the body was
appearing separated from the stomach as if it got
divided into two parts. Deceased was wearing a
green color band in the right hand. True Friend was
written on the plastic band.
(b) Crime team was called and the inspection and
photographs of the spot were taken and the search of
the pants and shirt was carried out, but no
identification material could be recovered. Despite a
lot of effort, the dead body could not be identified
and a request was prepared to send the dead body to
Mortuary, DDU Hospital under supervision of Ct.
Som Dutt. ASL Lal Chand prepared a Tahrir and Ct.
Sandeep was sent to the police station to get the case
registered.
(c) On the registration of the case Ct. Sandeep handed
over rukka to Inspector Ashok Kumar. IO seized
green color cloth (which was part of a pajami) by
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 3 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:02 +0530
which the quilt was tied up vide seizure memo. The
colorful plastic rope having some black spots by
which the dead body was tied inside the quilt was
also seized by IO in a plastic ploythene. Thereafter,
IO seized the printed quilt having light pink color,
pink chunni and a loi of military color. Blackish
spots were found chunni. IO also seized hair
extracted from the quilt in which body was tied up
and prepared site plan of the spot. IO seized the
earth control from the spot. IO Inspector Ashok
Kumar seized the printed quilt having light pink
color, pink chunni and a lohi of military color.
Blackish spots were found on chunni. The colorful
plastic rope having some black spots by which the
dead body was tied inside the quilt was also seized
by him in a plastic polythene. He also seized one
part of green color pajami and also seized hair
extracted from the quilt in which body was tied up.
Case properties were deposited in malkhana of PS
Dwarka South. Statement of ASI Satpal (I/c Crime
Team), HC Suresh (Photographer, Crime Team),
Const. Rajesh, Const. Som Dutt, ASI Lal Chand,
Const. Sandeep were recorded.
(d) On next day i.e. 09.05.2018, IO Inspector Ashok
Kumar completed the identification process of
deceased, issued hue and cry notice and had also
given the information to missing person cell, details
of deceased uploaded on gypnet, CBI/NCRB were
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 4 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:05 +0530
informed, wireless message was flashed. In
different police stations of Dwarka District, hue and
cry notice were pasted. He also recorded statement
of Inspector Prashant Rana, I/c Security, SPG, and
HC Vellu Chamma, I/c QRT (SPG). On 06.06.2018,
investigation of this case was transferred to
Inspector Mukesh Kumar of PS Dwarka South.
(e) On 06.06.2018, one Rajesh Vishwakarma alongwith
his son Vikas arrived at PS in search his missing son
Karan. They have also handed over the IO Inspector
Mukesh Kumar a photograph of his missing son
Karan. IO Inspector Mukesh Kumar shown the
photographs of the deceased of this case to Rajesh
who identified the deceased as his son Karan. His
statement u/s 161 CrPC was recorded by him. IO
Inspector Mukesh Kumar alongwith other police
staff visited to E-342, Gali No. 19, Sadh Nagar
Part-2, Palam, where owner of the house namely
Urmila was called, who stated that on ground floor
in 2 rooms, one Mamta with her family including
deceased Karan were residing but all of sudden, they
left the said house. IO recorded statement u/s 161
CrPC of Urmila and other known persons of
deceased Karan and also analyzed the CDR of
deceased Karan and Mamta.
(f) On 09.06.2018, IO alongwith SI Vikas, Const.
Rajesh and W-Const. Manju reached at B-234,
Sector-8, Bagdola, where accused Mamta and her
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 5 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:03 +0530
husband Surender were found present and accused
Surender and Mamta were was arrested after
questioning. Accused Chanu Paswan was also
arrested at the instance of accused Mamta and
Surender. After completion of investigation, IO
filed the charge-sheet before the court.
3. During investigations of the case, statement of witnesses
were recorded. On the basis of investigation, all the
accused persons were charge-sheeted for offence
punishable under Section 302/201/34 IPC.
4. Vide order dated 15.12.2018, charge for the offence
punishable U/s 302 IPC was framed against accused
Mamta and charge for the offence punishable u/s 201/34
IPC was also framed against accused Mamta, Surender and
Chanu Paswan to which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
5. To prove its case, prosecution examined 28 witnesses. The
testimonies of prosecution witnesses along with its nature
has been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
6. PW-1 Dr. Komal Singh deposed that on 24.05.2018, she
conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Unknown,
aged about 25-30 years, male on the request of Inspector
Ashok Kumar vide his request letter Ex.PW1/A and
inquest documents total 15 in number. She started
conducting the PM at about 1:00 p.m to 2.30 p.m. After the
post mortem, the apparent cause of death was asphyxia
secondary to pressure over neck, injuring the hyoid bone
of the neck and is sufficient to cause death in ordinary
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 6 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:02 +0530
course of nature. The time since death was about 2 weeks
prior to the deposition of the body in the mortuary. The
upper incisor teeth of right side and cloth were packed and
sealed with the seal of ‘PM DDUH’ and handed over the
same to IO. She gave her detailed postmortem report
Ex.PW1/A.
7. PW-2 Ms. Urmila deposed that in the year 2018, accused
Mamta alongwith her husband Surender with her devar
namely Karan with two children were residing as a tenant.
Two rooms of ground floor were given to them on Rs.
4600/-. They resided as tenant for 7-8 months in the year
2018. In the month of April-May they left her house where
Mamta and her husband resided as tenant and went to
Bagdola. IO recorded her statement.
8. PW-3 ASI Satpal deposed that on 08.05.2018 at about 7:30
P.M he received a message from Control Room. Thereafter
he alongwith HC Suresh (photographer) and Ct. Amit
(Proficient) reached at the spot i.e. near NSG boundary
wall, Sector 8 Dwarka. Thereafter they inspected the spot
till 8:30 PM. HC Suresh clicked the photographs of the
spot at different angle of dead body. He prepared
inspection report of the spot Ex. PW3/A and report was
handed over to the IO. IO recorded his statement.
9. PW-4 Rajesh Vishwakarma deposed that he is labourer and
used to ply rickshaw. He had four sons and four daughters.
Deceased Karan was his eldest son, who was working at
the shop of Jain Paneer Bhandar in Palam Village. His son
Karan was residing in Sadh Nagar with Surender and
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 7 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:03 +0530
Mamta. Karan used to visit them and they also used to
visit him. They also used to talk on phone. One day, he
found the mobile phone of Karan switched off. He went to
meet him but he was not found present at his house. He
inquired from his landlord who informed that he had left
from the room since long but he replied that Karan had not
reached to their house. Even accused Mamta was also not
found there. Neither accused Surender was there.
Thereafter, he tried to locate his son everywhere for 2-3
days. He went to the house of Mamta at Bagdola where
her parents were living. From the vicinity, he came to
know that one dead body was lying in DDA park about one
month prior to his visit at Village Bagdola. Thereafter he
went to PS Dwarka South on 06.05.2018 and asked about
the said dead body. In the police station, police showed
him the cloths and photographs of his son Karan and on
the built up he identified the cloths and photograph of
Karan. He is sure that his son was murdered by accused
Mamta and her husband-Surender. His blood was taken by
the police during investigation for the purposes of DNA.
This witness identified the clothes as Ex P1 (colly).
10. PW-5 Narendra Singh deposed that he is running shop of
paneer supply in the name of New Choudhary Enterprises
at Raj Nagar-II. Karan (since deceased), son of Rajesh
Kumar, worked at his shop for about 20 days. Prior to that
he was working with Jain Paneer, at Palam Phatak.
Deceased was residing at Sadh Nagar. On 24.04.2018 at
about 4 p.m, he (Karan) came to his shop and told him
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 8 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:00 +0530
that he is going to his native village due to some urgent
work and will come on the next day. He (Karan) took Rs.
500/- from him. Thereafter, he left his shop on his bike. He
was in contact with Karan and on 25.04.2018 at about 5-
5.30 p.m, he talked to him lastly. He (Karan) told him that
he will not be coming now and the call got disconnected.
Thereafter, Karan never had a talk with him. IO recorded
his statement.
11. PW-6 Lakhmi Chand deposed that he is running a Paneer
Shop by the name of ‘Jain Paneer Bhandar’ at Palam Fatak,
Near Railway Crossing. In November 2017, one boy was
working in his shop but he has forgotten his name. The
said boy had started working in his shop 2-3 years prior to
the year 2017, who had worked in his shop around 2½
years. He know the accused person present in the Court
who was visiting his shop to meet the boy who was
working in his shop. He does not have any talk with the
accused Surender. Police carried out inquiry from him in
connection with this case. His statement was recorded by
the police. The boy who was working in his shop had died
but he does not know how he had died. One day accused
Surender came to him at around 08.30 PM and told him
that tongue of said boy was out of his mouth. He suggested
the accused to take him to the hospital. He is not aware if
that boy was taken to the hospital by Surender or not. He
came to know the fact that said boy had died in the police
station when he was called there for investigation.
Since PW-6 resiled from his version, he was cross-
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 9 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:08 +0530
examined on behalf of State wherein he stated that police
carried out investigation and recorded his statement on
08.06.2018. He informed to the police that the boy who
was working in his shop and died, his name was Karan.
Karan came to work in his shop in November 2017 and left
the job in March 2018. He had informed to the police that
he had seen Karan lastly in the intervening night of 22nd –
23rd April, 2018 outside his shop. He told the police that in
the last days of April 2018, accused Surender, cousin of
Karan came to his shop. Accused Surender came to his
shop after 2-3 days and told him that he had taken Karan to
hospital, who is fine now and had gone to his native place.
He forgot the name and other instances because of lapse of
time. PW-6 denied the other suggestions put to him on
behalf of State.
12. PW-7 Ravinder deposed that he was working as Supervisor
in SPG complex on behalf of Rakshak Security Pvt. Ltd
company. Their company has employed 63 Housekeeping
Staff in the SPG complex w.e.f. 01.06.2018. Accused
Surender was also working in that complex for sweeping
leafs etc. On 06.06.2018, at about 2.00 pm, he noticed that
accused was not talking to them in the lunch break. On
that day, accused left the work place at about 3.45 pm,
whose duty hours were from 7.00 am to 4.00 pm. Accused
deposited his gate pass and went to his house. After that
day, accused did not return to the work nor he picked our
call. On being asked leading question by Ld. Addl. P.P for
State, PW-7 further stated that he is not sure about the gate
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 10 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:06 +0530
pass as the gate pass is used to be collected by the gate
keeper at the gate of SPG Complex and not by him, from
the accused. This witness was cross-examined by Ld.
defence counsel.
13. PW-8 HC Yogesh deposed that on 08.05.2018, he was
assigned duties of Duty Officer. On that date, he received
rukka from Const. Sandeep sent by ASI Lal Chand. He
gone through the rukka and made his endorsement on the
rukka Ex.PW8/A. Thereafter, he registered the present
FIR. Copy of FIR and original rukka were handed over to
Const. Sandeep for handing it over to IO Inspector Ashok
Kumar for further investigation. Copy of FIR is proved
as Ex.PW8/B. He further stated that he also issued
certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW8/C. On
08.05.2018, at about 7.15 pm, he received a telephonic
information from G-53 Operation who informed that one
dead body is lying outside the boundary wall of SPG gate,
Dwarka Sector-8, which he reduced into writing vide DD
No. 31A Ex.PW8/D. After writing DD, same was marked
to ASI Lal Chand for further necessary action.
14. PW-9 ASI Suresh deposed that on 08.05.2018, he was
assigned duty of government photographer in Mobile
Crime Team. At about 7.30 pm, on receiving information
from Control Room, he alongwith Incharge Crime Team
ASI Satpal reached at the spot i.e. near boundary wall,
SPG Complex, on a road towards Shahbad, Dwarka
Sector-8. They reached at the spot at about 8.00 pm and
inspected the site till 8.30 pm. During inspection, on the
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 11 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:06 +0530
direction of IO ASI Lal Chand, he clicked 22 photographs
of dead body and the spot from different angels from
government digital camera. Later on, after developing
photographs Ex PW 9/A-1 to A-22, the same were handed
over to the IO. Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act
regarding the photographs is proved as Ex.PW9/B. IO
recorded his statement.
15. PW-10 HC Rajesh Kumar deposed that on 08.05.2018, he
and Ct. Som Dutt were on patrolling duty, then at around
07:10 pm, during the patrol, it was reported that a dead
body was lying in Sec-8, Dwarka on the road leading to
Shahabad, near the boundary wall of SPG Complex. On
information he and Ct. Som Dutt went to the spot where
crowd was gathered. They met ASI Lal Chand and Ct.
Sandeep at the spot. On the spot a brown printed quilt was
lying between the grass and bushes, in which head of the
deceased was visible. Foul smell was coming out of dead
body. The quilt was tied with pink and green color cloth.
The dead body was in decomposed condition infested with
maggots. Bones of face of deceased were visible.
Deceased was wearing white shirt and black pant. There
was sticker of ‘Muskan’ on the back side pocket of his
pant. Due to decomposition, the body was lying in two
parts. Deceased was wearing a green color band on his
hand in which ‘true friend’ was written. Crime Team
reached at the spot and inspected the dead body.
Photographs of the body were taken. Search of the pants
and shirt was carried out but the identity was not
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 12 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:09 +0530
established. No item was recovered from the dead body.
Despite lot of efforts, the dead body could not be identified
and after preparing a request, the dead body was sent
Mortuary, DDU Hospital under supervision of Ct.
Somdutt. Thereafter, he was called to the Police Station by
the Duty Officer. Duty Officer HC Yogesh Kumr gave him
Special Report of above case to give to Ld. MM, Joint CP
and DCP, Dwarka. Thereafter, his statement was recorded
in this regard. This witness was cross-examined by Ld.
defence counsel.
16. PW-11 SI Lal Chand deposed that in year 2018, he was
posted as ASI in Dwarka South Police Station. On
08.05.2018, his emergency duty was from 08.00 AM to
08.00 PM, at 07.15 PM on getting D.D. No. 31 A, he and
Ct. Sandeep Kumar reached near boundary wall of SPG
Complex where Inspector Ashok Kumar, Ct. Rajesh
Kumar and Ct. Som Dutt were found present on the spot.
A colorful brown printed quilt was lying in the middle of
the grass and bushes, in which the deceased was visible.
The body seemed to have been composed. And the quilt
was tied with pink chunni and green cloth. Body was
smelling bad. The dead body was lifted along with the
quilt and kept on the pavement, on opening the quilt, it was
found that the body was infested with maggots and his
bones were visible. The deceased was tall about 5`6″ and
his age would be about 25-30 years, there was no flesh on
the face. The dead body was tied with a colorful plastic
rope. Only the bones were visible, deceased was wearing a
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 13 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:01 +0530
full sleeved shirt which had black stripe and a black pant.
There was a sticker of Muskan on back pocket of the pant.
Due to decomposition the body was appearing separated
from the stomach as if it got divided into two parts.
Deceased was wearing a green color band in the right
hand. True Friend was written on the plastic band. Crime
team was called and the inspection and photographs of the
spot were taken and the search of the pants and shirt was
carried out, but no identification material could be
recovered. Despite a lot of effort, the dead body could not
be identified and a request was prepared to send the dead
body to Mortuary, DDU Hospital under supervision of Ct.
Som Dutt. He prepared a Tehrir Ex PW 8/A and Ct.
Sandeep. was sent to the police station to get the case
registered. On the registration of the case Ct. Sandeep
handed over rukka to Inspector Ashok Kumar. IO seized
green color cloth ( which was part of a pajami) by which
the quilt was tied up vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/A. The
colorful plastic rope having some black spots by which the
dead body was tied inside the quilt was also seized by IO
in a plastic ploythene vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/B.
Thereafter, IO seized the printed quilt having light pink
color, pink chunni and a loi of military color. Blackish
spots were found chunni. Seizure memo of the same is
proved as Ex. PW11/C. IO also seized hair extracted from
the quilt in which body was tied up vide seizure memo Ex.
PW11/D. IO also prepared site plan of the spot.
PW-11 further deposed that IO also seized the earth
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 14 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:08 +0530
control from the spot vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/E.
PW-11 identified the case property i.e. Pajami as Ex. P1,
Pink chunni, military color loi and a light pink color quilt
Ex. P-1/A, hair as now Ex. P-3, colorful plastic rope as Ex.
P-4 and earth control as Ex. P-5. Thereafter, IO recorded
his statement in this regard. This witness was cross-
examined by Ld. defence counsel.
17. PW-12 Inspector Prashant Kumar Rana deposed that on
08.05.2018, he was on duty being on deputation from
ITBP to SPG Sector-8, Dwarka, New Delhi and on that
day he was discharging his official duty as Camp Security
Incharge, Sector-8, Dwarka, from 07.00 AM to 07.00 PM
and on that day QRT vehicle was with them for their
security purpose and also for round the clock patrolling for
SPG complex on which, HC Velu Chmmu (CRPF Unit)
was on patrolling duty. At about 06.30 PM he was
informed by HC Velu Chmmu that a dead body wrapped in
quilt is lying near the wall of SPG complex. On the receipt
of said information he had informed to his concerned
senior officials and he along with them reached at the spot
that is between pole number J-879 and J-880, where they
found that a dead body wrapped in quilt was lying in the
bushes near boundary wall of SPG Complex. Thereupon
local police was informed on 100 number by him. Police
came at the spot. His statement was recorded in this regard
by the IO of this case.
18. PW-13 SI Vikas deposed that on 09.06.2018, he along with
Inspector Mukesh Kumar, Ct. Rajesh Kumar W/Ct. Manju
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 15 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:00 +0530
with Driver and in Gypsy No. DL-1C-S-0509 went to
search Surender and Mamta. At about 10.50 am, they
parked the vehicle in front of H. No. B-234, Sec-B,
Dwarka, New Delhi and went inside the house. A woman
and man who were present in the house got scared on
seeing them and started running. On suspicion they were
overpowered. Their names were revealed as Surender
Kumar and Mamta. They were arrested. Arrest memo of
Surender Kumar is proved as Ex. PW13/A. Personal
search memo of accused Surender is proved as Ex.
PW13/A-1. IO also recorded his disclosure statement Ex.
PW13/A-2. IO also recorded disclosure statement of
accused Mamta. A purse of the deceased Karan was
recovered from the bushes from back side of the house
no.B-234. In the purse some visiting cards and aadhar card
of Karan was found. IO seized the same after sealing it
with the seal of MKS vide seizure memo Ex. PW13/B. On
information of accused Surender, accused Chanu Paswan
was arrested from the house where Chanu was residing.
Arrest memo of Chanu Paswan is proved as Ex.PW13/C.
Personal search memo of accused Chanu Paswan is proved
as Ex. PW13/C-1. IO also recorded his disclosure
statement Ex. PW13/C-2. At the instance of Chanu E-
Rikshaw was recovered in which the dead body was taken.
Seizure memo of E-rikshaw is proved as Ex. PW13/C-3.
Accused Surender, Mamta and Chanu Paswan pointed out
to the place where the dead body was disposed. IO
prepared pointing out memo of the place of disposal of
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 16 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:07 +0530
dead body vide memo Ex. PW13/D, Ex. PW13/E and Ex.
PW13/F. At the instance of accused Surender, a motorcycle
of the deceased Karan bearing registration No. HR-26-
AQ-7664 was seized which was parked on the backside of
the platform near Shahabad Mohammadpur Railway gate.
Seizure memo of motorcycle is proved as Ex. PW13/G.
Thereafter, accused persons led them to the place of
occurrence. Accused Surender and Mamta pointed out
towards the place and stated that they murdered deceased
Karan due to anger. Pointing out memo of accused
Surender is proved as Ex. PW13/H. Pointing out memo of
accused Mamta is proved as Ex. PW13/I. Accused persons
were brought to the police station and sent to lockup.
Again he joined the investigation of the case on
12.06.2018. Father of deceased Karan and brother of
deceased Karan were taken by him to the DDU hospital for
collection of their blood sample. In the hospital the Doctor
handed over the blood sample of Rajesh father of deceased
Karan vide seizure memo Ex. PW13/J. Doctor handed over
the blood sample of brother of deceased Karan vide seizure
memo Ex. PW13/K. This witness was cross-examined by
Ld. defence counsel.
19. PW-14 HC Pritam deposed that on 14.06.2018, he was
posted as Constable at PS Dwarka South. On that day, on
the instruction of the IO, he had collected six sealed
pulandas alongwith one sample seal of “PMDDUH” and
two sample seals of “DDUH CMO” from the MHC(M),
vide RC No. 77/21/18 Ex.PW14/A and deposited the same
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 17 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:04 +0530
in FSL, Rohini. After depositing the same, he handed over
the copy of acceptance of acknowledgement Ex.PW14/B
to the MHC(M). So long as the exhibits remained in his
custody, the same were not tampered in any manner
whatsoever.
20. PW-15 HC Manju deposed on the same lines as deposed
by PW-13 SI Vikas. She has also proved arrest memo of
accused Mamta vide Ex PW 15/A, personal search memo
of accused Mamta vide Ex PW 15/B and her disclosure
statement vide Ex PW 15/C.
21. PW-16 Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea
Ltd deposed that on the request of the IO, the then Nodal
Officer Sh. Dev Kumar, has provided CDR, CAF and
certificate U/s 65(b) Indian Evidence Act in respect of
mobile no. 9899557149 for the period of 01.04.2018 till
01.05.2018. CDR and CAF of 9899557149 is already part
of record Ex. PW16/A & B. Sh. Dev Kumar also provided
to IO the copy of Election Identity card of customer
namely Surender Kumar which was supplied at the time of
applying for mobile number. Election Identity card of
customer namely Surender Kumar is proved as Ex.
PW16/C. Certificate U/s 65(B) Indian Evidence Act is
proved as Ex. PW16/D.
22. PW-17 Sh. Ajay Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd.
deposed that on the request of the IO the then Nodal
Officer Sh. Chandra Shekhar Tiwari has provided CDR,
CAF in respect of mobile no. 9560661461 and
9958715184 for the period of 01.04.2018 till 01.05.2018.
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 18 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:08 +0530
CDR and CAF of 9560661461 is proved as Ex. PW17/A
& B. As per the CAF name of the customer is Surendra
Kumar S/o Sh. Babu Ram. CDR and CAF of 9958715184
is proved as Ex. PW17/C & D. As per the CAF name of
the customer is Karan Sharma S/o Sh. Rajesh Sharma.
Certificate U/s 65(B) Indian Evidence Act is already part
of record in respect of mobile numbers 9560661461 and
9958715184, which is proved as Ex. PW17/E.
23. PW-18 ASI Hardeep Singh deposed that on 02.09.2018, he
was posted as Assistant Draftsman at Mapping Section,
South-West District, Sector 17 Dwarka. On that day he
was called by Mukesh Kumar, ATO PS Dwarka South and
he along with Inspector Mukesh Kumar reached at the
place of incident i.e. road in front of DDA Park, D Block,
Dwarka, Sector 8 where at the instance of IO, he took
measurement of place of incident and prepared rough
notes. Thereafter, on 10.09.2018, he prepared scaled site
plan on the basis of said measurements noted in rough
notes. Scaled site plan is proved as Ex. PW18/A. He
handed over the same to IO and the rough notes were
destroyed by him. His statement was recorded in this
regard.
24. PW-19 SI (retired) Sohanvir Singh deposed that on
24.05.2018, on the directions of Inspector Ashok Kumar
(the then SHO), he alongwith Const. Somdutt reached at
mortuary of DDU Hospital in respect of present FIR. He
got postmortem conducted on the dead body of unknown
vide his request for postmortem Ex.PW19/A. After
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 19 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:08 +0530
conducting postmortem on the dead body of unknown,
doctor concerned handed over him teeth of deceased in
sealed condition sealed with the seal of “PM DDUH”,
which he taken into police possession vide seizure memo
Ex.PW19/B. Doctor concerned also handed over him
clothes of deceased in sealed condition sealed with the seal
of “PM DDUH”, which he taken into police possession
vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/C. After conducting
postmortem on the dead body of unknown, he got
cremated the dead body at Nigam Bodh Ghat vide memo
Ex.PW19/D. Thereafter, he came back to police station and
case properties were deposited in malkhana. Case file was
handed over to SHO concerned.
25. PW-20 Inspector Ashok Kumar deposed that on
08.05.2018, a PCR call regarding lying of a dead body at
SPG Gate boundary wall, Dwarka Sector-8, was received
in the police station vide DD No. 31A Ex.PW8/D, which
was marked to ASI Lal Chand. On receipt of DD entry,
ASI Lal Chand reached at the spot and he also reached the
spot i.e. near boundary wall of SPG Complex, where ASI
Lal Chand, Const. Sandeep, Const. Rajesh Kumar and
Const. Som Dutt were found present, where a dead body of
a male in highly decomposed position was found lying
wrapped in a colorful brown printed quilt, in the middle of
the grass and bushes. Quilt was tied with pink chunni and
military color lohi (warm cloth like shawl). Crime Team
was called at the spot. Body was smelling bad. The dead
body was lifted alongwith the quilt and kept on the
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 20 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:04 +0530
pavement, on opening the quilt, it was found that the body
was infested with maggots and his bones were visible. The
deceased was tall about 5`6″ and his age would be about
25-30 years, there was no flesh on the face. The dead
body was tied with a colorful plastic rope. Only the bones
were visible, deceased was wearing a full sleeved shirt
which had black stripe and a black pant. There was a
sticker of Muskan on back pocket of the pant. Due to
decomposition the body was appearing separated from the
stomach as if it got divided into two parts. Deceased was
wearing a green color band in the right hand. “True
Friend” was written on the plastic band. Crime Team
inspected the spot and photographs of the spot were taken
and the search of the pants and shirt was carried out, but no
identification material could be recovered. Despite a lot of
effort, the dead body could not be identified and a request
was prepared to send the dead body to mortuary, DDU
Hospital, through Const. Som Dutt. ASI Lal Chand
prepared a tahrir and got registered the present FIR
through Const. Sandeep. After registration of FIR, the
investigation of case was handed over to him. During
investigation, he inspected the site and prepared a site plan
Ex.PW20/A and seized the earth control from the spot vide
memo Ex.PW11/E. Thereafter, he seized the printed quilt
having light pink color, pink chunni and a lohi of military
color. Blackish spots were found on chunni. Seizure
memo of the same is proved as Ex.PW11/C. The colorful
plastic rope having some black spots by which the dead
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 21 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:05 +0530
body was tied inside the quilt was also seized by him in a
plastic polythene. Seizure memo of colorful plastic rope is
proved as Ex. PW11/B. He also seized one part of green
color pajami vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/A. He also
seized hair extracted from the quilt in which body was tied
up. Seizure memo of the same is proved as Ex.PW11/D.
All the case properties were sealed with the seal of “AK”
and after use the seal was handed over to ASI Lal Chand.
Case properties were deposited in malkhana of PS Dwarka
South. Statement of ASI Satpal (I/c Crime Team), HC
Suresh (Photographer, Crime Team), Const. Rajesh, Const.
Som Dutt, ASI Lal Chand, Const. Sandeep were recorded.
PW-20 further stated that on next day i.e.
09.05.2018, he completed the identification process of
deceased, issued hue and cry notice, he had also given the
information to missing person cell, details of deceased
uploaded on gypnet, CBI/NCRB were informed, wireless
message was flashed. In different police stations of
Dwarka District, hue and cry notice were pasted. He also
recorded statement of Inspector Prashant Rana, I/c
Security, SPG, and HC Vellu Chamma, I/c QRT (SPG). On
22.05.2018, he moved an application for request for
conducting the postmortem on the dead body of deceased
at DDU Hospital, where doctor told that they want to visit
the spot first. Thereafter, visit of the doctors of DDU
Hospital was arranged and they fixed the date for
postmortem on 24.05.2018. On 24.05.2018, all the inquest
papers were handed over SI Somvir to get conduct the
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 22 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:07 +0530
postmortem on the dead body of deceased. On 06.06.2018,
investigation of this case was transferred to Inspector
Mukesh Kumar of PS Dwarka South. He identified the
case property i.e. Pajami as Ex.P-1. Pink chunni, military
color lohi and a light pink color quilt as Ex.P-1/A, hair as
Ex.P-3, colorful plastic rope as Ex.P-4 and earth control as
Ex.P-5.
26. PW-21 HC Sandeep deposed on the same lines as deposed
by PW-11 SI Lal Chand.
27. PW-22 Inspector Mukesh Kumar deposed that on
06.06.2018, investigation of this case was entrusted to him.
On that day, one Rajesh Vishwakarma alongwith his son
Vikas arrived at police station in search of his missing son
Karan. They have also handed over him a photograph of
his missing son Karan, which he seized vide seizure memo
Ex.PW22/A. Photograph is proved as Ex.PW22/A-1. He
had shown the photographs of the deceased of this case to
Rajesh who identified the deceased as his son Karan. His
(Rajesh) statement u/s 161 CrPC was recorded by him. He
alongwith other police staff visited to E-342, Gali No. 19,
Sadh Nagar Part-2, Palam, where owner of the house
namely Urmila was called, who stated that on ground floor
in 2 rooms, one Mamta with her family including deceased
Karan were residing but all of sudden, they left the said
house. He recorded statement u/s 161 CrPC of Urmila and
other known persons of deceased Karan and also analyzed
the CDR of deceased Karan and Mamta. On 09.06.2018, at
about 10.50 am, he alongwith SI Vikas, Const. Rajesh and
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 23 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:02 +0530
W-Const. Manju reached at B-234, Sector-8, Bagdola,
where accused Mamta and her husband Surender were
found present. At about 11.00 am, accused Surender was
arrested after questioning vide arrest memo Ex.PW13/A.
Accused Surender was personally searched vide personal
search memo Ex.PW13/A. Accused Surender made
disclosure statement Ex.PW13/A-2. At about 11.30 am,
accused Mamta was arrested after questioning vide arrest
memo Ex.PW15/A. Accused Mamta was personally
searched vide personal search memo Ex.PW15/B.
Accused Mamta made disclosure statement vide
Ex.PW15/C. One read colour raxine purse having mark of
“Nike” was recovered from bushes at the instance of
accused Mamta, in which aadhaar card of deceased Karan
and other visiting cards were found. Same was seized into
pulanda with the seal of “MKS”. Same was seized vide
seizure memo Ex.PW13/B. At about 12.00 noon, accused
Chanu Paswan was arrested at the instance of accused
Mamta and Surender from B-192, Dwarka Sector-8,
Bagdola, vide arrest memo Ex.PW13/C. Accused Chanu
was personally searched vide personal search memo
Ex.PW13/C-1. Accused Chanu made disclosure statement
vide Ex.PW13/C-2. At the instance of accused Chanu,
green colour e-rickshaw bearing registration no.
DL9ER2669 was recovered, on which they disposed of the
body of Karan. E-rickshaw was seized vide seizure memo
Ex.PW13/C-3. PW-22 further deposed that at the instance
of accused Mamta and Surender, pointing out memo of
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 24 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:01 +0530
E-342, Gali No. 19, Sadh Nagar Part-2, Palam, was
prepared separately. Pointing out memo prepared at the
instance of accused Surender vide Ex.PW13/H. Pointing
out memo prepared at the instance of accused Mamta vide
Ex.PW13/I. At the instance of accused persons, pointing
out memo of SPG Complex boundary wall, Dwarka
Sector-8, was prepared separately. Pointing out memo
prepared at the instance of accused Mamta is proved as
Ex.PW13/D. Pointing out memo prepared at the instance
of accused Surender is proved as Ex.PW13/E. Pointing
out memo prepared at the instance of accused Chanu is
proved as Ex.PW13/F. At the instance of accused Surender,
one motorcycle bearing no. HR26AQ7669 of red colour
make Bajaj Discover was recovered from near platform
Shahbad Mohamadpur, which belongs to deceased Karan
and same was taken into police possession vide seizure
memo Ex.PW13/G. On 12.06.2018, blood sample of
Rajesh and Vikas was taken from DDU Hospital and
seized as per the memo. During investigation, on
09.06.2018, he prepared the site plan of the place of
incident vide Ex PW 22/B and also also prepared site plan
of the place where the dead body was recovered vide
memo Ex PW 22/C. During investigation, he also got
prepared scaled site plan from Draughtsman vide memo
Ex.PW18/A. On 14.06.2018, exhibits of this case were
sent to FSL for examination. During investigation, he
collected the postmortem report Ex.PW1/A, analyzed the
CDRs, recorded statement of relevant witnesses.
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 25 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:03 +0530
PW-22 further stated that on completion of
investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet after reaching
the conclusion that all accused persons namely Mamta,
Surender and Chanu Paswan are involved in the
commission of offence of murder of deceased Karan and
disposed off his body after committing of his murder for
screening themselves from the legal punishment of this
case. On the basis of postmortem report, statement of
witnesses specially Urmila, Lakhmi Chand Jain, Rajesh
Vishwakarma, Vikas and Anil and recovery of aadhaar
card of deceased Karan from purse, which was recovered
at the instance of accused Mamta, recovery of motorcycle
belongs to deceased Karan at the instance of accused
Surender and recovery of e-rickshaw at the instance of
accused Chanu, in which the dead body of deceased Karan
was disposed off, DNA report which confirmed that the
deceased Karan was son of Rajesh Vishwakarma, conduct
of the accused persons Mamta and Surender after the
incident that they left the house of Sadh Nagar Part-2,
Palam, and shifted at Bagdola clearly indicate their
involvement in the case. Further, after the analysis of CDR
of accused persons, it was clear that accused Mamta,
Surender and deceased Karan were known to each other
and in constant touch with each other and mobile phone
no. 9958715184 of deceased Karan was switched off since
25.04.2018 at 17.24 hours. After analysis the mobile
phone of deceased Karan and mobile phone no.
9899557149 of accused Mamta, he reached at the
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 26 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:02 +0530
conclusion that accused Mamta and deceased Karan were
in constant touch with each other in unusual manner. On
further analyzing of CDR, it is confirmed that on
25.04.2018, between 15.27 hours to 21.43 hours, there
were 9 phone calls between accused Mamta and Surender.
It is further revealed from the location chart that the
location of deceased Karan and accused Mamta was at the
same place i.e. at Sadh Nagar, Palam, on 25.04.2018. It is
further revealed from analyzing of CDR that there was a
movement of accused Surender Between Bagdola to Sadh
Nagar, Palam.
PW-22 further stated that he prepared the charge-
sheet, which is on record from page no. 1 to 24, wherein he
elaborately described the role of each accused persons and
the circumstances of the case. The charge-sheet from page
no. 1 to 24 is proved as Ex.PW22/D. Para Mark X at page
no. 21 and 22 is his analysis about the CDR and location of
accused persons namely Mamta and Surender and
deceased Karan. The mobile phone no. 9899557149 issued
in the name of accused Surender (husband of accused
Mamta) and the same was being used by accused Mamta.
28. PW-23 Constable Somdutt deposed that on 08.05.2018, he
and HC Rajesh were on patrolling duty. At about 7.10 pm,
during the patrolling duty, it was reported that a dead body
was lying in Dwarka Sector-8, on the road leading to
Shahabad, near boundary wall of SPG Complex. On the
said information, he and HC Rajesh went to the spot,
where crowd was gathered. ASI Lal Chand and Const.
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 27 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:04 +0530
Sandeep were also found present at the spot. On the spot, a
brown printed quilt was lying between the grass and
bushes, in which head of the deceased was visible. Foul
smell was coming out of the dead body. The quilt was tied
with pink and green color cloth. The dead body was in
decomposed condition infested with maggots. Bones of
face of the deceased were visible. Deceased was wearing
white shirt and black pant. There was sticker of “Muskan”
on the back side pocket of his wearing pant. Due to
decomposition, the dead body was lying in two parts.
Deceased was wearing a green color band on his hand in
which “true friend” was written. Crime Team reached at
the spot and inspected the dead body. Photographs of the
body were taken. Search of the pant and shirt was carried
out but the identity was not established. No item was
recovered from the dead body. Despite lot of efforts, the
dead body could not be identified and after preparing a
request letter, the dead body was sent mortuary, DDU
Hospital, under his supervision. He got preserved the dead
body for 72 hours in the mortuary of DDU Hospital.
29. PW-24 Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea
Ltd. deposed that as per the CAF, the mobile number
9911709385 was issued in the name of one Chanu Paswan.
The certified copy of E-KYC CAF pertaining to aforesaid
mobile number is proved as Ex.PW24/A. The attested
copy of CDR of said mobile number from 01.04.2018 to
10.06.2018 is proved as Ex.PW24/B (colly). Certificate u/s
65B Indian Evidence Act issued by him is proved as
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 28 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:07 +0530
Ex.PW24/C.
30. PW-25 Smt. Sangeeta deposed that he got married with
Anil Kumar in the month of February 2008. Her father
had gifted a motorcycle bearing no. HR26AQ7664 red
colour Bajaj Discover to her in her marriage. Her husband
used to drive the said motorcycle. On 05.01.2018, her
husband had given the said motorcycle to Rajesh
Vishwakarma, who is known to his husband for the
purpose of use and sell. The said motorcycle was taken
from their house by Karan Singh S/o Rajesh Vishwakarma.
No written document was prepared to this effect. Later on,
she came to know that some incident had happened with
Karan Singh and his aforesaid motorcycle was seized by
the police. On 01.11.2018, she went to PS Dwarka South,
where she produced RC of aforesaid motorcycle to the
police, who seized the same vide seizure memo
Ex.PW25/A. Said RC is proved as Ex.PW25/A1. She
proved the motorcycle as Ex PW 25/P-1.
31. PW-26 Sh. Anil Kumar deposed on the same lines as
deposed by PW-25 Smt. Sangeeta.
32. PW-27 Sh. Vikas Sharma deposed that they were four
brothers and four sisters. Now, they are three brothers.
His eldest brother Karan (since deceased) was residing at
Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, and was working at Jain
Paneer Bhandar. He used to visit him. In the month of
February/March 2018, he had gone to meet his brother
Karan at Jain Paneer Bhandar, near Palam fatak. From
there, his brother took him to his residence at Sadh Nagar,
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 29 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:00 +0530
where he met Mamta, her children and her husband
Surender, who were also residing there. His brother Karan
had informed him that he (Karan) used to pay rent of the
accommodation in which Mamta alongwith her children
and her husband was residing. His brother Karan had
taken motorcycle bearing registration no. HR26AQ7664
Bajaj Discover red colour in the month of January 2018.
During investigation, he identified the said motorcycle in
the PS Dwarka South on 23.10.2018. He told the police
that the said motorcycle was being used by his brother
Karan. He proved the said motorcycle as Ex PW 25/P-1.
33. PW-28 ASI Maha Singh deposed that on 08.05.2018, he
was assigned duty of MHC(M). On that day, Inspector
Ashok Kumar has deposited 5 sealed parcels sealed with
the seal of “AK” alongwith copies of its seizure memo,
which he deposited in the malkhana and made entry in
register no. 19 vide serial no. 1512/18. Copy of said
relevant entry of register no. 19 is proved as Ex.PW28/A.
On 24.05.2018, SI Sohanvir has deposited 2 sealed parcels
sealed with the seal of “PM DDU Hospital” alongwith
copies of its seizure memo, which he deposited in the
malkhana and made entry in register no. 19 vide serial no.
1549/18. Copy of said relevant entry of register no. 19 is
proved as Ex.PW28/B. On 09.06.2018, Inspector Mukesh
Kumar has deposited one motorcycle, one e-rickshaw and
one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of “AKS” alongwith
copies of its seizure memo, which he deposited in the
malkhana and made entry in register no. 19 vide serial no.
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 30 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:07 +0530
1587/18. Copy of said relevant entry of register no. 19 is
proved as Ex.PW28/C. On 12.06.2018, Inspector Mukesh
Kumar has deposited blood sample of Vikas and Rajesh in
sealed parcels sealed with the seal of “DDUH CMO”
alongwith copies of its seizure memo, which he deposited
in the malkhana and made entry in register no. 19 vide
serial no. 1603/18. Copy of said relevant entry of register
no. 19 is proved as Ex.PW28/D. On 14.06.2018, on the
directions of IO Inspector Mukesh Kumar, he handed over
6 sealed parcels alongwith 2 sample seals to Const. Pritam
for depositing the same in FSL, Rohini, vide RC No.
77/21/18, copy of which is proved as Ex.PW14/A. After
depositing the same, Const. Pritam has handed over him
acknowledgment slip, which is proved as Ex.PW14/B. So
long as the exhibits remained in his custody, the same were
not tampered in any manner whatsoever.
34. In their statement recorded u/s 294 CrPC, accused persons
namely Surender, Mamta and Chanu Paswan admitted
MLC No. 7641 as Ex.PX-1, MLC No. 7642 as Ex.PX-2,
MLC No. 5370 as Ex.PX-3 and FSL Report No.
218/B-5545 dated 29.10.2018 as Ex.PX-4.
35. Statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C of accused persons were
recorded, wherein the accused persons were briefed on all
the incriminating ocular and documentary evidence to
which they denied and further deposed that they are
innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.
Accused persons opted not to lead evidence in their
defence.
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 31 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:01 +0530
36. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. Addl. PP for the
State and Sh. Naveen Kr. Verma, ld. Counsel for accused
persons.
37. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the
prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story
and have corroborated each other’s version. To substantiate
his submissions, he argued that the present case is based on
circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has proved the
complete chain of circumstances against the accused. He
also argued that the previous conduct and the subsequent
conduct of the accused persons and the proximity of
location of the deceased and the accused persons point
towards the guilt of the accused persons. He also argued
that the testimony of prosecution witnesses is of sterling
quality and hence should be relied upon. He also argued
that the prosecution has proved the ingredients of all the
offences under which charges have been framed against
the accused and hence accused should be convicted under
all these sections.
38. Ld. Counsel for accused argued that prosecution has
miserably failed to prove its case against the accused. To
substantiate his point, he argued that the recovery of motor
bike, wallet/purse of the deceased and the e-rickshaw do
not connect accused persons with the crime. It is also
stated that the disclosure statement of the accused persons
are confessional in nature and are inadmissible in
evidence. He also argued that there is no eye witness of
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 32 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:02 +0530
alleged incident. He also argued that the chain of
circumstances is not complete against the accused. He also
argued that since the ingredients of alleged offences have
not been proved by the prosecution and hence the accused
should be acquitted under all the sections under which
charges have been framed against him.
39. In the present case, charges under Sec. 302/34 IPC, 201/34
IPC, have been framed against the accused persons. These
Sections have been elaborated as under: –
Section 302 IPC provides punishment for the
commission of offence of murder which has been
defined U/s 300 IPC.
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, orSecondly- If it is done with the intention of causing
such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to
cause the death of the person to whom the harm is
caused, orThirdly- 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, orFourthly-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.
Exception 1 When culpable homicide is not murder.
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offendor, whilst
deprived of the power of self control by grave and
sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who
gave the provocation or causes the death of any other
person my mistake or accident.
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 33 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:02 +0530
The above exception is subject to the following
provisos:-
First-That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily
provoked by the offendor as an excuse for killing or
doing harm to any person.
Secondly- That the provocation is not given by
anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public
servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of the
public servant.
Thirdly-That the provocation is not given by anything
done in the lawful exercise of the right of private
defence.
Explanations: Whether the provocation was grave and
sudden enough to prevent the offence amounting to
murder is a question of fact.
Exception 2: Culpable homicide is not murder if the
offendor, in the exercise in good faith of the right of
private defence of person or property, exceeds the
power given to him by law and causes the death of the
person against whom he is exercising such right of
defence without premeditation, and without any
intention of doing more harm then is necessary for the
purpose of such defence.
Exception 3: Culpable homicide is not murder if the
offendor, being a public servant or adding a public
servant acting for the advancement of public justice,
exceeds the power given to him by law and causes
death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes
to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his
duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards
the person whose death is caused.
Exception 4: Culpable homicide is not murder if it is
committed without pre meditation in a sudden fight in
the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without
the offendor’s having taken undue advantage or acted in
a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation : It is immaterial in such cases which party
offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
Exception 5: Culpable homicide is not murder when the
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 34 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:01 +0530
person whose death is caused, being above the age of
eighteen years suffers death or takes the risk of death
with his own consent.
201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or
giving false information to screen offenderWhoever, 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.
Illustrations:-
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 intentionWhen a criminal act is done by several persons, in
furtherance of the common intention of all, each of
such persons is liable for that act in the same manner asFIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 35 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:04 +0530
if it were done by him alone.
40. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced,
perused the material available on record, scrutinized the
evidence led by the prosecution and gone through the
relevant provisions of law. I have also considered the
judgments relied upon by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as
well as Ld. Counsel for accused.
41. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is
established principle of law that a witness may lie but not
the circumstances. In the present case, there is no eye
witness of the alleged incident of commission of murder of
deceased Karan.
42. The guilt of the accused can also be proved through the
circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence has
to be appreciated as per the established principles of law
laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The standard of proof
required for conviction in case of circumstantial evidence
is that the circumstances relied upon in support of
conviction must be fully established and the chain of
evidence proved by the prosecution must be so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused.
43. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as
‘Sharad Bridhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra cited
as (1984) 4 SCC 116′ has laid down the five golden
priciples for appreciation of circumstantial evidence andFIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 36 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:03 +0530
has termed the same as Panchsheel of the Proof of Case
based on circumstantial evidence. The said five golden
principles are as follows: –
(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of the
guilt is to be drawn should be and not merely ‘may
be’ fully established.
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypotheses of the guilt of accused, that is to
say, they should not be explainable on any other
hypotheses except that the accused is guilty.
(3) The circumstances should be of conclusive nature
and tendency.
(4) They should exclude every possible hypotheses
except the one to be proved.
(5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all probability the act
must have been done by the accused.
44. Thus, before recording the conviction of accused the
abovesaid five conditions must be satisfied. The
prosecution has to establish its case on the basis of
abovesaid five golden principles and to secure
conviction of accused, the prosecution must fulfill the
following requirements: –
(i) The circumstances from which the inference of the
guilt of the accused is to be drawn must be firmlyFIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 37 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:00 +0530
established.
(ii) The established circumstances must be of such
definite tendency that points out towards the guilt of
accused.
(iii) The chain of the circumstances must be so complete
and there should not be any snap in the chain of
circumstances.
(iv) The chain of circumstances must be so complete and
incapable of any other hypotheses then that the guilt
of the accused and same should also be inconsistent
with the innocence of the accused and must exclude
every other possible hypotheses except with the
hypotheses pointing out towards the guilt of the
accused.
45. The law relating to circumstantial evidence, as explained
in several decisions including Sharad Birdichand Sarda v.
State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622, Tanviben
Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC
156, Harishchandra Ladaku Thange v. State of
Maharashtra AIR 2007 SC 2957 and Vithal Eknath Adlinge
v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2009 SC 2067 is fairly well –
settled.
46. Reference can be made to the case of Sanatan Naskar and
Anr. v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 8 SCC 249 , where it
was observed as follows: –
“27. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that it is a
case of circumstantial evidence as there was noFIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 38 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:07 +0530
eyewitness to the occurrence. It is a settled principle of
law that an accused can be punished if he is found
guilty even in cases of circumstantial evidence
provided, the prosecution is able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt complete chain of events and
circumstances which definitely points towards the
involvement and guilt of the suspect or accused, as the
case may be. The accused will not be entitled to
acquittal merely because there is no eyewitness in the
case. It is also equally true that an accused can be
convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence
subject to satisfaction of the accepted principles in that
regard.”
47. In Gagan Kanojia v. State of Punjab (2006) 13 SCC 516 ,
the Supreme Court opined: –
“9. Indisputably, charges can be proved on the basis of
the circumstantial evidence, when direct evidence is not
available. It is well settled that in a case based on a
circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove
that within all human probabilities, the act must have
been done by the accused. It is, however, necessary for
the courts to remember that there is a long gap between
‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’. Prosecution case is
required to be covered by leading cogent, believable
and credible evidence. Whereas the court must raise a
presumption that the accused is innocent and in the
event two views are possible, one indicating to his guilt
of the accused and the other to his innocence, the
defence available to the accused should be accepted,
but at the same time, the court must not reject the
evidence of the prosecution, proceeding on the basis
that they are false, not trustworthy, unreliable and made
on flimsy grounds or only on the basis of surmises and
conjectures. The prosecution case, thus, must be judged
in its entirety having regard to the totality of the
circumstances. The approach of the court should be an
integrated one and not truncated or isolated. The court
should use the yardstick of probability and appreciate
the intrinsic value of the evidence brought on records
and analyze and assess the same objectively.”
48. It can thus clearly be seen that it is necessary for the
prosecution that the circumstances from which the
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 39 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:15:59 +0530
conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established. The Court held that it is a primary principle
that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved
guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been
held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal
distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or
should be proved’. It has been held that the facts so
established should be consistent only with the guilt of the
accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on
any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. It
has further been held that the circumstances should be such
that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one
to be proved. It has been held that 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 probabilities
the act must have been done by the accused.
49. It is settled law that suspicion, however strong it may be,
cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of
suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is
presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt.
50. In view of the aforesaid principles governing the case
based on the circumstantial evidence, let us turn to the case
in hand. Now it has to be examined as to whether accused
persons who faced the trial are perpetrators of this crime.
The incriminating circumstances relied upon by the
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 40 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:01 +0530
prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused persons
are: –
(A) Disclosure Statements of Accused Person i.e.,
Mamta, Surender and Chanu Paswan
Disclosure statement of Mamta leading to
recovery of purse/wallet of deceased Karan.
PW 13 has proved the same Ex. PW13/A-2
and consequent recovery Ex. PW13/B
Disclosure statement of Surender leading to
recovery of motor bike of deceased Karan.
PW 13 has proved the same Ex. PW13/G.
Disclosure statement of Chanu Paswan
leading to recovery of E-rickshaw used for
disposal of the dead body. PW 13 has proved
the same Ex. PW13/C-2 and consequent
recovery Ex. PW13/C-3.
PW13 has prepared pointing out memo of the
place where the dead body was disposed,
which bears Ex. PW13/D, Ex. PW13/E and
Ex. PW13/F and pointing out memo where
accused Mamta murdered deceased Karan
bearing Ex. PW13/H and Ex. PW13/I.
(B) Previous conduct of the accused persons that
deceased Karan resided with Accused person Mamta
and Surender and Subsequent conduct of the
accused persons that after the death of deceased
Karan, the accused person Mamta and Surender left
the place of residence
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 41 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:03 +0530
Evidence of Smt. Urmila (PW2), landlady to
show that deceased Karan was residing
alongwith Mamta and Surender. During her
cross-examination she stated that she had
never heard from any neighbour regarding
quarrel of Mamta and Surender. She also
stated that she does not know anything about
the present case.
Evidence of Sh. Rajesh Vishwakarma (PW4),
father of Karan to show that deceased Karan
was residing with Mamta and Surender, and
to show subsequent conduct of Mamta and
Surender in vacating the tenanted premises
after death/killing Karna. He also stated that
he met the landlord of the tenanted premised
after his son Karan was not found. He has also
identified the body of deceased Karan. He has
also identified blood stained green color
ladies pyjami of one leg, quilt, chunni and
loi,stating that the same belongs to Mamta
which is EX. P1 (colly). He also identified the
clothes of deceased Karan, Ex. P2.
Evidence of Lakshmi Chand Jain (PW6) to
show the relationship between deceased
Karan and co-accused Surender.
Evidence of Vikas (PW27) brother of
deceased also stated that deceased Karan was
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 42 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:04 +0530
residing with Mamta and Surender.
(C) Call Detail Records to establish the proximity of
location of Karan, Mamta and Surender at the time
of death of Karan. And also that accused Mamta and
deceased Karan were in constant touch with another
in an unusual manner. On the date of incident i.e.,
25.04.2018, there were 9 phone calls between 15.27
hours to 21.43 hours between accused Mamta and
co-accused Surender.
(D) Motive to kill deceased Karan.
51. The above incriminating circumstances, in the light of
material on record and the evidence produced during trial
are dealt accordingly.
52. Disclosure Statement and their admissibility
52.1 It is a settled principle of law that a confessional
statement made to a police officer is not admissible in
evidence and only the discovery led by such statement is
admissible. This was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in “Aghnoo Naghesia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966
SC 119″ wherein it was held as under: –
“A little reflection will show that the expression
“confession” in ss. 24 to 30 refers to the confessional
statement as a whole including not only the admissions
of the offence but also all other admissions of
incriminating facts related to the offence. Section 27
partially lifts the ban imposed by ss. 24. 25 and 26 in
respect of so much of the information whether it
amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to
the fact discovered in consequence of the information,
if the other conditions of the section are satisfied.
Section 27 distinctly contemplates that an information
leading to a discovery may be a part of the confession
of the accused and thus, fall within the purview of ss.
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 43 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:08 +0530
24, 25 and 26 Section 27 thus shows that a confessional
statement admitting the offence may contain additional
information as part of the confession. Again, s. 30
permits the Court to take into consideration against a
co-accused a confession of another accused affecting
not only himself but the other co-accused. Section 30
thus shows that matters affecting other persons may
from part of the confession.
If the first information report is given by the accused to
a police officer and amounts to a confessional
statement, proof of the confession is prohibited by s.
25. The confession includes not only the admission of
the offence but all other admissions of incriminating
facts related to the offence contained in the
confessional statement. No part of the confessional
statement is receivable in evidence except to the extent
that the ban of s. 25 is lifted by..”
52.2 It will be useful to advert to the exposition in the
case of Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra,
(2015) 1 SCC 253, in particular, paragraphs 23 to 29
thereof. The same read thus: –
“23. While accepting or rejecting the factors of
discovery, certain principles are to be kept in mind. The
Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor,
AIR 1947 PC 67 has held thus: (IA p. 77)
“… it is fallacious to treat the ‘fact discovered’ within
the section as equivalent to the object produced; the
fact discovered embraces the place from which the
object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as
to this, and the information given must relate distinctly
to this fact. Information as to past user, or the past
history, of the object produced is not related to its
discovery in the setting in which it is discovered.
Information supplied by a person in custody that ‘I will
produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house’ does
not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were
discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of
the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the
informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved
to have been used in the commission of the offence, the
fact discovered is very relevant. But if to the statement
the words be added ‘with which I stabbed A’, theseFIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 44 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:05 +0530
words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the
discovery of the knife in the house of the informant.”
52.3 In Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra, (1976)
1 SCC 828 ; (1976) 1 SCR 715, while dealing with the
ambit and scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the
Court held that: (SCC pp. 831-32, paras 11-13)
“11. Although the interpretation and scope of Section
27 has been the subject of several authoritative
pronouncements, its application to concrete cases
is not always free from difficulty. It will therefore be
worthwhile at the outset, to have a short and swift
glance at the section and be reminded of its
requirements. The section says:
’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.’
12. The expression ‘provided that’ together with the
phrase ‘whether it amounts to a confession or not’ show
that the section is in the nature of an exception to the
preceding provisions particularly Sections 25 and 26. It
is not necessary in this case to consider if this section
qualifies, to any extent, Section 24, also. It will be seen
that the first condition necessary for bringing this
section into operation is the discovery of a fact, albeit a
relevant fact, in consequence of the information
received from a person accused of an offence. The
second is that the discovery of such fact must be
deposed to. The third is that at the time of the receipt of
the information the accused must be in police custody.
The last but the most important condition is that only
‘so much of the information’ as relates distinctly to the
fact thereby discovered is admissible. The rest of the
information has to be excluded. The word ‘distinctly’
means ‘directly’, ‘indubitably’, ‘strictly’,
‘unmistakably’. The word has been advisedly used to
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 45 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:08 +0530
limit and define the scope of the provable information.
The phrase ‘distinctly relates to the fact thereby
discovered’ is the linchpin of the provision. This phrase
refers to that part of the information supplied by the
accused which is the direct and immediate cause of the
discovery. The reason behind this partial lifting of the
ban against confessions and statements made to the
police, is that if a fact is actually discovered in
consequence of information given by the accused, it
affords some guarantee of truth of that part, and that
part only, of the information which was the clear,
immediate and proximate cause of the discovery. No
such guarantee or assurance attaches to the rest of the
statement which may be indirectly or remotely related
to the fact discovered.
13. At one time it was held that the expression ‘fact
discovered’ in the section is restricted to a physical or
material fact which can be perceived by the senses, and
that it does not include a mental fact (see Sukhan v.
Emperor, AIR 1929 Lah 344; Ganu Chandra Kashid v.
Emperor, AIR 1932 Bom 286). Now it is fairly settled
that the expression ‘fact discovered’ includes not only
the physical object produced, but also the place from
which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused
as to this (see Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor; Udai
Bhan v. State of U.P., AIR 1962 SC 1116 ; (1962) 2 Cri
LJ 251 ; 1962 Supp (2) SCR 830).” (emphasis in
original)
52.4 In Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State of Uttaranchal,
(2010) 2 SCC 583 after referring to the decision in
Pulukuri Kotayya, the Court adverted to seizure of clothes
of the deceased which were concealed by the accused. In
that context, the Court opined that (Aftab Ahmad Anasari
case,SCC p. 596, para 40)
“40. … the part of the disclosure statement, namely,
that the appellant was ready to show the place where he
had concealed the clothes of the deceased is clearly
admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
because the same relates distinctly to the discovery of
the clothes of the deceased from that very place. The
contention that even if it is assumed for the sake of
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 46 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:06 +0530
argument that the clothes of the deceased were
recovered from the house of the sister of the appellant
pursuant to the voluntary disclosure statement made by
the appellant, the prosecution has failed to prove that
the clothes so recovered belonged to the deceased and
therefore, the recovery of the clothes should not be
treated as an incriminating circumstance, is devoid of
merits.”
52.5 In State of Maharashtra v. Damu, (2000) 6 SCC 269
it has been held as follows: (SCC p.283, para 35)
“35. … It is now well settled that recovery of an object
is not discovery of a fact as envisaged in [Section 27 of
the Evidence Act, 1872]. The decision of the Privy
Council in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor is the
most quoted authority for supporting the interpretation
that the ‘fact discovered’ envisaged in the section
embraces the place from which the object was
produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the
information given must relate distinctly to that effect.”
52.6 The similar principle has been laid down in State of
Maharashtra v. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471, State of Punjab
v. 21Asar Mohammad & Ors. Vs. State Of U.P. ABC
2019(I) January 2019 Gurnam Kaur, (2009) 11 SCC 225,
Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State of Uttarancha, (2010) 2 SCC
583, Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 6 SCC
396, Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC
1 and Rumi Bora Dutta v. State of Assam, (2013) 7 SCC
417.
52.7 In the instant case, the discovery by itself does not
point to the guilt of the accused person for murder or
destruction of evidence. The discovery does not connect
the accused persons to the crime in question. Recovery of
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 47 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:04 +0530
Purse/wallet by Mamta, e-rickshaw by Chanu Pasan and
motor bike by Surrender does not link the accused persons
to the crime. There is no evidence on record to show that
the dead body of deceased Karan was carried on e-
rickshaw for disposal. The possession of wallet/purse of
deceased with accused Mamta does not imply that she has
killed deceased Karan. Similarly, the recovery of bike from
railway station does not connect accused Surrender to
crime. It cannot be ruled out that Mamta and Surender
were residing with deceased Karan, so they were bound to
have knowledge of his things etc. Moreover, the discovery
has taken place from open places and not from a place of
hiding, which can be attributed to the personal knowledge
of the accused persons. There is no weapon of offence. The
only recovery made is of purse and bike of deceased Karan
and an E-Rickshaw which as per the case of prosecution
was used for disposal of dead body, there is no witness to
corroborate the same. The discovery/disclosure statements
are not signed by independent /public witnesses, which
itself casts a doubt on their authenticity. The Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in Judgment titled as ‘ Mohammad Burhan
Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, cited as
MANU/DE/3131/2017′ has held that: –
‘joining of independent public witness is not mere a
formality; it is a vital safeguard to avoid false
implication of individual. In number of cases either no
independent public witnesses are associated on the
pretext that none of them is available; in some cases
only passerbyes are requested to join the investigation.
Non-examination of independent public witness in the
instant case is serious flaw and adverse inference is toFIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 48 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:15:59 +0530
be drawn against the prosecution for withholding them’
52.8 This conclusion is further fortified by the judicial
pronouncement in Mani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu on 8
January 2008: AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1021 wherein it is
held as under: –
“21. The discovery is a weak kind of evidence
and cannot be wholly relied upon on and conviction in
such a serious matter cannot be based upon the
discovery. Once the discovery fails, there would be
literally nothing which would support the prosecution
case. We have already held that the prosecution has
failed to prove that the house where alleged blood
stains were found belonged exclusively or was
possessed exclusively by the appellant, we have further
pointed out that the discovery was absolutely farcical.
There is one other very relevant factor ignored by both
the courts that the prosecution never made any attempts
to prove that the clothes belonged to the appellants.
There is literally no evidence to suggest anything to
that effect. Therefore, even if we accept the discovery,
it does not take us anywhere near the crime. Both the
Courts below have ignored this very important aspect.
Once these two important circumstances are
disbelieved, there is nothing which would remain to
support the prosecution theory. We also fail to
understand the finding of the High Court in respect of
the motive. In our opinion, there was no motive
whatsoever much less entertainable by the present
appellant….”
53. PREVIOUS AND SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF
ACCUSED PERSONS
53.1 The prosecution has alleged that the previous and
subsequent conduct of the accused persons Mamta and
Surender is relevant. It is stated that the accused persons
Mamta and Surender were residing together and to
establish that fact PW-2 Urmila and PW-4 Rajesh
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 49 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:03 +0530
Vishwakrama, PW-6 Lakshmi Chand Jain and PW7 Vikas
are examined. By examining these witnesses the
prosecution is able to establish that accused Mamta and
Sureneder were residing along with Karan, but, the
prosecution is not able to prove that accused Mamta and
Surender had killed the deceased. It is argued on behalf of
the prosecution that accused Mamta and Karan were
supposed to lodge a police complaint regarding Karan
being missing or they could have informed the family of
the deceased Karan about him missing but that was not
done. The argument of the prosecution holds water so as to
establish suspicion against the accused person but it does
not prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond
reasonable doubt. In fact, vacating the tenanted premises
immediately after the death of the deceased Karan is also
suspicious and suggest that accused persons have left the
same under some apprehension/fear, but again this
circumstance alone would not prove the guilt of the
accused person. In the instant case, the testimony of none
of the prosecution witness is sufficient to point out the
guilt of accused persons herein. The testimony of PW 4,
Rajesh Vishwarkarma does not inspire confidence as his
credibility was demolished during his cross-examination.
In his cross-examination he stated that he never met the
landlady of the tenanted premises and he does not know
the address of Mamta’s parents. Similarly, all the witnesses
together does not complete the chain of events to establish
the guilt of accused persons. Firstly, none of them is any
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 50 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:00 +0530
eyewitness and secondly, that all by their testimonies could
only establish that deceased Karan was residing with
Mamta and Surender. It is one thing to say the deceased
was residing with accused persons Mamta and Surender
and it is an entirely different thing to impute the act of
murder on accused Mamta. The story of prosecution is
weak. The investigating agencies had not collected the
DNA samples from the quilt, chunni, payjami etc to
connect accused Mamta with them. The identification of
these articles by PW4 does not inspire confidence, as he
was not regularly residing with accused Mamta, so as to
know that the same belong to accused Mamta. Thus, there
are lapses on the part of investigation agency to connect
the accused persons with the crime.
54. CALL DETAILS RECORD TO ESTABLISH
PROXIMITY IN LOCATION AND LOVE AFFAIR
BETWEEM ACCUSED MAMTA AND DECEASED
KARAN
54.1 Prosecution has relied upon the CDR record to show
the proximity in the location of deceased Karan and
accused Mamta and Surender. PW 22 in his examination in
chief has deposed that after the analysis of CDR of
accused persons, it was clear that the accused Mamta,
Surender and deceased Karan were known to each other
and mobile phone no. 9958715184 of deceased Karan was
switched off since 25.04.2018 at 17:24 Hrs. On analysis of
CDR it was found that accused Mamta and Karan were in
touch in an unusual manner and it was also confirmed that
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 51 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:08 +0530
on 25.04.2018, between 15.27 hours ro 21.43 hours, there
were 9 phone calls between Mamta and Surender. It is
further deposed that the location of deceased Karan and
accused Mamta was at the same place i.e., at Sadh Nagar,
Palam on 25.04.2018 and accused Surender had movement
between Bagdola to Sadh Nagar. All these facts do not
establish that accused Mamta had murdered deceased
Karan. There is no last seen evidence on record to show
that accused Mamta was last seen with Karan by anyone.
The investigating agencies have not examined neighbours
to throw light upon the same. Since accused Mamta and
deceased Karan were residing together, proximity in their
location is obvious and there is nothing strange about the
same. However, this will not go to establish the guilt of the
accused person. Even, if the story of the prosecution is
believed that Mamta and deceased Karan were together
and Mamta after killing Karna had kept the dead body of
deceased Karan in her house for few hours until the arrival
of her husband Surender. It is not believable that no one in
the vicinity visited them or knocked their house for such
duration. The prosecution is not able to explain the
whereabouts of children of accused Mamta and Surender
during that time, when the dead body was lying at home.
Non-examination of neighbours by the investigating
agencies has turned out to be fatal. Therefore, CDR in
isolation can only point out towards grave suspicion of the
involvement of accused person in the crime but do not
establish the same beyond reasonable doubt.
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 52 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:07 +0530
55. MOTIVE FOR THE CRIME
55.1 Motive, plays a key role in the commission of any
crime and its evaluation in the form of its impact upon the
facts which constitutes and present the existence, non-
existence, nature and extent of criminal liability in a
person accused of committing an offence is a process
which is foundational in ascertaining the truth with respect
to the allegations in a criminal trial. Motive is a mental
state, which is always locked in the inner compartment of
the brain of the accused and it is only through other factual
presentation of the witnesses, such mental state can be
pulled out from such space and can be established in the
process of fair criminal trial.
55.2 First of all the prosecution has to prove that
deceased Karan was murdered. In the present case, there is
no eye witness of the alleged incident. The story of
prosecution is based upon hypothesis that deceased Karan
and accused Mamta had physical relations which each
other and when decease Karan tried to withdraw himself
from accused Mamta, she had killed him. There is no eye
witness to depose the same. In fact, the alleged love affair
between deceased Karan and accused Mamta is not
established, as no witness has deposed on the above said
lines. In fact, PW2 Urmila had stated that decease Karan
was devar of Mamta. PW2 further deposed that she has
never received any complaints regarding quarrel between
accused Mamta, Surender and deceased Karan. PW4 in his
testimony has nowhere deposed that deceased Karan was
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 53 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:05 +0530
having illicit affair with accused Mamta. It is not out of
place to mention, that deceased Karan was residing with
Mamta alongwith her husband Surender and her children.
It is highly unlikely that persons with illegitimate relations
stay together in one household alongwith other family
members. The prosecution has relied upon CDR to prove
the love affair. The CDR is a very weak form of evidence
to establish love affair between two individuals. There is
no voice recording, CDR only shows the number of calls
exchanged between the accused Mamta and Karan, which
cannot lead to an inference that both of them were in affair.
Except for the call detail records and disclosure statements
of accused person there is nothing on record to show that
Mamta was in relationship with deceased Karan. Just
because deceased Karan and Mamta was regularly talking
to each other would not lead to a conclusion that Mamta
had an affair with Karan and had a motive to kill him when
deceased Karan was withdrawing himself from the
company of Mamta This is not sufficient evidence to prove
the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
55.3 It is a settled proposition of criminal law that in a
case based upon circumstantial evidence, motive assumes
great significance. However, 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
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 54 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:09 +0530
person.
55.4 In view of the above discussion, in the considered
opinion of this court so far as the facts of the present case
are concerned, prosecution has miserably failed to
establish the motive fact which was presented on its behalf
as a crucial link in the chain of circumstances forming the
foundation of complete allegations. This court is cognizant
of the fact that there is no such principle or rule of law
where, if the prosecution fails to prove the motive for
commission of the crime, it must necessarily result in
acquittal of the accused. But, at the same time, absence of
motive to commit the crime coupled with lack of eye
witness testimony becomes a significant fact against the
prosecution case and in favour of the accused. In the
present case, as already noted, there is no eye witness to
the alleged crime and the case is purely based on
circumstantial evidence. Hence, the fact of motive to
commit the alleged crime remained not proved on record.
56. Applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in Sharad Birdichand Sarda (Supra), this court is
of considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove
the circumstances from which the guilt of accused can be
established. The fact established by the prosecution are not
consistent with the hypotheses of the guilt of accused and
the circumstances are not conclusive in nature. The chain
of circumstances proved by the prosecution is not
complete to prove that in all probabilities the alleged
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 55 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:06 +0530
offences have been committed only by the accused and
none else.
57. It is established principle of law that if two views are
possible, the view favourable to the accused must be
accepted. The benefit of doubt must always go to the
accused as the prosecution has to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt.
58. The Hon’ble Apex court in Rang Bahadur Singh Vs. State
of U.P. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1209 has held as follows:-
“The timetested rule in that acquittal of a guilty person
should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person.
Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot
be passed on the accused. A criminal court cannot
afford to deprive liberty of the appellants, lifelong
liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of
certainty that the appellants were the real culprits.”
59. In yet another decision in State of U.P. Vs. Ram Veer
Singh and Another reported in 2007(6) Supreme 164 the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows: –
“The golden thread which runs through the web of
administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two
view are possible on the 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. The paramount
consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage
of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which
may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than
from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where
admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the
appellate Court to reappreciate the evidence where the
accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of
ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really
committed any offence or not.”
60. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 56 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:05 +0530
always the burden of prosecution to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence
produced before court. Crime is an event in real life and is
the product of interplay of different human emotions. In
arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of accused,
charged with the commission of a crime, a criminal court
has to ensure that facts constituting such crime are proved
beyond the scope of any reasonable doubt. Every case in
the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts
and merits. Definite doubts or lacunae in the case of the
prosecution may result in benefit of doubt being given to
the accused and consequential acquittal.
61. As far as the present case is concerned, as already noted
the same is based on circumstantial evidence and it is
settled principle of law that in a case which is hinged upon
circumstantial evidence complete chain of circumstances
has to be spelt out by the prosecution and even if one link
in the chain is either missing or broken, the accused must
get the benefit thereof. In the considered opinion of this
court, none of the circumstances relied by the prosecution
have been proved beyond the standard of reasonable doubt
and thus all the accused persons who have faced trial are
entitled for benefit thereof.
CONCLUSION
62. In the light of above discussions, it is held that prosecution
has miserably failed to prove the circumstances that would
lead to the only hypothesis of the guilt of the accused
persons Mamta, Surender and Chanu Paswan.
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 57 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:06 +0530
63. It is therefore held that prosecution has failed to establish
charge against accused persons. Accordingly, accused
Mamta, Surender Kumar and Chanu Paswan stands
acquitted in this case. Their personal bonds are canceled
and sureties are discharged. Documents, if any, be returned
to the sureties. Case Property, if any, be released to rightful
owners. Accused persons are directed to furnish bonds in
terms of Section 437-A Cr.P.C / 481 BNSS in the sum of
Rs. 10,000/- each within one week from today.
64. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open
Court on 15.07.2025.
(SHIVALI BANSAL)
ASJ-02, DWARKA COURTS,
S-W DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
FIR No. 126/18. State Vs. Surender Kumar & Others.
PS Dwarka South. Page No. 58 of 58.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.07.15
16:16:06 +0530
[ad_1]
Source link