Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd Gufran @ Alin on 10 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKASH JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
CNR No:- DLET01-006001-2016
SC No:- 1939/16
FIR No : 32/16
Police Station : Krishna Nagar
Under Section (s) : 302 IPC
In the Sessions case of:-
State
versus
Mohd. Gufran @ Alian
S/o Mohd. Jahid
R/o House No. 588, Gali No. 11
West Kanti Nagar, Delhi
Date of Institution : 10.05.2016
Date of reserving Order : 17.11.2025
Date of Pronouncement : 10.02.2026
Final Judgment : Accused is acquitted
Appearances :-
For the State : Sh. Vineet Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP
For the accused persons : Mr. Sushil Sharma, Ld. LAC
Digitally signed
AKASH by AKASH JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2026.02.10
17:52:38 +0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 1 of 41
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Mohd. Gufran @ Alian was sent up for
trial on the basis of report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal
Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) for committing
murder of one Premvir by repeatedly stabbing him with knife in
his abdomen and then slitting his throat between 24.11.2015 to
14.01.2016 at unknown time near Kanti Nagar Drain, under the
culvert of Road No. 57, Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police
Station Krishna Nagar.
Factual Matrix
2. The brief case of prosecution, that unfolds in the
charge-sheet is that on 14.01.2016, duty officer at Police Station
Krishna Nagar vide DD No. 26A filed a complaint made by
complainant namely Ghamandi Singh regarding missing of his son
since 24.11.2015. The complainant stated that on 24.11.2015 at
about 02:00 PM accused Gufran @ Alian came to his house, called
his son Premvir and went away with him. The complainant further
stated that his son did not return back to the house for days
together. On 30.11.2015, accused Gufran @ Alian came to his
house and when complainant inquired about his son, he gave
evasive replies and asked him to search Premvir at Hanuman
Mandir. However, the complainant could not find his son at
Hanuman Mandir. It was alleged that accused and his parents
continued to mislead the complainant for about 1 month and his
son never returned home.
Digitally signed
AKASH by AKASH JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2026.02.10
17:52:46 +0530FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 2 of 41
3. On 05.01.2016 accused informed complainant that
his son Premvir was at Hanuman Mandir and asked for fresh
clothes for his son. The complainant handed over the clothes to the
accused, but on 06.01.2016 accused returned back those clothes
and stated that son of complainant could not be traced. On being
suspicious, complainant finally lodged a report before police
regarding missing of his son.
4. The FIR was thereafter, registered on the said rukka.
SI Lalit Kumar along with Ct. Narender and complainant left for
investigation and reached at the house of complainant at H. No.
467, Gali No. 8, West Kanti Nagar, Delhi and prepared the site
plan at his instance. IO made inquiries from neighbors but could
not found any clue. He thereafter, reached at the house of accused
Gufran @ Alian at House No. 588, Gali No. 11, West Kanti Nagar,
Delhi as his name was mentioned in complaint of complainant.
Accused was identified by the complainant and questioned. He
admitted to have committed murder of deceased Premvir on
account of some money dispute. However, accused was found to
be of 17 years of age, as such, Juvenile Welfare Officer SI Amrit
Lal reached there. Accused thereafter, led IO and other police
officials along with complainant to Ganda Nala Road No. 57,
Opposite Kanti Nagar, where he pointed out the place where he
killed deceased Premvir and thrown his body. On checking the
same, decomposed dead body of a person was found. SHO
Inspector Sanjay Sharma arrived at the spot along with HC Vinod
and Pramod and thereafter, SHO called the crime team. No public
person joined the investigation despite requests made by the IO.
Crime team inspected the spot and photographer of the crime team
AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH
JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.02.10 17:52:52
+0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 3 of 41
took photographs. Slippers of the deceased were also lying there
along with dead body. Thereafter, complainant and brother of
deceased Yogesh identified slippers of deceased and his clothes
which were worn by him. Slippers were taken into police
possession. Mud from the body was duly taken and earth control
was also lifted from the spot. Thereafter, dead body of deceased
Premvir was sent to mortuary through Ct. Ram Kumar.
5. Accused thereafter, led IO and his team to Gali No.
8, West Kanti Nagar near drain, flood department road where he
had thrown the knife after the incident. With the help of sweeper,
one knife was recovered from the sludge which was smeared with
mud and taken into police possession. Private photographer was
also called who took the photographs of place where knife was
lying. On 16.01.2016, SI Lalit reached at Subzi Mandi mortuary
with Inspector Sanjay Sharma where proceedings in respect of the
postmortem of the dead body were conducted by Inspector Sanjay
Sharma and after the postmortem dead body was handed over to
his father and brother of deceased. SI Lalit Kumar collected two
sealed parcels sealed with the seal of CMO I/C AAA Gh, Subzi
Mandi mortuary along with sample seals. Thereafter, on
05.03.2016 accused was declared major by JJB and further
interrogated with the permission of the court. His disclosure
statement was recorded by the police and he was arrested. After
completion of the investigation, collection of documents and
recording statements of witnesses, charge-sheet was prepared by
the IO. Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
AKASH Date:
JAIN 2026.02.10
17:52:57
+0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 4 of 41
6. Charge-sheet for the offences under Section 302/365
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC‘) was
consequently filed against accused Mohd. Gufran @ Alian before
the Court of Ld. MM on 10.05.2016. After statutory compliance
under Section 207 IPC, present case was committed to the Court
of Sessions and assigned to this Court vide order dated 17.02.2017
passed by Ld. District & Sessions Judge, East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Charge
7. Vide order dated 19.07.2016, accused Mohd. Gufran
@ Alian was formally charged for offence under Section 302 IPC
for committing murder of deceased Premvir, by wielding three
knife blows in his abdomen and then slitting his throat.
Prosecution Evidence
8. In order to prove its case prosecution examined as
many as 17 witnesses.
Public Witnesses
9. PW-1 is Yogesh who deposed that on 24.11.2015 at
about 02:00 PM, accused Gufran came to his house and asked his
mother to send his brother Premvir with him. His brother Premvir
refused to go with him, but on repeated requests made by the
accused, Premvir accompanied him and accused assured they
would return within 1-2 hours. On 30.11.2015, PW-1 met accused
in the street and inquired from him regarding whereabouts of his
brother Premvir to which he told that he left Premvir near the nala/
drain. PW-1 deposed that he asked him why he left Premvir near
AKASH Digitally
AKASH JAIN
signed by
JAIN Date: 2026.02.10
17:53:03 +0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 5 of 41
the nala but accused misguided him by saying that Premvir will
meet him near Hanuman Mandir. PW-1 searched for his brother
for almost daily near said mandir, but in vain. On 05.01.2016
accused came to his house and told him that mental condition of
Premvir was not well and asked for his clothes. On 06.01.2016,
accused again came to his house and returned the clothes of
Premvir by saying that Premvir was not traceable. On 14.01.2016,
PW-1 along with his father went to the Police Station to lodge the
complaint and police registered the same.
10. PW-1 deposed that on 14.01.2016 he along with his
father went to police post Seelampur where they came to know
that his brother had been murdered by accused Gufran @ Alian.
Thereafter, he went to Road no. 57, Near the drain where his father
was present. Crime team officials and other police officials were
present there and a dead body was held in the gypsy of 100
number. PW-1 identified slippers of his brother which were lying
near the dead body and base of same were of blue colour and strips
were of parrot colour. The dead body was found in decomposed
condition and on the basis of said slippers, he could identify that it
was dead body of his brother Premvir as it was the same slippers
which were worn by his brother when he left home on 24.11.2015
with accused Gufran @ Alian. PW-1 deposed that he was able to
identify the clothes found on the dead body which was round shape
black T-shirt and black jeans. The police seized the slippers after
converting the same into a cloth parcel and seal of SS was affixed
it and was taken into their possession. The dead body was sent to
mortuary and PW-1 signed the seizure memo of chappal vide
seizure memo Ex. PW 1/A. AKASH Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.02.10
17:53:09 +0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 6 of 41
11. PW-1 deposed that police took samples of soil found
on the dead body as well as from the place where dead body was
lying. PW-1 had not seen the accused when he had identified dead
body as well as slippers. PW-1 later on went to the police post
where all police officials were present and accused was also found
present there. Thereafter, police officials and accused Gufran @
Alian went to Nala Kanti Nagar, Gali No. 8 and 9 and at the
instance of accused, police searched for the knife. One person was
called from the nearby Lakkad market for the purpose of tracing
the knife and police searched the same in the light of torch, but due
to night time and darkness they returned back to the Police Station.
Thereafter, they again visited the said place on following morning.
A safai karamchari was called from Lakkad market and a
photographer was also called. After lot of efforts, a knife was
found which was lying in the mud. The photographer took
photographs of the spot where knife was found at the instance of
accused. Said knife was made of steel and having black colour
plastic handle and said knife was generally used in the kitchen.
The police took the recovered knife in possession. Thereafter, they
went to mortuary Subzi Mandi. Statement of PW-1 was recorded
by the IO regarding identification of dead body vide Ex. PW1/B.
After postmortem, he took the dead body vide receipt Ex.PW1/C
for last rites. PW-1 correctly identified accused during his
testimony. He further identified case properties. i.e. T-shirt as Ex.
P1, pant as Ex. P2, knife as Ex. P3.
12. PW-2 is Ghamandi Singh who deposed on the same
lines as that of PW-1 regarding departure of deceased with accused
on 24.11.2015, lodging of complaint on 14.01.2016, apprehension
AKASH by AKASH JAIN
Digitally signed
JAIN Date: 2026.02.10
17:53:13 +0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 7 of 41
of accused and recovery of dead body of deceased as well as knife
at the instance of accused. He proved seizure memo Ex. PW1/A,
seizure memo of earth control Ex. PW 2/B, seizure memo of earth
found on the body Ex. PW 2/C, sketch of seizure memo of knife
Ex. PW 2/D, seizure memo of knife Ex. PW 2/E, site plan of place
of recovery of knife Ex. PW 2/F, apprehension memo of accused
Ex. PW 2/G, child version of accused Ex. PW 2/H, pointing out
memo Ex. PW 2/J, site plan of place of recovery of dead body Ex.
PW 2/K, statement qua identification of dead body Ex. PW 2/L,
postmortem receipt Ex. PW 1/C and knife as Ex. P-3.
Police witnesses
13. PW-3 is HC Pramod Kumar who deposed that on
14.01.2016 he along with Inspector Sanjay Singh reached at the
spot i.e. Ganda Nala, Kanti Nagar, Near Pulia of Road No.57 and
there SI Lalit Kumar, Ct. Narender, Ct. Ram Kumar, JWO SI Amrit
Lal, complainant Ghamandi Singh and accused Gufran @ Alian
met them. Thereafter, SI Lalit Kumar produced case file along with
accused before IO/ Inspector Sanjay Sharma. IO requested several
persons to join the investigation, but in vain. Crime team officials
were called at the spot and at the instance of accused, dead body
was recovered in decomposed condition. IO prepared the site plan
of place of recovery of dead body and slippers were lying near the
dead body. There was T-shirt and pant on the body of deceased.
Crime team officials took photographs. Thereafter, brother of
deceased also reached there. Father and brother of deceased
identified the slippers which were worn by him on 24.11.2015 and
also identified dead body by its clothes. IO seized slippers in a
parcel vide seizure memo Ex. PW 1/A. IO also seized soil which
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.02.10
17:53:18 +0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 8 of 41
was lying on the dead body after keeping it in a plastic container
which was sealed with the seal of SS. The dead body was shifted
to mortuary Subzi Mandi in custody of Ct. Ram Kumar by
Devdoot vehicle. IO also seized soil of the place where dead body
was lying in a plastic container which was sealed with the seal of
SS.
14. PW-3 deposed that he along with accused Gufran
reached in Gali No. 8, West Kanti Nagar, Road of Flood
Department where accused pointed out a place where he had
thrown the knife after the incident. Police tried to search for it with
the help of search light but due to dark same was not found. After
sun rise, IO alongwith staff and a sweeper Rakesh again started
searching for knife and after lot of efforts, knife was found and
accused identified it as the weapon of offence. Thereafter,
photographer Netra Pal was called and at the directions of IO, he
took photographs of recovered knife. Pointing out memo of knife
was prepared and IO recorded the statements of photographer
Netra Pal and sweeper Rakesh. Sketch of knife was also prepared.
Total length of knife was found to be 20.02 cm with blade 10 cm
and handle 10.2 cm. Maximum width of knife was recorded as 2
cm. FIRAS stainless steel was found mentioned on the blade of
knife. IO thereafter, sealed the knife with seal of SS and took it
into police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW 2/F. Thereafter,
accused was handed over to SI Amrit Lal who took him to JJB-II.
15. PW-3 deposed that on 15.01.2016 the police team
including him reached at mortuary, however, due to some reasons
postmortem on the body of deceased was not conducted at that
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.02.10
17:53:23 +0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 9 of 41
time. IO left Ct. Ram Kumar at mortuary to guard the dead body.
PW-3 along with HC Vinod Kumar and IO reached at JJB-II where
accused Gufran was produced and sent to Observation home. IO
recorded his statement. PW-3 correctly identified accused as well
as case property i.e. one black T-shirt vide Ex. P1, one black pant
Ex. P2, knife Ex. P3, pair of slippers Ex. P4, plastic container
having earth material/ soil and cloth of parcel as Ex.P5 and another
plastic container having earth material/ soil and cloth of parcel as
Ex. P6.
16. PW-4 is HC Vinod Kumar who participated in the
investigation and recovery proceedings on 14.01.2026 along with
Inspector Sanjay Sharma and HC Vinod. He deposed on the same
lines as that of PW-3 regarding recovery of dead body and knife at
the instance of accused. He further correctly identified all the case
properties.
17. PW-5 is ASI Ram Kumar who deposed that on
14.01.2016 duty officer of Police Station Krishna Nagar met him
at Police Station and handed over original tehrir of case FIR No.
32/2016. PW-5 reached at the house of accused Gufran at 588,
Gali No. 11, West Kanti Nagar, Delhi. SI Lalit, Ct. Narender, SI
Amit Lal and accused Gufran were present there. PW5 handed
over the documents of this case to SI Lalit. Thereafter, all of
them went to the place of incident at Ganda Nala, Kanti Nagar,
Road No. 57 where dead body of deceased Premvir was recovered
at the instance of accused. PW-5 deposed that after some time
Inspector Sanjay Sharma along with HC Vinod and HC Pramod
reached at the spot and SI Lalit handed over documents and
AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH
JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.02.10 17:53:27
+0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 10 of 41
custody of accused to Inspector Sanjay Sharma. Inspector Sanjay
Sharma called the crime team and crime team officials reached at
the spot and took photographs. In the meantime, brother and father
of deceased namely, Yogesh and Ghamandi Singh reached there
and identified the slippers and clothes of deceased. PW-5
thereafter, deposed on the same lines as that of PW-3 regarding
taking dead body in devdoot vehicle of mortuary, Subzi Mandi and
on next day, after postmortem, handing over of dead body to the
family members. Doctor handed over two sample seals and parcels
to the IO which were seized by him. IO deposited the case property
in Malkhana and recorded his statement. During investigation,
PW5 collected a document related to age of the accused and
handed over the same to IO. He correctly identified accused during
his testimony. PW-5 also correctly identified case property i.e. one
black T-shirt vide Ex. P1, one black pant Ex. P2, pair of slippers
Ex. P4, plastic container having earth material/ soil and cloth of
parcel as Ex.P5.
18. PW-6 is SI Amrit Lal who deposed that on
14.01.2016 at about 04:00 PM, on the instructions of Duty officer,
he reached at H. No. 588, Gali No. 11, West Kanti Nagar, Delhi
where SI Lalit alongwith other police officials, complainant
Ghamandi Singh and accused were found present. SI Lalit
interrogated the accused and recorded his version. Accused was
apprehended in this case at 06:00 PM. PW6 proved version of
accused vide Ex. PW 2/H and apprehension memo Ex. PW 2/G.
He thereafter, deposed on the same lines as that of PW-3 and PW4
regarding recovery of dead body as well as weapon of offence at
AKASH Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.02.10
17:53:32 +0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 11 of 41
the instance of accused and seizure of case properties. He further
correctly identified the accused and case properties.
19. PW-7 is HC Satyavir Singh who deposed that on
25.01.2016 he joined the investigation of this case and IO had sent
him to the SDN hospital for taking the blood sample of father of
deceased i.e. Ghamandi Singh. In the hospital, doctor prepared
MLC No. 220/16 vide which a sealed tube with the seal of CMO
SDNH Delhi-95 Shahdara stated to be containing the blood sample
of Sh. Ghamandi Singh was given to him. One more envelope
sealed with the seal was also handed over to him by the doctor. He
accordingly gave said two exhibits to Inspector Sanjay Sharma
who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW 7/A.
20. PW-8 is HC Anil Yadav who deposed that on
18.02.2016, as per instructions of IO, he obtained sealed pullanda
of exhibits along with forwarding letter from the MHC(M) of
malkhana of Police Station Krishna Nagar to deposit the same at
FSL Rohini, Delhi. He reached at FSL Rohini and deposited the
pullanda as per RC of exhibits and obtained the receipt in this
regard. After coming back from FSL Rohini, he handed over
receipt to the IO. The seal of the pullanda of said exhibits remained
intact while it was in his possession and was not tampered.
21. PW-9 is HC Vijay Malik, who deposed that on
24.01.2016 he was working as duty officer from 04:00 PM to
12:00 mid night and at about 04:25 PM, SI Lalit produced a
complaint along with endorsement vide Ex. PW 2/A and on the
basis of same, he recorded formal FIR. He proved print out of FIR
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.02.10
17:53:36 +0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 12 of 41
vide Ex.PW 9/A and endorsement on the rukka vide Ex. PW 2/A.
He further proved DD No. 26-A vide Ex. PW 9/B and DD No. 28-
A as Ex. PW 9/C.
22. PW-10 is Inspector Mahesh Kumar who deposed
that on 30.03.2016 at the request of IO, he reached at the spot at
Road No. 57, Near Kanti Nagar, Ganda Nala where Inspector
Sanjay Sharma and SI Lalit met and at their instance, he inspected
scene of crime and took rough notes and measurements. Later on,
he prepared scaled site plan and handed over the same to IO. He
proved scaled site plan as Ex. PW 10/A.
23. PW 12 is SI Lalit Kumar who deposed that on
14.01.2016, he was posted as Incharge Police Post of East Old
Seelampur of Police Station Krishna Nagar. Complainant
Ghamandi Singh came to police post and gave a written complaint
Ex. PW2/A. On perusal of the said complaint, it revealed that it
was pertaining to missing of son of complainant since 24.11.2015.
He alongwith Ct. Narender took complainant alongwith complaint
to SHO Police Station Krishna Nagar and was directed by the SHO
to take necessary action on the said complaint. One DD no. 26-A
was consequently lodged. PW-12 deposed that on the said
complaint, on directions of SHO, he prepared Rukka Ex.PW12/A
for registration of FIR and gave it to the Duty Officer and he
alongwith Ct. Narender and complainant left for investigation.
They reached at the house of complainant at H.No. 467, Gali No.8,
West Kanti Nagar, Delhi where he prepared site plan of that house
Ex.PW12/B and made enquiry from the neighbourhood to find out
the missing person Premvir but could not found any clue.
Digitally signed by AKASH
JAIN
AKASH JAIN Date: 2026.02.10 17:53:42
+0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 13 of 41
Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Narender and complainant reached at
the house of accused Gufran @ Alin who was named in the
complaint at house no. 588, Gali No.11, West Kanti Nagar, Delhi
and on reaching there, the said accused was found standing outside
the said house who was identified by the complainant and was
apprehended.
24. PW-12 deposed that the accused stated his age as 17
years, therefore, he called juvenile Welfare Officer SI Amrit Lal
there who reached at the spot. By that time, mother of accused also
reached there. The said JWO and PW-12 made enquiries from
accused Gufran @ Alin and the version narrated by him was
recorded vide Ex.PW2/H. Accused was apprehended vide memo
Ex.PW2/G and in the meantime, Ct. Ram Kumar also arrived there
alongwith copy of FIR and original Rukka and it was handed over
to him. Thereafter, accused led them to Ganda nala, Road No.57
opposite Kanti Nagar and pointed out the place where he killed
Premvir and thrown his body and on checking the said place, they
found decomposed dead body of a person. PW12 prepared the
pointing out memo of that place vide Ex. PW2/J. On seeing the
decomposed dead body, he informed the SHO who reached at the
spot alongwith HC Vinod and Pramod and on reaching at the spot,
SHO Insp. Sanjay Sharma called crime team who reached at the
spot and inspected the same. Photographer of the crime team
clicked photographs and the public persons who gathered at the
spot were also asked to join the proceedings but they refused to
join the same and site plan of the spot was prepared by Insp. Sanjay
Sharma vide Ex.PW2/K.
Digitally signed
AKASH by AKASH JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2026.02.10
17:53:46 +0530FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 14 of 41
25. PW-12 deposed that the dead body was removed
from the said place and taken to the main road. In the meanwhile,
one Yogesh stated to be brother of deceased also reached there.
The complainant and Yogesh identified the slippers (Hawai
Chappal) and clothes of deceased Premvir and the slippers were
taken into police possession after sealing the same in a parcel with
the seal of SS. The same were seized vide seizure memo
Ex.PW1/A. PW-12 deposed that the mud from the body was also
taken as sample which was also seized in a parcel with the seal of
SS, vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/C. The earth control was also
lifted from the spot and was sealed in a parcel with the seal of SS
vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. The dead body of deceased
Premvir was sent to mortuary through Ct. Ram Kumar. Thereafter,
accused led them to Gali No. 8, West Kanti Nagar near drain, flood
department road where accused had thrown the knife after the
incident.
26. PW-12 further deposed on the same lines as that of
PW3, PW4 and PW6 regarding recovery of knife Ex.PW2/D on
next morning from the drain, Gali no. 8, West Kanti Nagar.
Thereafter, accused was sent to observation home after production
before JJB. PW-12 further deposed that on the next day i.e.
16.01.2016, he again joined the investigation and reached at Subzi
Mandi mortuary with Inspector Sanjay Sharma where proceedings
in respect of postmortem got conducted by Insp. Sanjay Sharma
and after the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to its
father and brother. PW-12 further deposed that the doctor handed
over two sealed parcel sealed with the seal of CMO I/C AAA GH,
Subzi Mandi mortuary alongwith the sample seals and both the
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.02.10
17:53:51 +0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 15 of 41
parcels were taken into police possession vide seizure memos
Ex.PW12/C and Ex.PW12/D.
27. PW-12 deposed that on 05.03.2016, he again joined
the investigation of the case and reached at Karkadooma Courts
alongwith Insp. Sanjay Sharma as the accused was declared major
by the JJB and was produced before the concerned court. The
accused was further interrogated with the permission of court and
the facts disclosed by him were recorded in his disclosure
statement vide memo Ex.PW12/E. He was arrested vide arrest
memo Ex.PW12/F and was sent to JC. PW-12 further deposed that
his statement was recorded by the IO on the respective dates of his
joining of investigation. PW-12 correctly identified the case
property i.e. clothes T-shirt, baniyan as Ex.P-1, pant as Ex.P-2,
underwear as Ex.P7, knife as Ex.P-3, pair of slippers as Ex.P-4 and
earth material / soil and cloth of parcel MarkA as Ex.P-6.
28. PW-13 is ASI Ashok Kumar who deposed that on
14.01.2016 on receipt of information from Control Room, he
along with incharge crime team Inspector Narender and Ct. Ashok
Kumar, finger print offical reached at Road No. 57, Kanti Nagar,
Drain where local police officials along with IO/ Inspector Sanjay
Sharma met and found one decomposed dead body lying in the
drain on the heap of garbage. He took photographs of the
decomposed body. He correctly identified photographs as Ex. PW
13/A1 to Ex. PW 13/A12 and its negatives as Ex. PW 13/B1 to Ex.
PW 13/B12.
Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
AKASH Date:
JAIN 2026.02.10
17:53:55
+0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 16 of 41
29. PW-14 is Retired ASI Rishi Pal who deposed that on
14.01.2016, he was posted at Police Station Krishna Nagar as
MHC(M) and on the said date, Inspector Sanjay Sharma handed
over three sealed pullandas to him which he deposited and made
the entry in Register no. 19 at serial no. 2565/32 dated 14.01.2016
vide Ex.PW14/A. PW-14 deposed that on 15.01.2016, Inspector
Sanjay Sharma handed over to him one sealed pullanda which he
deposited and made the entry in Register no. 19 at serial no.
2566/33 vide Ex.PW14/B. PW-14 further deposed that on
16.01.2016, Inspector Sanjay Sharma handed over to him one
sealed plastic jar, one sample seal and one sealed parcel containing
clothes and one sample seal which he deposited and made the entry
in Register no. 19 at serial no. 2569/36 vide Ex.PW14/C. PW-14
further deposed that on 25.01.2016, Inspector Sanjay Sharma
handed over him one sealed blood sample and sample seal which
he deposited and made the entry in Register no. 19 at serial no.
2588/55 vide Ex.PW14/D.
30. PW-16 is Retired Inspector Narender Kumar who
deposed that on 14.01.2016, he was posted as Incharge of Crime
Team, East District, Delhi. At about 6:30 PM, after receiving a call
from control room, he along with Ct. Ashok Kumar, HC Ashok
Photographer reached at Road no. 57, Kanti Nagar, over nala
where police of the PS Krishna Nagar was present there and they
found one dead body there. PW-16 deposed that after inspection
of scene of crime, HC Ashok clicked the photographs. PW-16
deposed that one pair of slippers were found near the dead body.
He prepared scene of crime report Ex.PW16/A which was handed
over to the IO of this case. AKASH Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
Date: 2026.02.10
JAIN 17:54:00 +0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 17 of 41
31. PW-17 is IO/ACP Sanjay Sharma who deposed that
on 14.01.2016, he was posted as SHO at PS Krishna Nagar and on
that day, SI Lalit, Incharge of the police post Old Seelam Pur came
to the police station along with the complainant Ghamandi Singh
at about 4:00 PM and produced a written complaint Ex.PW2/A
before him. After perusing the said written complaint, he marked
the said complaint to SI Lalit for further proceedings. SI Lalit
made his endorsement on the said written complaint and got the
case registered through duty officer. Thereafter, SI Lalit left the PS
with complainant. On the same day, at the evening time, PW17
received a phone call of SI Lalit who informed that a dead body
was found at Ganda nala near road no. 57, Kanti Nagar, Delhi.
Thereafter, he along with HC Pramod and HC Vinod reached at
the above said place where SI Lalit, Ct. Ram Kumar, Ct. Narender,
complainant Ghamandi and accused Gufran were present. SI Lalit
briefed him about the investigation conducted by him and also
handed over case file as well as the custody of accused Gufran to
him. He deposed that accused Gufran stated his age under 18 years
at that time and JWO /SI Amrit Lal was also present there.
32. PW-17 further deposed on the same lines as that of
PW3, PW4, PW6 and PW12 regarding recovery of dead body,
lifting of samples from the spot by crime team, seizure of case
properties, identification of dead body by its family members
through slippers and clothes, apprehension of accused, sending of
dead body to mortuary and recovery of knife from the drain
adjacent to Gali no. 18, Kanti Nagar on next day at the instance of
accused. Digitally signed
AKASH by AKASH JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2026.02.10
17:54:04 +0530FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 18 of 41
33. PW-17 deposed that thereafter, they returned to the
Police Station along with accused Gufran and deposited all the
seized articles in the malkhana. Accused Gufran was sent to JJB-
II, Delhi Gate with JWO /SI Amrit Lal and was sent to judicial
custody in the Observation Home. On 16.01.2016, PW-17 along
with SI Lalit went to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, Subzi Mandi for the
post mortem. He prepared inquest papers at the spot vide
Ex.PW17/A. PW-17 deposed that in the hospital, he recorded the
statements of Ghamandi Singh and Yogesh vide Ex.PW2/L and
Ex.PW1/B respectively on 15.01.2016 regarding identification of
the dead body but on that day, post mortem could not be
conducted. He further deposed that he made request to the doctor
to conduct post mortem vide Ex.PW17/B.
34. Postmortem of dead body Premvir was conducted
on his request and after postmortem, dead body was handed over
to father of the deceased vide memo Ex.PW1/C. He deposed that
doctor handed over two parcels in sealed condition with sample
seal which he seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/C and
Ex.PW12/D respectively and thereafter, deposited the same in the
malkhana. PW-17 further deposed that on 25.01.2016, Ghamandi
Singh was produced before the doctor at SDN Hospital for blood
sample through Ct. Satyaveer and after collection of blood sample,
Ct. Satyaveer handed over blood sample of Ghamandi Singh in
sealed condition with sample seal to him which he seized vide
seizure memo Ex.PW7/A and he also handed over MLC of
Ghamandi Singh to him. PW-17 sent the above said exhibits to
the FSL, Rohini, Delhi through a Constable. During investigation,
JJB-II, Delhi Gate declared the accused Gufran more than 18 years
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.02.10
17:54:08 +0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 19 of 41
and he was produced before the court, was interrogated and
arrested in the present case vide arrest memo Ex.PW12/F. PW-17
deposed that he recorded his disclosure statement vide
Ex.PW12/E. During investigation, he collected the photographs
Ex.PW11/A1 to Ex.PW11/A9 from Netra Pal and also collected
the postmortem report. He recorded the statements of witnesses
during investigation, got prepared the scaled site plan through
Inspector Mahesh Kumar, collected the FSL report Ex.PW17/C
and after completion of investigation, submitted the charge-sheet
against the accused Gufran. PW-17 correctly identified the
accused Gufran (through VC), case property i.e. T-shirt as Ex.P1,
pant as Ex.P2, knife as Ex.P3 and pair of slippers as Ex.P3 before
the court.
Expert witness
35. PW-15 is Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh, Specialist,
Forensic Medicines, LBS Hospital who deposed that on
16.01.2016 he had conducted the postmortem on the body of
deceased Premvir, son of Sh. Ghamandi Singh, 21 years male. He
deposed that postmortem staining could not be ascertained due to
advance decomposition and both eyes were missing, Skull and
face bones were exposed, neck structure was exposed and
maggots were seen crawling which were found to be soft with
signs of putrefaction. Margins were ill-defined and marbling and
partial saponification was seen at chest, limbs & trunk. Skin
slippage was seen at places and teeth and nails could be pulled
with ease. On external examination following injuries were
found:- Digitally signed
AKASH by AKASH JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2026.02.10
17:54:12 +0530FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 20 of 41
(i) Incised stab wound, 5 cm x 2.5 cm found present over left
side of chest 2 cm away from midline & 119 cm above heel,
cavity deep, margins sharp & regular, oblique & lower end
acute
(ii) Incised stab wound, 2.5 cm x 1.5cm, present over left side
of abdomen 1.5 cm away from midline & 119cm above heel
cavity deep, margins sharp & regular, oblique & lower end
acute;
(iii) Incised stab wound, 2 cm x 1.9 cm, present over right
side of abdomen 3 cm away from midline & 97 cm above
heel, cavity deep, margins sharp & regular, oblique & lower
end acute;
(iv) Incised stab wound, 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm, present over right
side abdomen 5 cm away from midline & 91 cm above
heel, cavity deep, marg sharp & regular, oblique & lower end
acute.
36. PW-15 deposed that the cause of death was shock
due to incised “stab” injuries to chest and abdomen and all injuries
were ante mortem in nature and same in duration. Injury no. 1, 2,
3 & 4 were individually and collectively sufficient to cause death
in ordinary course of nature and it was a homicidal death. PW15
deposed that the time since death was about 1 to 2 months prior to
postmortem examination and after the postmortem, clothes and
sternum bone was sealed and handed over to the IO along with
sample seal. PW15 prepared the detailed postmortem report vide
PM no. 72/16 as Ex.PW15/A.
Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
AKASH Date:
JAIN 2026.02.10
17:54:16
+0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 21 of 41
Other witness(s)
37. PW-11 is Netra Pal who deposed that on 15.01.2016
on the call of the IO, he along with a constable reached at Ganda
Nala, Gali No. 8 where knife was lying in a mud and at the
instructions of IO, he took some photographs of the knife from
different angles with a digital camera and handed over the
photographs to the IO. He proved said photographs as Ex. PW
11/A1 to A9.
38. All the prosecution witnesses were duly cross-
examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
Statement of Accused
39. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, accused
was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and incriminating
evidence appeared against him during trial was put to him.
Accused denied the entire incriminating evidence put to him and
stated that he did not know deceased or his family members. He
stated that he was wrongly apprehended by the police without any
reason from his house and neither any dead body nor any knife
was recovered at his instance. He further stated that he was kept
whole night at police post, Kanti Nagar and thereafter, produced
before JJB-II. Accused failed to lead any defence evidence. As
such, the matter proceeded for final arguments.
Final Arguments
40. Final arguments were heard on behalf of Ld. APP
for State and the accused. It is primarily argued by Ld. Addl. PP
for State that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence
AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH
JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.02.10 17:54:20
+0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 22 of 41
and the prosecution has successfully established the chain of
circumstances which is consistent with the guilt of accused and
wholly inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence. It is
argued that prosecution has successfully established from the
testimonies of PW-1 Sh. Yogesh and PW-2 Sh. Ghamandi Singh
that deceased Premvir was last seen with accused Gufran, who
took him from his home on 24.11.2015 at about 02:00 PM. It has
also been categorically deposed by both PW-1 and PW-2 that
deceased did not return home since accused Gufran took him away
and thereafter, on 30.11.2015, 05.01.2016 and 06.01.2016,
accused Gufran met them, gave evasive information regarding
whereabouts of the deceased and deliberately misguided them. It
is argued that the dead body of deceased Premvir was recovered at
the instance of accused on 14.01.2016. Moreover, weapon of
offence i.e. knife was also recovered near the drain at Gali No. 8,
West Kanti Nagar at the instance of accused. It is argued that while
the dead body was recovered in highly decomposed position, same
was duly identified by PW-1 and PW-2 through slippers and
clothes worn by the deceased. It is argued that incriminating
recovery of dead body of deceased after about 1 ½ months as well
as weapon of offence i.e. knife at the instance of accused coupled
with last seen evidence given by family members of deceased
clearly establish the entire chain of circumstances consistent with
the guilt of accused.
41. Per contra, it argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that
the case of prosecution suffers from material lapses and glaring
contradictions in the statements of witnesses. It is argued that there
is no eye-witness to the alleged incident in question and entire case
AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH
JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.02.10 17:54:25
+0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 23 of 41
of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. It is argued that
the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to draw the
inference qua guilt of accused have not been fully established
and the entire story of prosecution is based on disclosure statement
of accused which is not admissible in the eyes of law. It is argued
that the missing report of deceased Premvir was admittedly lodged
by his family members after more than 1 ½ months since he went
missing which fact remains unexplained during the entire trial. It
is argued that in cases of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an
important link to complete the chain of circumstances. However,
in the present case no motive could be attributed to the accused by
prosecution to commit murder of deceased Premvir. It is argued
that last seen theory propounded on behalf of prosecution is a very
weak piece of evidence as no independent public witness was
examined to support the version of family members of deceased
regarding accused being last seen with the deceased. For the sake
of arguments, even if it is assumed that accused had taken
deceased along with him on 24.11.2015 as alleged, close proximity
between the last seen evidence and death of deceased could not be
clearly established by the prosecution.
42. It is argued that the prosecution failed to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that the dead body recovered in the
present case actually belong to deceased Premvir. In terms of FSL
report Ex. PW 7/C, it was reported that DNA profile could not be
generated from the skeletal remains and clothes of deceased. It is
argued that the deceased was merely identified by the brother and
father on the basis of slippers, which is a very scant and superficial
evidence and could not be considered as conclusive for the
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.02.10
17:54:29 +0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 24 of 41
purposes of identification of dead body of deceased. It is argued
that no public witness was otherwise joined during entire recovery
proceedings of dead body as well as weapon of offence raising
questions qua their sanctity. Moreover, no DNA profile could be
generated from the knife reportedly recovered at the instance of
accused. Also, no subsequent opinion was taken by the IO from
the FSL in order to ascertain whether nature of injuries caused to
the deceased were infact caused by the said knife. It is finally
argued that neither the oral testimonies of witnesses nor the
scientific evidence adduced on record is sufficient to prove the
circumstances and to complete the chain so as to return a finding
of guilt against the accused.
Analysis and Findings
43. At the outset, there is no direct evidence to prove
that accused committed murder of deceased Premvir on
24.11.2015 or any subsequent date and entire case of prosecution
is based upon circumstantial evidence. In Hanumant v. The State
of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343, Hon’ble Supreme Court
cautioned that while dealing with circumstantial evidence the rules
especially applicable to such evidence must be borne in mind. In
such cases there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion
may take the place of legal proof.
44. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the celebrated judgment
of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4
SCC 116 has elaborately considered the standard necessary for
recording a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence as
under:- AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.02.10
17:54:34 +0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 25 of 41
“… 153. A close analysis of this decision would show that
the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case
against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’
established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal
distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should
be proved’ as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao
Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra(‘) where the
following observations were made:
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be
and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and
the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long
and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say. they
should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except
that the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved, and
(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
human probability the act must have been done by the
accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so,
constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on
circumstantial evidence….”
45. It would be expedient here to also refer to the
observations of their lordship in the case of G. Parshwanath v.
State Of Karnataka, (2010) 8 SCC 593, where it was reiterated
that where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
should in the first instance, be fully established. Each fact sought
to be relied upon must be proved individually. However, in
applying this principle a distinction must be made between facts
called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.02.10
17:54:39 +0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 26 of 41
be drawn from them on the other. In regard to proof of primary
facts, the court has to judge the evidence and decide whether that
evidence proves a particular fact and if that fact is proved the
question whether that fact leads to an inference of guilt of the
accused person should be considered. In dealing with this aspect
of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies. It was
observed that:
“…. Although there should not be any missing links in the
cases, yet it is not essential that each of the links must
appear on the surface of the evidence adduced and some
of these links may have to be inferred from the proved facts.
In drawing these inferences, the court must have regard to
the common course of natural events and to human conduct
and their relations to the facts of the particular case. The
court thereafter has to consider the effect of proved facts.
24. In deciding the sufficiency of the circumstantial
evidence for the purpose of conviction, the court has to
consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts,
each one of which reinforces the conclusions of guilty and
if the combined effect of all these facts taken together is
conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the
conviction would be justified even though it may be that
one or more of these facts by itself or themselves is/ are not
decisive. The facts established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should
exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be
proved. But this does not mean that before the prosecution
can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence
alone. It must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested
by the accused. However, extravagant and fanciful it
might be. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show
that in all human probability the act must have been done
by the accused where various links in chain are in
themselves complete, then the false plea or false defence
may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the
court….”
46. Thus, in a nutshell, in a case of circumstantial
evidence, the judgment remains essentially inferential. Inferences
Digitally signed
AKASH by AKASH JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2026.02.10
17:54:43 +0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 27 of 41
are drawn from established facts, as the circumstances lead to
particular inferences. The Court must draw an inference with
respect to whether the chain of circumstances is complete, and
when the circumstances therein are collectively considered, the
same must lead only to the irresistible conclusion, that the accused
alone is the perpetrator of the crime in question. All the
circumstances so established must be of a conclusive nature and
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. In
this backdrop, I shall now discuss the incriminating circumstances
relied upon by the prosecution against the accused to bring home
his guilt:-
47. Last Seen Evidence:-
47.1 It is the case of prosecution that both PW-1 Yogesh
(brother of deceased) and PW-2 Ghamandi Singh (father of
deceased) have categorically deposed in their respective
testimonies that on 24.11.2015 at about 02:00 PM, accused Gufran
came to their house and asked for deceased Premvir. While,
deceased Premvir initially refused to come with him, on repeated
requests made by the accused, he agreed to go with him. It was
deposed by both PW-1 and PW-2 that deceased Premvir did not
return home on the said date and both of them met accused Gufran
on 30.11.2015 and inquired from him regarding whereabouts of
Premvir too which he gave evasive replies. He stated that Premvir
might be roaming near drain or at Hanuman Mandir, Yamuna
Bazar. Both PW-1 and PW-2 made efforts to search Premvir at the
said place, but in vain. Both the witnesses repeatedly met accused
Gufran on other occasions as well but he kept misguiding them.
On 05.01.2016 accused Gufran allegedly informed PW-1 and
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.02.10
17:54:48 +0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 28 of 41
PW-2 that deceased Premvir could be found at Hanuman Mandir,
Yamuna Bazar and asked for his clothes as he was reportedly in
dirty condition. PW-2 provided clothes of Premvir to accused
Gufran but did not accompany him to Hanuman Mandir. On
06.01.2016, accused Gufran again came to the house of deceased
Premvir and returned his clothes while stating that Premvir was
not traceable.
47.2 It is the case of prosecution that on 14.01.2016 when
PW-1 Yogesh and PW-2 Ghamandi Singh went to Police Station
Krishna Nagar to lodge written complaint regarding missing of
deceased Premvir, his dead body was recovered later in the day at
the instance of accused Gufran. Thus, it is prayed that deceased
was lastly seen alive in the company of accused and his dead body
was recovered after more than 1 ½ months at the instance of
accused itself, as such, adverse inference should be drawn against
the accused qua commission of alleged offences by him.
47.3 It is relevant to note that no independent public
witness was examined by the prosecution who could corroborate
the testimonies of family members of deceased having lastly seen
deceased in the company of accused on 24.11.2015 or thereafter.
For the sake of arguments, even if it is assumed that accused took
deceased along with him on 24.11.2015, it could not be said with
certainty that deceased died soon after he lastly remained alive in
the company of accused. The dead body of deceased was
discovered on 14.01.2016 i.e. after more than 50 days of deceased
went missing. It is worthwhile to mention that according to
testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 accused Gufran took away
AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH
JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.02.10 17:54:52
+0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 29 of 41
deceased Premvir with him on 24.11.2015 while assuring to return
in 1-2 hours, however, no effort was made by PW-1 and PW-2 or
any other family member to search deceased when he admittedly
did not return home on 24.11.2015. No suitable justification could
further be afforded on behalf of prosecution as to why family
members of deceased did not lodge any complaint before police
on 24.11.2015 or day after when deceased Premvir did not return
home. It also remains unexplained as to why the family members
of deceased did not visit the house of accused Gufran and inquired
from him about his whereabouts.
47.4 It was alleged that on 30.11.2015, accused Gufran
met the family members of deceased and gave evasive replies
about the whereabouts of deceased. It is inconceivable and highly
implausible that family members of deceased kept mum for 6 days
and did not file any complaint to the police when deceased Premvir
had not returned home for days together. As per the version of
PW-1 Yogesh and PW-2 Ghamandi Singh accused Gufran had
been misguiding them for more than a month and on 05.01.2016,
he suddenly came to their house and informed them that
deceased Premvir was present at Hanuman Mandir, Yamuna Bazar
and asked for his fresh clothes, yet the family members of
deceased did not care to accompany accused Gufran to meet
Premvir. It defies logic that when accused again came to the house
of complainant on 06.01.2016 and returned the clothes of Premvir
by saying that deceased Premvir was not traceable, the family
members of deceased did not raise any alarm and waited for
another 8 days to lodge a complaint to the police.
AKASH Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.02.10
17:54:56 +0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 30 of 41
47.5 The testimonies of both PW-1 Yogesh and PW-2
Ghamandi Singh regarding last seen theory against accused thus,
appears to be a very weak evidence and does not inspire
confidence. It is difficult to appreciate the behavior and conduct of
family members of deceased who waited for more than 1 ½ months
to lodge complaint of missing of deceased Premvir. It is further
well settled that if there is considerable time gap between the
persons seen together and the proximate time of crime, the
circumstances of last seen together, even if proved, cannot
clinchingly fasten the guilt of the accused. Reliance may be placed
upon the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran, (2007) 3 SCC
755.
47.6 The legal position qua last seen evidence in context
of present case was explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of U. P. v. Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114, as under:
“…. The last seen theory comes into play where the time-
gap between the point of time when the accused and the
deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is
found dead is so small that possibility of any person other
than the accused being the author of the crime becomes
impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively
establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused
when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons
coming in between exists. In the absence of any other
positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the
deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to
come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases….”
47.7 In State of Karnataka v. Chand Basha, (2015) 3 ACR
3439, the Supreme Court explained:
“…. This Court has time and again laid down the ingredients
to be made out by the prosecution to prove the „last seen
together theory. The Court for the purpose of arriving at a
finding as to whether the said offence has been committed
Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN
AKASH JAIN Date: 2026.02.10 17:55:01
+0530FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 31 of 41
or not, may take into consideration the circumstantial
evidence. However, while doing so, it must be borne in mind
that close proximity between the last seen evidence and
death should be clearly established….”
47.8 In the present case, no independent public witness
corroborated the version of family members of deceased having
lastly seen accused with deceased. Moreover, there is inconclusive
scientific evidence regarding exact time of death of deceased.
Considering the ratio of judgments discussed above, suspicious
behavior and conduct of family members of deceased in not
lodging the complaint of missing of deceased for more than 50
days and huge time gap between discovery of dead body and time
when deceased alleged to have lastly remained in the company of
accused, it is held that the prosecution has failed to establish the
circumstances of last seen against the accused.
48. Identity of dead body:-
48.1 It is vehemently argued on behalf of accused that
prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
dead body allegedly recovered at the instance of accused actually
belongs to deceased Premvir. While prosecution heavily relied
upon the testimonies of PW-1 Yogesh and PW-2 Ghamandi Singh
i.e. family members of deceased who identified the dead body of
deceased on the basis of slippers and clothes worn by the body, the
same appears to be scant and inconclusive evidence. It is admitted
position of facts as also deposed by PW-15 Dr. Vinay Kumar
Singh, Specialist, Forensic Medicines, LBS Hospital that the dead
body recovered in this case was highly decomposed where both
eyes were missing, skull and face bones were exposed. Moreover,
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAINJAIN Date: 2026.02.10
17:55:05 +0530FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 32 of 41
as per Biology report of FSL Ex. PW 7/C, DNA profile could not
be generated from the sternum bone of deceased as well as clothes
being worn by the body. Thus, no conclusive scientific evidence
could be brought on record to show that dead body recovered by
the police was of Premvir.
48.2 There are glaring inconsistencies and contradictions
in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. On one hand PW-2
Ghamandi Singh (father) stated in his examination-in-chief that
after lodging complaint at Police Station on 14.01.2016, police
initially came at their house and consequently went to the house of
accused Gufran and from there accused led them to the spot and
got the dead body of deceased recovered, on the other hand PW-1
Yogesh (brother) mentioned in his cross-examination that after
lodging the report in Police Station, he and PW-2 straight away
reached at the spot where dead body was lying.
48.3 While, PW-3 HC Pramod Kumar and PW-4 HC
Vinod Kumar claimed that complainant/ PW-2 was already present
at the spot when they reached along with IO Inspector Sanjay
Sharma, PW-5 ASI Ram Kumar and PW-6 SI Amrit Lal stated that
PW-1 and PW-2 reached at the spot at later stage i.e. after arrival
of PW-3, PW-4 and IO/ PW-17. Thus, there appears to be serious
contradiction as to the time of arrival of PW-2 at the spot of alleged
recovery of dead body from the drain. While, PW-3 stated that the
dead body of deceased was recovered at the instance of accused in
presence of complainant/ PW-2, PW-2 stated during his cross-
examination that when he arrived at the spot, dead body of
deceased was already shifted to police gypsy. The slippers
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.02.10
17:55:12 +0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 33 of 41
(chappal) were also kept inside the police vehicle. The entire
recovery proceedings were not carried out by the IO in presence
of any independent public witnesses casting serious doubts on its
legitimacy.
48.4 During cross-examination of PW-2, he categorically
stated that he gave the complaint of missing of his son to the Police
Station in the evening at about 06:00 PM and after receiving the
complaint, in no time police directly took him to the place where
dead body of his son was lying. It is highly improbable that
deceased Premvir who was earlier missing for more than 1 ½
months was found dead by the police immediately after lodging
complaint by family members of the deceased in the Police
Station. This leads to an irresistible conclusion that dead body of
deceased was already found by the police and entire recovery
proceedings allegedly taken place at the instance of accused were
sham.
48.5 In the back drop of the aforesaid discussion, it
would be very risky to come to the conclusion that the dead body
recovered in the present case actually belongs to deceased Premvir
who had been identified by PW-1and PW-2 solely on the basis of
slippers and clothes.
48.6 It is well settled in the case of Sri. Sujit Biswas v.
State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 3817 that suspicion, however grave
it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large
difference between something that `may be’ proved, and
something that ‘will be proved’. It was further observed by their
lordships that: AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.02.10
17:55:16 +0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 34 of 41
“…. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong,
cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This
is for the reason that the mental distance between `may be’
and `must be’ is quite large, and divides vague conjectures
from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a
duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take
the place of legal proof. The large distance between `may be’
true and `must be’ true, must be covered by way of clear,
cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the
prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict,
and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases,
while keeping in mind the distance between `may be’ true
and `must be’ true, the court must maintain the vital distance
between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived
at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny,
based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of
all features of the case, as well as the quality and
credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must
ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts
and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of
doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a
reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely
probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason
and common sense. (Vide: Hanumant Govind Nargundkar &
Anr. v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343; State through CBI
v. Mahender Singh Dahiya, AIR 2011 SC 1017; and Ramesh
Harijan v. State of U.P., AIR 2012 SC 1979)…..”
48.7 In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973
SC 2773, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was pleased to hold as
under:
“…. Another golden thread which runs through the web of
the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two
views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one
pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his
innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused
should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in
cases where in the guilt of the accused is sought to be
established by circumstantial evidence….”
48.8 It is true that in the case based on circumstantial
evidence, if the entire chain is duly proved by cogent evidence, the
conviction could be recorded even if the corpus is not found, but
when as per the case of prosecution, the dead body of the victim
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.02.10
17:55:20 +0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 35 of 41
was discovered from the place allegedly shown by the accused, it
is imperative on the part of prosecution to prove that the dead body
or the skeleton found at the instance of accused was that of the
victim and of no one else. In the present case, in the absence of
conclusive scientific evidence in the form of DNA report, absence
of independent public witnesses during recovery proceedings,
glaring contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses
and absence of any other cogent material on record, it could not be
established beyond reasonable doubt that the dead body recovered
in the present case actually belongs to deceased Premvir.
49. Motive:-
49.1 Since the case is based on circumstantial evidence, it
was incumbent upon prosecution to establish that accused had a
strong motive to commit murder of Premvir. However, nothing
cogent could be brought on record on behalf of prosecution to
prove motive of accused for committing the alleged offence of
murder except disclosure statement of accused himself which is
clearly not admissible in the eyes of law.
49.2 In the case of Nandu Singh v. State of MP , Crl. Appl.
No. 285/2022, it was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that
though in the cases of direct evidence, motive would not be
relevant, in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an
important link to complete the chain of circumstances. While it
could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution
that victim was lastly seen alive in the company of accused Gufran,
for the sake of arguments, even it is assumed that victim had
accompanied accused on 24.11.2015, nothing substantial could
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.02.10
17:55:25 +0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 36 of 41
be brought on record to show that accused had any strong motive
to commit murder of deceased Premvir.
50. Recovery of weapon of offence:-
50.1 One final incriminating circumstance against the
accused, as relied upon by the prosecution was the fact that the
weapon of offence i.e. knife with which alleged injuries were
caused to the deceased consequent to which he died, was
recovered at the instance of accused on 15.01.2016 from Gali no.
8, near nala situated at West Kanti Nagar. It is though relevant to
note that no public witness was joined by the IO during alleged
recovery proceedings of weapon of offence despite the same being
such a crucial piece of evidence. In the case of Anoop Joshi v.
State, 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon’ble Delhi High Court
was pleased to observe as under:-
“…. It is repeatedly laid down by this court that in such
cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts
have been made to join independent witnesses. In the
present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts
have been made, particularly when we find that shops
were open and one or two shop−keepers could have been
persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the
recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of
the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party,
the police could have later on taken legal action against
such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped
the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal
duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen,
which is an offence under the IPC….”
50.2 Further, in the case of Roop Chand v. The State of
Haryana, 1999 (1) C.L.R. 69, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High
Court held that:-
“…. It is well settled principle of the law that the
Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses
at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are
AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH
JAINJAIN Date: 2026.02.10 17:55:30
+0530FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 37 of 41
available and their failure to do so in such a situation
casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the
present case also admittedly the independent witnesses
were available at the time of recovery but they refused to
associate themselves in the investigation. This
explanation does not inspire confidence because the
police officials who are the only witnesses examined in
the case have not given the names and addresses of the
persons contacted to join. It is a very common excuse
that the witnesses from the public refused to join the
investigation. A police officer conducting investigation
of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the
investigation and on refusal by a person from the public
the Investigating Officer can take action against such a
person under the law. Had it been the fact that the
witnesses from the public had refused to join the
investigation, the Investigating Officer must have
proceeded against them under the relevant provisions
of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is
suggestive of the fact that the explanation for
non−joining the witnesses from the public is an after
thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts
taken together make prosecution case highly
doubtful….”
50.3 In terms of testimony of IO and other police
witnesses, in the morning of 15.01.2016 accused led a police party
to Gali No. 8, West Kanti Nagar by the side of Nala in search of
knife. A sweeper namely, Rakesh was called who removed garbage
from the place pointed at by the accused. Upon clearance of the
garbage, a kitchen knife wrapped with soil was recovered. Sketch
of the knife was got prepared by IO vide Ex. PW 2/D and knife
was consequently seized vide memo Ex. PW 2/E. Perusal of the
seizure memo though reflects that when the knife was allegedly
recovered by the police party, the same was cleaned by the IO with
a piece of cloth before being seized. The IO thus, acted in a highly
irresponsible and casual manner by not taking due care while
carrying out recovery and seizure proceedings. By cleaning the
knife with a cloth before seizure, the IO had recklessly caused
AKASH
Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.02.10
17:55:35 +0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 38 of 41
disappearance of blood stains, if any from the knife which could
have been detected during examination by the experts in FSL and
thereby jeopardized the fate of the case.
50.4 Pursuant to FSL report Ex.PW7/C, no DNA profile
could be generated from aforesaid knife seized during
investigation. This leads to an inevitable conclusion that the
serious indiscretion by the IO in cleaning the knife before seizure
had delivered fatal blow to the case of prosecution. Even
otherwise, the IO had failed to obtain any subsequent opinion from
the experts as to whether nature of injuries received by the
deceased were caused by the same knife as recovered during
investigation. This failure on the part of the IO has also dented the
case of prosecution in order to establish that the alleged offence in
question was committed by the knife allegedly recovered at the
instance of accused.
50.5 Considering the omissions and lapses on the part of
IO in not joining the public witnesses during recovery
proceedings, cleaning of knife with a piece of cloth before seizure,
absence of conclusive DNA report and failure to obtain subsequent
opinion to ascertain whether nature of injuries received by the
deceased could be caused by the knife in question, leads to an
irresistible conclusion that the recovery of alleged knife at the
instance of accused is of no consequence.
Decision
51. It is a settled principle of criminal law jurisprudence
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.02.10
17:55:40 +0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 39 of 41
that more serious the offence, stricter the degree of proof, since a
higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused.
Though it is neither possible nor prudent to have a straight- jacket
formula or principle which would apply to all cases without
variance and every case has to be appreciated on its own facts and
in light of the evidence led by the parties. It is for the Court to
examine the cumulative effect of the evidence in order to
determine whether the prosecution has been able to establish its
case beyond reasonable doubt or that the accused is entitled to the
benefit of doubt.
52. In view of totality of facts, material on record and
observations as above, it is held that circumstantial evidence relied
upon by the prosecution is incoherent and insufficient in form,
continuity and content and falls short of the legally prescribed
standards to return a finding of guilt on the basis thereof. There
were material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution
witnesses and inconclusive scientific evidence regarding identity
of deceased as well as exact time of death of deceased. There were
several missing links in the chain of evidence especially last seen
theory propounded by the prosecution and unexplained delay of
more than 50 days in lodging of missing complaint of deceased by
his family members. There was huge time gap between discovery
of dead body and time when deceased alleged to have lastly
remained in the company of accused. No possible motive for
commission of alleged offence could be attributed to the accused
by the prosecution. Moreover, IO committed serious blunders
while carrying out recovery and seizure proceedings of case
properties affording benefit of doubt to the accused.
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.02.10
17:55:45 +0530
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 40 of 41
53. The circumstances brought forth by the prosecution
thus, could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt and evidence
adduced in the case is not consistent with the hypothesis of the
guilt of accused. Accused Mohd. Gufran @ Alian S/o Mohd.
Jahid is accordingly acquitted of the offence under Section 302
IPC as alleged against him.
Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
AKASH Date:
JAIN 2026.02.10
17:55:50
+0530
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN (AKASH JAIN)
COURT ON 10.02.2026 ASJ-04, EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHI
This judgment contains 41 pages and each paper is
signed by me.
Digitally
signed by
AKASH AKASH JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2026.02.10
17:55:57
+0530
(AKASH JAIN)
ASJ-04, EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHI
FIR No:- 32/16 State v. Mohd. Gufran @ Alian Page No. 41 of 41
