Delhi District Court
State vs Azad Singh on 9 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR GAUTAM,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC-02), SOUTH-EAST
SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLSE01-000910-2015
Session Case No.1901/2016
FIR No.670/2015
Police Station: Govindpuri
State
Versus
Azad Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Devi Ram,
R/o H.No. 1352/H, Gali No. 13,
Govindpuri Extension, New Delhi.
Date of Institution : 08.09.2015
Judgment reserved on : 01.07.2026
Date of Decision : 09.07.2026
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the case
1. The prosecution case, as unfolded from the charge-sheet
and evidence brought on record, is that deceased Neetu was
employed as a domestic help and caretaker of children in the house
of accused Azad Singh and his wife Sapna. The deceased had been
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 1 of 52
residing in the same premises along with the family of accused for
the last several months prior to the occurrence. Accused Azad Singh,
his wife Sapna, their children and deceased Neetu were residing in a
rented accommodation situated at House No.1466-D, Third Floor,
Gali No.13, Govind Puri, New Delhi. It is the case of the prosecution
that accused Azad Singh used to harbour suspicion regarding the
character of his wife Sapna and on account of such suspicion,
frequent quarrels used to take place between them. Deceased Neetu,
who was residing in the same premises and working as a maid
servant, often intervened in the matrimonial disputes and supported
Sapna. The conduct of deceased Neetu was not liked by the accused
and, according to the prosecution, the accused had developed
animosity and resentment against her.
2. The prosecution further alleges that on 18.05.2015,
accused purchased a sharp-edged weapon, namely a dab/farsa, from
the shop of PW-1 Khajano Devi situated in the vicinity of his
residence. It is alleged that accused had purchased the said weapon
with the intention of committing the offence. Thereafter, during the
intervening night of 18.05.2015 and 19.05.2015, accused remained
present in the aforesaid rented accommodation where deceased
Neetu was also residing.
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 2 of 52
3. According to the prosecution, during the early morning
hours of 19.05.2015, while deceased Neetu was sleeping inside the
house, accused Azad Singh assaulted her with the aforesaid sharp-
edged weapon and inflicted repeated blows on her neck and other
vital parts of the body. The injuries inflicted by the accused were of
such a nature that the deceased succumbed to the same at the spot
itself. After causing the death of deceased Neetu, accused allegedly
left the dead body inside the rented premises and made preparations
to leave Delhi.
4. The prosecution alleges that after commission of the
offence, accused threatened his wife Sapna and took her along with
their minor children from Delhi. Thereafter, accused, Sapna and the
children boarded a Haryana Roadways bus and proceeded towards
Haryana. During the journey, Sapna managed to communicate the
incident to a fellow passenger and also to the bus staff. She disclosed
that her husband had committed the murder of a woman and
expressed apprehension for her own safety and the safety of her
children.
5. Upon receipt of the said information from the bus staff
and passengers, the matter was conveyed to the police authorities at
Panipat, Haryana. Acting upon the information so received, officials
of CIA Staff, Panipat intercepted the bus and apprehended accused
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 3 of 52
Azad Singh along with his wife and children. During inquiry
conducted by the Panipat Police, accused allegedly disclosed his
involvement in the murder of a woman at Govind Puri, Delhi.
6. The information regarding apprehension of accused and
his disclosure was immediately conveyed to Police Station Govind
Puri, New Delhi. On receipt of the said information, DD No.9A was
recorded and SI Jitender Kumar along with police staff proceeded to
Panipat. The investigating team met accused Azad Singh,
complainant Sapna and other concerned persons and after
conducting preliminary inquiry, brought accused to Delhi for further
investigation.
7. Upon reaching Delhi, accused led the investigating team
to the rented accommodation bearing House No.1466-D, Third
Floor, Gali No.13, Govind Puri. The premises were opened and the
dead body of a female was found lying inside the room. The body
was subsequently identified as that of Neetu. Blood was found
scattered at various places inside the room and several blood-stained
articles were noticed by the investigating team.
8. The local police was informed and Crime Team was
summoned to the spot. The Crime Team inspected the place of
occurrence and photographs of the scene were taken from different
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 4 of 52
angles. Blood-stained earth, earth control, blood-stained bedding and
other articles found at the spot were seized and taken into possession
in accordance with law. The scene of crime was examined in detail
and relevant exhibits were lifted for forensic examination.
9. The dead body was sent to AIIMS Mortuary for
preservation and post-mortem examination. The relatives of
deceased were informed and the dead body was identified by the
concerned witnesses. Thereafter, post-mortem examination was
conducted by PW-7 Dr. Mahesh Kumar. During autopsy, multiple
incised wounds and chop wounds were found over the neck region
of the deceased. The doctor opined that the death had occurred due
to haemorrhagic shock consequent upon ante-mortem sharp force
injuries over the neck and that the injuries were sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death.
10. During investigation, accused was formally arrested in
the present case. His disclosure statement was recorded. Pursuant to
the disclosure statement, accused allegedly got recovered the
weapon of offence i.e. dab/farsa, which was seized by the
investigating officer. The weapon was subsequently sent for medical
opinion and forensic examination. The autopsy surgeon later opined
that the injuries found on the body of deceased were possible by the
recovered weapon.
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 5 of 52
11. The investigating officer also collected documentary
evidence including rent agreement of the premises, bus tickets used
by accused and his family while leaving Delhi, mobile phone
records, call detail records and other relevant material. Statements of
witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case were recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation, scientific
evidence was also collected and the exhibits were sent to FSL for
examination.
12. Upon completion of investigation and finding sufficient
material indicating the involvement of accused Azad Singh in the
commission of offence, charge-sheet for the offence punishable
under Section 302 IPC was filed before the Court. Subsequently,
supplementary charge-sheet was also filed placing on record further
investigation and additional material collected during the course of
investigation.
13. On the date of taking cognizance, the accused was also
produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Copies of police report
and other documents were supplied to the accused. On 31.08.2015,
the Metropolitan Magistrate found the offence under section 302 IPC
to be exclusively triable by the Court of Session and therefore,
committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 6 of 52
Charge
14. On 03.05.2016, upon considering the police report and
the documents sent with it under section 173 Cr.P.C. and after
hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused
, the charge for offences punishable u/s 302 IPC was framed against
accused Azad Singh for having allegedly committed the murder of
Neetu on 19.05.2015 at house no. 1466-D, Top Floor, Gali No. 13,
Govindpuri, New Delhi by inflicting injury on her neck with a sharp-
edged weapon, to which accused Azad Singh pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial. Today i.e. 09.07.2026, charge for the offence
punishable U/s 174-A IPC is also framed to which the accused
pleaded not guilty. The witnesses for proving the aforesaid charge
have already been examined along with the remaining prosecution
witnesses.
Prosecution Evidence
15. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution
had examined thirty (30) witnesses.
16. PW-1 Smt. Khajano deposed that she used to sell
kulhadi, gainti, fawda, daab (farsa), hammer etc. on the pavement
near Tara Apartment, TKD Extension, New Delhi. She identified
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 7 of 52
accused Azad Singh in Court and deposed that accused had
purchased one daab/farsa from her for Rs.500/-. Subsequently, on
being recalled, the witness correctly identified the weapon of offence
produced in Court, which was exhibited as Ex.P-1, and affirmed that
it was the same daab/farsa purchased by the accused from her.
17. PW-1 in her cross-examination stated that she had been
running her shop for about 20-25 years near Tara Apartment. She
deposed that the accused had visited her shop around 7:00 AM to
purchase the farsa, though she could not tell the exact date. She
denied the suggestion that the accused had not purchased the farsa
from her shop. She further denied that she was falsely deposing at
the instance of the Investigating Officer or the complainant and
denied all defence suggestions.
18. PW-2 Ms. Sapna, wife of accused Azad Singh, deposed
that deceased Neetu was employed as a domestic maid at her house
for about 3-4 months prior to the incident. She stated that deceased
used to reside in their house, was provided food and other
necessities, but was not paid salary. She further deposed that the
accused had financial difficulties, used to consume liquor, quarrel
with and assault her, and also threatened the deceased whenever she
intervened.
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 8 of 52
19. PW-2 further deposed that on 19.05.2015 at about 4:30
AM, she woke up and saw accused Azad Singh holding a daab/farsa
in his hand while deceased Neetu was lying in the kitchen in a pool
of blood. She cried and questioned the accused, who threatened to
kill her as well if she raised alarm. She stated that accused packed
certain articles in a bag, forcibly took her along with their children,
travelled by bus, and was ultimately apprehended by the police at
Panipat. She returned to Delhi with the police and narrated the entire
incident. Later, on being recalled, she identified the weapon of
offence (Ex. P-1) as the same farsa used by the accused.
20. PW-2 was extensively cross-examined on several dates
and she admitted that the deceased had come to her through a chance
meeting near a temple and had been employed as a maid with the
consent of the accused. She denied the defence suggestion that she,
along with one Bhupender Singh Meena, had conspired to murder
the deceased and falsely implicate the accused. She also denied that
she had purchased the farsa or that the weapon already existed in the
house. She denied that her statements before police and Court were
false or motivated and denied all material defence suggestions.
21. PW-3 Sh. Deepak Kumar (Sub Inspector, ISBT,
Kashmiri Gate) deposed that on 21.05.2015, he was posted as Sub
Inspector at ISBT, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. He deposed that the police
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 9 of 52
had shown him certain Haryana Roadways bus tickets for
verification. After checking the computerized record, he informed
the police that the tickets pertained to Sonipat Depot. However,
during his deposition, he failed to identify the tickets and did not
fully support the prosecution case. On being cross-examined by the
learned Addl. PP, he admitted that police had made enquiries from
him regarding the bus tickets but denied having supplied further
particulars regarding the bus, its driver or his mobile number. The
witness was shown Mark PW-3/A (Colly.), but he failed to identify
the same. Subsequently, despite opportunity, he was not cross-
examined by the defence.
22. PW-4 Ms. Hardevi deposed that she was the owner of
property No. 1466D, Second Floor, Left Side, Gali No. 13,
Govindpuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi. She had let out the said premises to
accused Azad Singh, who disclosed his name as “Ajay”, for a period
of 11 months from 15.10.2014 to 14.09.2015 at a monthly rent of
Rs.5,000/-. She handed over a photocopy of the rent agreement to
the police, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/A, and the
photocopy of the rent agreement was exhibited as Ex. PW4/B. She
also produced the original rent agreement (OSR) before the Court.
During her recalled examination, she stated that she came to know
about the death of the deceased on the evening of 19.05.2015. She
further deposed that the deceased was residing on the third floor
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 10 of 52
along with accused and Sapna, while she herself was residing on the
ground floor.
23. In the cross examination, PW-4 stated that she was
present at her house on the morning of 19.05.2015 and had been
sleeping till about 8:30 a.m. She admitted that the locality was
thickly populated and denied the suggestion that the police had
locked the house and retained the keys. She stated that she had two
keys and one remained with her. She denied the defence suggestions.
24. PW-5 Sh. Satbir Singh deposed that during April-May,
2015 he was working as a driver with Haryana Roadways and was
driving bus No. HR-69B-8964 from Delhi to Chandigarh. Near
Gannaur Bus Stand, the conductor informed him that a lady
passenger was seeking police help. He called at 100 number and
when the bus reached Panipat Toll Tax Booth, the police had already
arrived. The bus was stopped, the lady passenger got down and
narrated the incident to the police. As the witness was not disclosing
complete facts, he was cross-examined by the Ld. APP. He admitted
that his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was correctly recorded
and exhibited as Ex. PW5/A. He also admitted that on 19.05.2015
the conductor had informed him that the lady passenger had
disclosed that a murder had been committed.
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 11 of 52
25. In his cross-examination by the defence, PW-5 stated
that he did not remember the exact date when his statement was
recorded by the police. He further stated that he had not made any
independent enquiry from the lady passenger or any other passenger
of the bus and that his statement had been recorded by the police in
their own handwriting.
26. PW-6 Sh. Bhoop Singh, father of Sapna, deposed that
on 26.05.2015 he identified the dead body of deceased Neetu at
AIIMS Trauma Centre Mortuary and thereafter received the dead
body after postmortem. He proved the dead body identification
memo Ex. PW6/A and dead body handing over memo Ex. PW6/B.
His cross-examination was deferred on that day.
27. During cross-examination, PW-6 stated that the
marriage of his daughter Sapna with accused Azad Singh had taken
place on 02.05.2015 and that Sapna was working with an NGO. He
denied the defence suggestions that Sapna had any relationship with
Bhupender Singh Meena or that she, in connivance with him, had
falsely implicated the accused. He further stated that he came to
know about the death of the deceased through the police on
19.05.2015. He admitted that after registration of the present case,
his daughter obtained a decree of divorce from the accused and was
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 12 of 52
residing with him. He denied all other material suggestions put to
him by the defence.
28. PW-7 Dr. Mahesh Kumar (Assistant Professor, Lady
Hardinge Medical College, New Delhi) deposed that on 26.05.2015,
while posted as Senior Resident at JPN Trauma Centre, AIIMS, he
conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Neetu.
After detailed postmortem examination, he opined that the cause of
death was haemorrhage and shock as a result of ante-mortem sharp
weapon injuries on the neck. He further opined that Injury Nos. 1, 2
and 3 were individually as well as collectively sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature. He proved the Postmortem
Report as Ex. PW7/A. He further deposed that on 14.07.2015 he
received a sealed pullanda for subsequent opinion, prepared the
Sketch of Weapon Ex. PW7/B, and after examining the weapon,
gave Subsequent Opinion Ex. PW7/C, opining that the injuries
mentioned in the postmortem report were possible by the alleged
weapon.
29. In the cross-examination, PW-7 admitted that no
definite opinion regarding the exact time since death had been given
and that preservation delays decomposition. He stated that rape
could not be ascertained merely by gross examination in the
condition in which the body was received. He explained that the
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 13 of 52
discrepancy between the injuries noted in the MLC and those
mentioned in the postmortem report was due to the detailed forensic
examination conducted during postmortem. He further stated that no
blood or tissue was found on the weapon produced before him and,
therefore, no such observation was mentioned in his subsequent
opinion. He also stated that he could not opine whether the injuries
could be caused by any ordinary knife without examining such
weapon. He denied the suggestions that he had not properly
conducted the postmortem or that his findings were false or
mechanically prepared.
30. PW-8 Sh. Bhunesh Kumar Sharma (Medical Record
Technician, AIIMS Trauma Centre, New Delhi) deposed that he was
posted as Medical Record Technician at AIIMS Trauma Centre, New
Delhi. He produced the original record of MLC No. 491895 dated
19.05.2015 pertaining to deceased Neetu. He stated that the MLC
had been prepared by Dr. Shashi Kant, who had since left the
services of the hospital, and being conversant with his handwriting
and signatures, he identified the same. He proved the MLC as Ex.
PW8/A. The witness was not cross-examined by the defence despite
opportunity.
31. PW-9 Dr. Suman Saurabh (Senior Resident, Department
of Orthopaedics, AIIMS Trauma Centre, New Delhi) deposed that he
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 14 of 52
had seen the original MLC No. 491895 dated 19.05.2015 pertaining
to deceased Neetu, which had already been exhibited as Ex. PW8/A.
He identified the handwriting and signatures of the doctor who had
prepared the MLC and stated that, as per the MLC, the deceased had
sustained three visible injuries, namely an incised wound over the
neck, another incised wound over the chin and a lacerated wound
over the scalp. He further deposed that the patient had been declared
brought dead. The witness was not cross-examined on any material
aspect. Nothing favourable to the defence could be elicited from his
testimony.
32. PW-10 Sh. Virender Kumar (Bus Conductor, Haryana
Roadways) deposed that in May, 2015 he was working as a
conductor on Haryana Roadways Bus No. HR-69B-8964 driven by
Satbir. While travelling from Delhi to Chandigarh, at Gannaur one
male passenger informed him that a lady passenger required police
assistance. He informed the driver, who called at 100 number. At
Panipat Toll Plaza, police officials met the bus and the concerned
lady passenger, her co-passenger and two children were asked to
alight from the bus by the police. Thereafter, the bus proceeded
towards Chandigarh. On being put leading questions by the Ld.
Addl. PP, the witness stated that he did not remember the exact date
but the bus number was HR-69B-8964.
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 15 of 52
33. In his cross-examination, PW-10 stated that police never
made any inquiry from him and his statement was never recorded.
He stated that the journey commenced at about 6:00 AM and the bus
reached Panipat Toll Plaza at about 7:45-8:00 AM. He further stated
that he could identify the passenger who had informed him about the
lady passenger, though he did not know the names of either the male
passenger or the lady passenger. He also stated that tickets were
issued during the journey.
34. PW-11 Ct. Devi Sharan No. 2059, PCR South-East
Zone, deposed that on 24.07.2015, while posted as Constable at PS
Govind Puri, on the instructions of IO Inspector Sunil Kumar he
collected 10 sealed sample parcels from the malkhana vide RC and
deposited the same at FSL Rohini. After depositing the exhibits, he
returned the acknowledgment to the IO. He stated that during the
period the exhibits remained in his custody, the seals remained
intact. Initially, copy of the acknowledgment was marked as Mark
PW11/A. Subsequently, on recall of the witness, the original Road
Certificate and acknowledgment were produced by the MHC(M),
whereupon the Road Certificate was exhibited as Ex. PW11/A
(OSR) and the acknowledgment slip as Ex. PW11/B (OSR).
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 16 of 52
35. In cross-examination, PW-11 stated that no written
instructions were given to him by the IO for depositing the exhibits
in the FSL and that the IO had only handed over a forwarding letter
along with the exhibits. He stated that he had signed the Road
Certificate while receiving the exhibits from the malkhana. He could
not remember the particulars of the seal affixed on the pullandas. He
denied the suggestions that the exhibits were not sealed, were
tampered with at the instance of the IO, or that he was deposing
falsely at the instance of the IO
36. PW-12: SI Yadram (Duty Officer) deposed that on
19.05.2015, while posted as ASI/Duty Officer at PS Govind Puri, Ct.
Munesh produced a rukka before him at about 5:45 PM. He made
his endorsement on the rukka vide Ex. PW12/A and got the FIR
registered. The computerized copy of the FIR was proved as Ex.
PW12/B (OSR). He also issued the certificate under Section 65B of
the Indian Evidence Act, which was exhibited as Ex. PW12/C. After
registration of the FIR, he handed over the computerized copy of the
FIR along with the original rukka to Ct. Munesh for further delivery
to the Investigating Officer. Despite opportunity, no cross-
examination of the witness was conducted by the defence.
Consequently, the testimony of this witness remained unchallenged
and unrebutted
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 17 of 52
37. PW-13: Sh. Rakesh Kumar (Conductor, Haryana
Roadways, Delhi Depot) deposed that on 13.08.2015, he was
working as a Booking Clerk at the Booking Branch, Haryana
Roadways, Sonipat Depot. On that day, a police official visited the
booking branch and sought verification regarding certain bus tickets.
After verifying the official records, he informed the police that the
said tickets had been issued to conductor Virender Kumar No. 590.
He proved his verification report as Ex. PW13/A, bearing his
signatures at point A.
38. During cross-examination, PW-13 stated that he could
not tell when the tickets referred to in Ex. PW13/A had actually been
issued to Virender Kumar. He admitted that he had not himself
issued those tickets and could not say who had issued them. He
further stated that he did not have the original record from which the
verification had been made and clarified that the verification was
carried out on the basis of the computer record. Nothing material
could be elicited in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony.
39. PW-14: Sh. Jagbir Singh (S/o Sh. Sukh Pal, Sonipat,
Haryana) deposed that he did not remember when the police had first
contacted him regarding the present case. He stated that on
13.08.2015, he handed over a certified copy of the way bill
pertaining to 19.05.2015, which was exhibited as Ex. PW14/A,
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 18 of 52
bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that the
document was also certified by the Account Officer. According to
him, the way bill used to be prepared by the Booking Branch and
filled up by the conductor while selling tickets. The details of the
tickets sold were recorded in the way bill. He further stated that Ex.
PW14/A had been prepared and filled up by conductor Virender
Kumar.
40. In his cross-examination, PW-14 stated that he could
not identify the bus number merely by looking at Ex. PW14/A. He
explained that the abbreviation “CHD” mentioned at point X on the
document indicated that the bus was going to Chandigarh, while the
entries at points Y and Z reflected that only those tickets had been
sold and the remaining tickets had not been sold. He further stated
that conductor Rakesh Kumar had informed him that the chart/way
bill had been handed over by Virender Kumar after he received
summons in the present case. He added that way bills remained in
the custody of the Statistical Assistant and that he had no personal
knowledge regarding the preparation of Ex. PW14/A. He denied the
suggestions that he had merely signed the document at the instance
of the IO or that Ex. PW14/A had been prepared without authority.
41. PW-15 Ct. Ashwini, Photographer, Mobile Crime Team,
deposed that on 19.05.2015 he along with SI Sanjay Kumar,
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 19 of 52
Incharge Crime Team, and SI Chet Ram, Finger Print Expert,
inspected the spot i.e. H. No. 1466D, Top Floor, Gali No. 13, Govind
Puri. He took 14 photographs of the scene of crime from different
angles and, after developing the same, handed over the photographs
and negatives to the IO. He identified the photographs and negatives
before the Court, which were exhibited as Ex. PW15/1 to Ex.
PW15/14 and Ex. PW15/15 (colly) respectively.
42. During cross-examination, he stated that no public
person was present at the spot when he reached there. He denied the
suggestions that he had not visited the spot or that he was deposing
falsely at the instance of the IO.
43. PW-16 Insp. Sanjay Kumar, Incharge, Mobile Crime
Team, deposed that on 19.05.2015, while posted as Incharge Mobile
Crime Team, South-East District, on receipt of information from
PCR, he along with SI Chet Ram, Finger Print Expert and Ct.
Ashwani, Photographer, reached H. No. 1466D/13, Third Floor,
Govindpuri, where the dead body of a woman having a sharp cut
injury on her neck was found lying on the floor. He stated that
photographs of the scene of crime were taken by Ct. Ashwani on his
instructions. Despite efforts, no chance prints could be developed.
He further stated that blood-stained cotton swab, blood-stained blue
chadar, blood-stained brown blanket, blood-stained pillow, blood-
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 20 of 52
stained concrete, plain concrete and one iron chopper were found at
the spot and he directed the IO to seize the said articles. He
inspected the spot from 6.00 p.m. to 6.45 p.m. and prepared the
Crime Team Report Ex. PW16/A.
44. In his cross-examination, PW-16 stated that he did not
know the name of the offender involved in the incident and could
not tell when the photographs and negatives were handed over to the
IO. He further stated that no towel was found at the spot and that the
exhibits were not sealed in his presence, though he had directed the
IO to seize the same after preparing pullandas. He denied the
suggestions that he had not visited the spot or that he had prepared
the Crime Team Report while sitting in his office at the instance of
the IO.
45. PW-17 Sh. Prashant Kumar, Alternate Nodal Officer,
Vodafone Idea Ltd., deposed that he had brought the summoned
record pertaining to mobile No. 8860403886. He proved the
Customer Application Form in the name of accused Azad Singh as
Ex. PW17/A, copy of the Voter Identity Card of the accused as Ex.
PW17/B, Call Detail Records for the period 17.05.2015 to
19.05.2015 as Ex. PW17/C, ID Location Chart as Ex. PW17/D, and
the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 21 of 52
PW17/E. He stated that all the aforesaid documents bore his
signatures and the seal of the company.
46. In his cross-examination, PW-17 stated that he had been
working with Vodafone Idea Ltd. since 2014. He deposed that Ex.
PW17/A was an attested copy of the original record and denied that
the company preserved customer records for only one year. He
explained that, in the present case, the record had been preserved
pursuant to the request made by the IO. He further stated that he had
been duly authorised by the Legal Head of the Delhi Circle to
produce the certified records before the Court. He denied the
suggestions that he was not authorised to depose or that the
documents produced by him were false or fabricated.
47. PW-18 HC Man Singh, Belt No. 8272/Security, deposed
that on 19.05.2015, while posted as Constable at PS Govind Puri, at
about 6:25 p.m., he carried the copy of the FIR to the residence of
the Ld. Area MM, Senior Police Officers of the District and PHQ
and delivered the same at their respective residences/offices.
Thereafter, he returned to the police station at about 12:00 midnight.
48. In his cross-examination, PW-18 denied the suggestion
that he had not carried or delivered the copy of the FIR to the
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 22 of 52
residence/office of the Ld. Area MM, Senior Police Officers of the
District and PHQ.
49. PW-19 HC Munesh Singh deposed that on 19.05.2015,
he accompanied SI Jitender Kumar to CIA Office, Panipat, where
accused Azad Singh, his wife Sapna and their children were found.
Thereafter, they returned to Delhi along with them. He deposed that
accused Azad Singh opened the door of the house with his key,
where the dead body of a woman was found lying in a pool of blood
with injuries on her neck. He further deposed that the statement of
Sapna was recorded, rukka was prepared and got registered through
him. After registration of the FIR, he handed over the copy of FIR
and original rukka to the IO. He further deposed that the dead body
was shifted to AIIMS Mortuary and after post-mortem, the
belongings of the deceased were seized vide seizure memo Ex.
PW19/A. He also proved that on 01.07.2015 he collected the post-
mortem report from AIIMS and handed over the same to the IO.
50. During cross-examination, nothing material could be
elicited to discredit his testimony. He denied the suggestions that no
proceedings were conducted at Panipat, that the accused had not
opened the house with his key or that he was deposing falsely.
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 23 of 52
51. PW-20 Retd. ACP Sh. Mahesh Kumar, the then
Inspector/Draftsman, Crime Branch, deposed that on 16.06.2015, on
the request of Inspector Sunil Kumar, SHO, PS Govind Puri, he
visited the place of occurrence and prepared rough notes of
measurements of the scene of crime. Thereafter, on 29.06.2015, he
prepared the scaled site plan Ex. PW20/A on the basis of the rough
notes. He further stated that after preparation of the scaled site plan,
he destroyed the rough notes.
52. In his cross-examination, PW-20 stated that he did not
know whether the IO had made any DD entry regarding his
departure for the spot. He further stated that no person from the
neighbourhood, including the landlord, joined the proceedings in his
presence. He denied the suggestions that he had prepared the scaled
site plan while sitting in his office at the instance of the IO or that he
was deposing falsely.
53. PW-21 ASI Rajendra Prasad deposed that on
13.08.2015, while posted as Head Constable at PS Govind Puri, he
was handed over eight Haryana Roadways bus tickets by the SHO
for verification. He visited Haryana Roadways Bus Depot, Sonipat,
where the concerned officials verified that the said tickets had been
issued from the said depot to conductor Virender. He recorded the
statements of the concerned officials, namely Jagbir Singh and
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 24 of 52
Rakesh Kumar. He proved the original bus tickets, earlier marked as
Mark PW3/A, as Ex. PW21/A (colly). He further proved the
verification report as Ex. PW13/A and the report pertaining to
issuance of the tickets as Ex. PW14/A. Thereafter, he handed over
the verified documents to the IO.
54. In his cross-examination, PW-21 stated that he reached
Haryana Roadways Bus Depot at about 2.00 p.m. and did not
recollect whether he had first met Jagbir Singh or Rakesh Kumar. He
admitted that the tickets were not recovered from the accused in his
presence. He denied the suggestions that the tickets had been planted
upon the accused, that they were not recovered from the accused, or
that he was deposing falsely.
55. PW-22 SI Dinesh Kumar (Retd.) deposed that on
19.05.2015, while posted at P.S. Govind Puri, DD No. 9A regarding
the present incident was entrusted to him. Pursuant thereto, he, along
with Ct. Munesh, proceeded to CIA Office, Panipat, Haryana, where
accused Azad Singh, his wife Sapna and their children were found
present. After interrogation, the accused disclosed that the dead body
of his wife was lying inside his house situated at Govind Puri, Delhi.
Thereafter, the accused was brought to Delhi and, on reaching the
spot, he opened the locked premises with his own key. On entering
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 25 of 52
the house, the police party found the dead body of a woman lying on
the floor with grievous injuries on her neck.
56. PW-22 further deposed that he informed the senior
police officials, prepared the rukka, got the FIR registered through
Ct. Munesh and thereafter inspected the scene of crime. He prepared
the site plan Ex. PW-22/A, recorded the statements of the material
witnesses, seized the relevant exhibits from the spot in accordance
with law and conducted the initial investigation. Subsequently, the
investigation of the present case was entrusted to Inspector Sunil
Kumar, to whom he handed over the entire case file and all the
seized articles for further investigation.
57. During his cross-examination, PW-22 denied all the
suggestions put by the defence that the accused had been falsely
implicated or that the investigation was unfair or manipulated.
Nothing material could be elicited in his cross-examination so as to
impeach his credibility or discredit the prosecution version.
58. PW-23 SI Jitendra Kumar deposed that on receipt of
DD No. 9A dated 19.05.2015 (Ex. PW23/A), he proceeded to CIA
Panipat where accused Azad Singh, along with his wife and children,
had been apprehended. The custody of the accused was handed over
to the Delhi Police. The accused led the police party to his rented
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 26 of 52
house at Govindpuri and opened the locked premises with the key in
his possession, where the dead body of maid Neetu was found lying
in a pool of blood. The statement of complainant Sapna was
recorded and rukka (Ex. PW23/AX) was prepared for registration of
the FIR. Blood samples, blood-stained earth, earth control, pillow,
bedsheet and blanket were seized vide Ex. PW23/B and Ex.
PW23/C. The accused was arrested vide Ex. PW23/D, his personal
search was conducted vide Ex. PW23/E and his disclosure statement
was recorded vide Ex. PW23/F. Pursuant to the disclosure statement,
the accused got recovered the weapon of offence (farsa), whose
sketch was prepared vide Ex. PW23/G and it was seized vide Ex.
PW23/H. The key of the flat was seized vide Ex. PW23/I, bus tickets
vide Ex. PW23/J, site plan was prepared vide Ex. PW23/K and
pointing out memos of the place of occurrence and the blacksmith
shop were prepared vide Ex. PW23/L and Ex. PW23/M. He further
deposed regarding identification of the dead body, post-mortem
proceedings, subsequent investigation, collection of FSL opinion and
identification of the case property (Ex. P1 to Ex. P4).
59. In his cross examination, he admitted that no FIR had
been registered before leaving for Panipat and that no independent
public witness joined the recovery proceedings. However, he denied
the suggestions that the recovery of the farsa, seizure of the key or
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 27 of 52
the disclosure statement were fabricated or that he was deposing
falsely.
60. PW-24 DSP Sandeep Singh deposed that on 19.05.2015,
while posted as Inspector, CIA, Panipat, he received information
through Police Control Room that accused Azad Singh, who had
committed a murder in Delhi, was travelling in a Haryana Roadways
bus along with his wife and children. Acting upon the information,
he intercepted the bus at Panipat Toll Plaza and apprehended the
accused. The accused and his family were brought to CIA Office,
Panipat and the information was conveyed to PS Govindpuri.
Inspector Sunil Kumar along with SI Jitendra Kumar reached CIA
Office, interrogated the accused and the custody of the accused and
his family was handed over to the Delhi Police. The witness
correctly identified the accused before the Court.
61. In the cross examination, PW-24 admitted that no Zero
FIR was registered at Panipat and Delhi Police had not supplied a
copy of the FIR. He stated that the interrogation of the accused’s
wife was recorded in the Roznamcha. He denied that the accused
had been illegally apprehended or that he was deposing falsely.
62. PW-25 Inspector Lokesh Kumar Sharma deposed that
while posted as Inspector (ATO), PS Govindpuri, he received the
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 28 of 52
Biology Division FSL Report pertaining to the present case and filed
the same before the Court by way of supplementary charge-sheet,
which he proved as Ex. PW25/A. Learned defence counsel did not
cross-examine the witness.
63. PW-26 Head Constable Sanjay deposed that on
10.01.2024, while posted at Crime Branch, he received secret
information regarding the presence of proclaimed offender Azad
Singh at Govindpuri. A raiding party was constituted and the
accused was apprehended after due verification. He proved the arrest
memo Ex. PW26/A, personal search memo Ex. PW26/B, MLC Ex.
PW26/C and Kalandara under Section 41.1(d) Cr.P.C. Ex. PW26/D.
He correctly identified the accused before the Court.
64. In his cross examination, he stated that he had made
departure entries before leaving the office but had not reduced the
secret information into writing. He denied that no secret information
was received or that the accused had been falsely implicated.
65. PW-27 Retired Inspector Sunil Kumar (Investigating
Officer) deposed that on 19.05.2015, while posted as SHO, Police
Station Govindpuri, he received DD No.9A regarding the
apprehension of accused Azad Singh by CIA, Panipat. He proceeded
to CIA Office, Panipat, where the accused was interrogated and his
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 29 of 52
custody was handed over to the Delhi Police. Thereafter, the accused
led the police party to his rented accommodation at H.No.1466D,
Gali No.13, Govindpuri, Delhi, opened the locked premises with the
key in his possession and pointed out the dead body of his maid
Neetu lying inside the room. He called the Crime Team, got the spot
photographed and inspected and, after registration of the FIR, took
over the investigation. Blood sample, blood-stained concrete and
earth control were lifted and seized vide Ex.PW23/B, while the
blood-stained pillow, bedsheet and blanket recovered from the spot
were seized vide Ex.PW23/C. The accused was arrested vide
Ex.PW23/D, personally searched vide Ex.PW23/E and his disclosure
statement was recorded vide Ex.PW23/F. Pursuant thereto, the
accused got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. farsa (dab), whose
sketch was prepared vide Ex.PW23/G and which was seized vide
Ex.PW23/H. He also seized the key of the rented premises vide
Ex.PW23/I, Haryana Roadways bus tickets vide Ex.PW23/J,
prepared the site plan Ex.PW23/K and pointing out memos of the
place of occurrence and the shop from where the weapon had been
purchased vide Ex.PW23/L and Ex.PW23/M respectively.
66. PW-27 further deposed that the dead body was sent to
AIIMS Trauma Centre for post-mortem and, after the post-mortem
examination, was handed over to the complainant vide Ex.PW23/N.
He proved the post-mortem related proceedings including
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 30 of 52
Ex.PW27/A and the seizure memos of sealed blood samples and
clothes of the deceased i.e. Ex.PW27/B, Ex.PW27/C and
Ex.PW27/D. During investigation, he obtained the subsequent
medical opinion regarding the weapon of offence, collected PCR
record, CDRs, bus journey details, FSL reports and other
documentary evidence, examined the material witnesses and, on
completion of investigation, filed the charge-sheet against the
accused. During his further examination, he identified the case
property, namely the recovered farsa (Ex.P1), clothes of the
deceased (Ex.P2), blood-stained pillow, bedsheet and blanket
(Ex.P3) and the key recovered from the accused (Ex.P4).
67. In his cross-examination, PW-27 denied the defence
suggestions that the weapon of offence, key and other recoveries had
been planted or that the disclosure statement and other documents
were fabricated at the police station. He also denied that the accused
had not opened the rented premises with the recovered key or that
the recovery of the farsa was effected at the instance of the accused’s
wife. No material contradiction or omission affecting the prosecution
case could be elicited from his cross-examination.
68. PW-28 ASI Sukrampal Singh deposed that on
19.05.2015, while posted as MHC(M) at PS Govind Puri, Inspector
Sunil Kumar deposited 10 sealed exhibits along with four sample
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 31 of 52
seals in the malkhana. He made the relevant entry at Serial No. 1730
dated 19.05.2015 in Register No. 19. He produced the original
Malkhana Register before the Court and the copy of the relevant
entry was exhibited as Ex. PW28/A (OSR). He further deposed that
on 24.07.2015, on the directions of the Investigating Officer, he
handed over the 10 sealed parcels along with four sample seals to Ct.
Devi Saran for depositing the same at FSL, Rohini vide RC No.
116/21/15. He proved the relevant RC entry already exhibited as Ex.
PW11/A (OSR) and identified the signatures of Ct. Devi Saran at
Point ‘A’ and his own signatures at Point ‘B’. He categorically stated
that so long as the case property remained in his custody, it was not
tampered with.
69. In his cross-examination, PW-28 denied the suggestions
that the entries in Register No. 19 were ante-dated or ante-timed or
that he was deposing falsely.
70. PW-29 SI Tej Dutt deposed that on 10.01.2024, while
posted at PS Govind Puri, information was received from the
officials of Crime Branch, R.K. Puram vide DD No. 47A that
accused Azad Singh had been apprehended under Section 41.1(d)
Cr.P.C. and would be produced before the concerned Court at Saket.
The DD was marked to him. He thereafter appeared before the
concerned Court, obtained permission to interrogate the accused,
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 32 of 52
recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW29/A, formally arrested
him vide arrest memo Ex. PW29/B, obtained his judicial custody
remand and sent him to judicial custody. The witness correctly
identified the accused before the Court.
71. In his cross-examination, PW-29 stated that he did not
remember the mode by which the information regarding the arrest of
accused Azad Singh was conveyed to his relatives. He denied the
suggestion that the prescribed procedure for arrest had not been
followed or that he was deposing falsely. Nothing material could be
elicited in his cross-examination to impeach his credibility or the
formal proceedings conducted by him.
72. PW-30: Dr. Garima Chaudhary (Assistant Director,
DNA Profiling Laboratory) deposed that on 24.07.2015, while
posted as Senior Forensic/Chemical Examiner at RFSL,
Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, ten sealed parcels pertaining to the
present case were received for DNA examination. She verified that
the sample seals tallied with the seals affixed on all the parcels and
found all the seals intact. Upon examination, she concluded that the
DNA profiles generated from exhibits 1 (cotton wool swab), 3
(concrete pieces), 4(b) (bedsheet), 4(c) (pillow), 6 (farsa), 7(a) (suit),
7(b) (legging), 7(c) (bra), 7(d) (underwear), 8 (extra vaginal swab)
and 9 (high vaginal swab) matched with the DNA profile generated
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 33 of 52
from exhibit 5 (gauze cloth piece). She proved her detailed DNA
report along with allelic data as Ex. PW30/A, bearing her signatures
and office seal.
73. In her cross-examination, PW-30 denied the suggestions
that the DNA report was false or fabricated, that it had been prepared
at the instance of the Investigating Officer, that she had not properly
checked the seals and samples, that no blood stains were present on
the farsa despite mentioning so in the report, or that she was
deposing falsely. Nothing material could be elicited in her cross-
examination to impeach the correctness or credibility of the DNA
examination report.
74. During the pendency of the present trial, the accused
Azad Singh stopped appearing before the Court despite having been
admitted to bail. Owing to his continuous non-appearance, coercive
process was initiated against him. Upon completion of the
proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the accused was declared a
Proclaimed Offender by the Court vide order dated 20.05.2023.
75. Thereafter, on 10.01.2024, information was received
from Crime Branch, R.K. Puram, that the accused had been
apprehended. He was produced before the concerned learned
Metropolitan Magistrate. The Investigating Officer of the present
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 34 of 52
case moved an application seeking permission to interrogate and
formally arrest the accused in the present FIR. The learned
Metropolitan Magistrate permitted interrogation of the accused and,
thereafter, he was formally arrested in the present case. His
disclosure statement was also recorded during investigation.
76. After completion of the supplementary investigation, a
supplementary charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section
174A IPC was filed before this Court, alleging that despite
proclamation issued by the Court, the accused had failed to appear
within the stipulated period and had thus committed the offence
punishable under Section 174A IPC.
77. In order to establish the proclamation proceedings, the
prosecution examined CW-1 SI Vivek Tomar, who deposed that
pursuant to the process issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C., he visited
the address of the accused. The landlady informed him that the
accused was no longer residing at the said address. He also made
enquiries from the neighbours but could not ascertain the
whereabouts of the accused. Thereafter, one copy of the
proclamation was affixed on the wall of the property, another copy
was pasted on the notice board of the Court and proclamation was
also made in the locality. He proved his detailed report as Ex.
CW1/A and the photographs of the proclamation proceedings as Ex.
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 35 of 52
CW1/B (colly). The witness remained unchallenged in cross-
examination.
78. Thereafter, during the course of trial, the accused made
a statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. admitting the genuineness of
the statement of complainant Sapna recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C., which was exhibited as Ex. A-1, and accordingly the formal
proof thereof was dispensed with under Section 294(3) Cr.P.C.
Statement of the acccused
79. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the
statement of accused Azad Singh under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was
recorded, wherein all the incriminating circumstances appearing
against him in the prosecution evidence were put to him. The
accused denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence. He stated
that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
80. The accused further stated that his wife was having an
affair with one Bhupender Meena and that the deceased maid was
having an affair with Deepak, the brother of his wife. According to
him, they had hatched a conspiracy to murder the deceased. He
further stated that his wife had obtained divorce papers and had
asked him to sign the same, but he refused to do so. He claimed that
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 36 of 52
he had no connection with the commission of the alleged offence.
The accused did not opt to lead any evidence in his defence despite
opportunity. Accordingly, the defence evidence was closed.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
81. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
argued that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of
the accused beyond all reasonable doubt through reliable oral,
documentary and scientific evidence. It was submitted that PW-2
Sapna is a wholly reliable witness whose testimony is natural,
consistent and fully corroborated by her statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C., medical evidence and other prosecution witnesses.
82. It was further argued that the medical evidence proves
that the deceased sustained multiple ante-mortem sharp weapon
injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death. The subsequent opinion of the autopsy surgeon also
establishes that the injuries were possible by the recovered weapon
of offence.
83. Learned APP further submitted that the accused was
apprehended while fleeing from Delhi, led the police party to the
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 37 of 52
place of occurrence, got the weapon of offence recovered pursuant to
his disclosure statement and also produced the key of the rented
premises. The DNA report, recovery of blood-stained articles, Crime
Team Report, site plan and other documentary evidence completely
corroborate the prosecution case.
84. It was argued that the defence has failed to point out any
material contradiction or infirmity in the prosecution evidence. The
plea of false implication is vague and unsupported by any evidence.
It was therefore prayed that the accused be convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED DEFENCE COUNSEL
85. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused argued that
the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
It was submitted that there is no independent eyewitness to the
alleged occurrence and the entire prosecution case rests upon the
interested testimony of PW-2 Sapna, who is the wife of the accused.
86. Learned defence counsel further argued that PW-2 had
strained matrimonial relations with the accused and was allegedly
having an illicit relationship with Bhupender Meena. It was
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 38 of 52
contended that the deceased Neetu was also acquainted with the said
person and, therefore, the possibility of false implication of the
accused cannot be ruled out.
87. It was further argued that the alleged recoveries have
been planted, no independent public witness joined the investigation
at any stage, material contradictions exist in the prosecution
evidence and the chain of circumstances is incomplete. It was
submitted that mere abscondence or suspicion cannot substitute
proof.
88. Learned defence counsel further submitted that the
prosecution has failed to establish an unbroken chain of
circumstances leading only to the guilt of the accused. Accordingly,
benefit of doubt deserves to be extended to the accused and he is
liable to be acquitted.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE, DISCUSSION & FINDINGS
89. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submissions advanced by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State and the learned defence counsel. I have also
carefully scrutinized the oral as well as documentary evidence
available on record.
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 39 of 52
90. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the
prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
However, proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof
beyond every possible doubt. Where the evidence led by the
prosecution inspires confidence and forms a complete chain pointing
only towards the guilt of the accused, conviction can safely be
recorded.
91. In the present case, the prosecution has relied upon the
testimony of PW-2 Sapna, medical evidence, scientific evidence,
recovery of the weapon of offence, conduct of the accused, DNA
report, documentary evidence and other surrounding circumstances.
HOMICIDAL DEATH
92. At the very outset, this Court finds that there is
absolutely no dispute regarding the homicidal death of deceased
Neetu.
93. PW-7 Dr. Mahesh Kumar categorically proved the post-
mortem report and opined that the deceased had suffered multiple
ante-mortem sharp force injuries over the neck. The cause of death
was haemorrhagic shock consequent upon ante-mortem injuries and
Injury Nos.1, 2 and 3 were individually as well as collectively
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 40 of 52
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The
subsequent opinion further establishes that the injuries were possible
by the recovered weapon (dao/farsa). The defence has not been able
to challenge the medical opinion in any material particular.
94. The testimony of PW-8 and PW-9 also corroborates the
post-mortem findings. Their evidence establishes that the deceased
was brought dead with multiple sharp injuries. Thus, the medical
evidence completely rules out accidental or suicidal death.
95. Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has
successfully established that deceased Neetu died a homicidal death.
TESTIMONY OF PW-2 SAPNA
96. The prosecution case substantially rests upon the
testimony of PW-2 Sapna, wife of the accused.
97. Merely because PW-2 is the wife of the accused, her
testimony cannot be discarded. Relationship is not a ground to reject
otherwise trustworthy evidence. What is required is careful scrutiny
of her testimony.
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 41 of 52
98. PW-2 categorically deposed that on the morning of
19.05.2015 she woke up and found the accused standing with a
dao/farsa while deceased Neetu was lying in a pool of blood. She
further deposed that the accused threatened to kill her and thereafter
forcibly took her along with the children towards Haryana. Her
testimony further establishes that she ultimately succeeded in
informing the bus staff, resulting in the apprehension of the accused
by Panipat Police.
99. The testimony of PW-2 receives substantial
corroboration from her statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C., wherein she narrated substantially the same sequence of
events. The defence has failed to point out any material contradiction
affecting the substratum of the prosecution case.
100. The defence suggested that PW-2 had falsely implicated
the accused because of her alleged relationship with Bhupender
Meena. However, except putting suggestions during cross-
examination, no evidence whatsoever has been produced to
substantiate the said plea. Suggestions are not evidence.
101. On careful appreciation of her deposition, this Court
finds PW-2 to be a natural witness. Her presence at the place of
occurrence was natural. Her conduct immediately after the
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 42 of 52
occurrence also appears consistent with ordinary human behaviour.
Minor discrepancies are bound to occur due to lapse of time and do
not affect the credibility of an otherwise truthful witness.
102. Consequently, this Court finds no reason to discard the
testimony of PW-2, which inspires confidence and receives
corroboration from independent circumstances as well as medical
and scientific evidence.
MOTIVE
103. The prosecution has alleged that the accused used to
suspect the character of his wife Sapna and frequent quarrels used to
take place between them. PW-2 has categorically deposed that
whenever deceased Neetu intervened to support her, the accused
became annoyed with the deceased and used to threaten both of
them. The evidence of PW-2 on this aspect has remained
substantially unshaken during her lengthy cross-examination.
104. Though motive loses significance where there is reliable
direct evidence, in the present case the prosecution has nevertheless
succeeded in establishing a plausible motive behind the commission
of the crime. The previous conduct of the accused clearly indicates
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 43 of 52
his resentment against the deceased, thereby furnishing a strong
motive for the offence.
RECOVERY OF WEAPON OF OFFENCE
105. The prosecution has further established that after his
apprehension, the accused led the police party to the place of
occurrence and thereafter got recovered the weapon of offence
pursuant to his disclosure statement. The recovery has been proved
by PW-23 SI Jitender Kumar and PW-27 Inspector Sunil Kumar.
Their testimonies are consistent on all material particulars.
106. The defence has argued that no independent witness
joined the recovery proceedings. Mere absence of an independent
witness is not sufficient to discard an otherwise trustworthy
recovery. It is well settled that the evidence of police officials cannot
be rejected merely because they belong to the police force,
particularly when no motive for false implication has been
established.
107. The subsequent medical opinion clearly establishes that
the injuries found on the body of the deceased were possible by the
recovered dao/farsa. This circumstance lends substantial
corroboration to the prosecution version.
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 44 of 52
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
108. The prosecution has further relied upon the DNA
examination report proved by PW-30. The expert categorically
opined that the DNA profile obtained from the blood stains found on
the recovered weapon, blood-stained articles and other exhibits
matched with the DNA profile of the deceased. The report has
remained substantially unchallenged during cross-examination.
109. Scientific evidence is impartial in nature and carries
considerable evidentiary value. In the present case, the DNA report
completely corroborates the ocular and medical evidence.
CONDUCT OF THE ACCUSED
110. The conduct of the accused immediately after the
occurrence also assumes significance. Instead of informing the
police or seeking medical assistance for the deceased, he threatened
PW-2 with dire consequences and immediately fled from Delhi
along with her and the children.
111. The evidence of PW-5, PW-10, PW-22, PW-23 and PW-
24 establishes that the accused was apprehended by the Panipat
Police while travelling in a Haryana Roadways bus and was
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 45 of 52
thereafter handed over to the Delhi Police. Such conduct is relevant
under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act and constitutes an
incriminating circumstance against the accused.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
112. The prosecution has successfully proved the following
incriminating circumstances:-
113. (i) The accused and the deceased were residing in the
same premises; (ii) The accused had a motive to eliminate the
deceased; (iii) PW-2 found the accused immediately after the
incident holding the weapon while the deceased was lying in a pool
of blood; (iv) The accused threatened PW-2 and fled from Delhi; (v)
The accused led the police to the place of occurrence; (vi) The
weapon of offence was recovered pursuant to his disclosure
statement; (vii) Medical evidence confirms that the injuries were
possible by the recovered weapon; (viii) DNA evidence corroborates
the prosecution case; and (ix) The accused has failed to offer any
plausible explanation regarding the homicidal death which occurred
inside the premises under his control.
114. All the above circumstances have been proved beyond
reasonable doubt and form a complete chain pointing only towards
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 46 of 52
the guilt of the accused. They are wholly inconsistent with any
hypothesis of innocence.
STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C.
115. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused
merely denied the prosecution case and alleged false implication. He
further alleged that PW-2 and one Bhupender Meena had conspired
against him. However, no evidence whatsoever has been produced to
substantiate such allegations.
116. A false explanation offered by an accused cannot by
itself become the basis of conviction, but where the prosecution has
otherwise established a complete chain of circumstances, such false
explanation furnishes an additional link reinforcing the prosecution
case.
117. The accused also failed to explain how the deceased
suffered homicidal injuries inside the premises where he himself was
admittedly residing. The facts relating to the occurrence were
especially within his knowledge. His failure to furnish any
reasonable explanation constitutes an additional incriminating
circumstance.
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 47 of 52
LEGAL POSITION
118. It is well settled that where the prosecution succeeds in
proving a complete chain of circumstances leading only to the guilt
of the accused, conviction can safely be recorded. In Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that every incriminating circumstance must be fully
established and the chain of circumstances should be so complete
that it leaves no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with
the innocence of the accused.
119. Similarly, in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of
Maharashtra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where an offence
is committed inside the privacy of a house and the accused was
residing therein, a corresponding burden lies upon him to furnish a
plausible explanation regarding the circumstances in which the
victim sustained injuries. Failure to offer any explanation constitutes
an additional incriminating circumstance.
120. In State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, it has been held that
abscondence by itself may not establish guilt but, when read along
with other proved circumstances, it constitutes an additional link in
the chain of circumstances.
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 48 of 52
121. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the
present case, this Court finds that every incriminating circumstance
relied upon by the prosecution stands duly established.
FINDINGS UNDER SECTION 302 IPC
122. The prosecution has successfully established that: (a)
the death of deceased Neetu was homicidal;(b) the accused had a
clear motive to eliminate the deceased; (c) immediately after the
occurrence PW-2 found the accused armed with the dao/farsa while
the deceased was lying in a pool of blood; (d) the accused threatened
PW-2 and fled from Delhi along with her and the children; (e) the
accused was apprehended at Panipat while attempting to escape; (f)
pursuant to his disclosure statement, the accused got recovered the
weapon of offence; (g) the subsequent medical opinion confirms that
the injuries were possible by the recovered weapon; (h) the DNA
evidence corroborates the prosecution case; (i) the accused failed to
furnish any satisfactory explanation in his statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C.
123. The defence has failed to probabilise its plea that PW-2
falsely implicated the accused because of her alleged relationship
with Bhupender Meena. No witness or document has been produced
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 49 of 52
in support of such allegation. Mere suggestions put during cross-
examination cannot be treated as evidence.
124. Likewise, the plea that the recoveries were planted also
remains a bald allegation unsupported by any convincing material.
Minor procedural irregularities or non-joining of public witnesses do
not demolish an otherwise trustworthy prosecution case.
125. This Court is satisfied that the testimony of PW-2
inspires confidence and finds complete corroboration from the
medical, scientific and documentary evidence. The chain of
circumstances is complete and unerringly points towards the guilt of
the accused and is wholly inconsistent with any hypothesis of
innocence.
126. Consequently, this Court holds that the prosecution has
proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Azad Singh
intentionally caused the death of deceased Neetu by inflicting
multiple sharp weapon injuries and thereby committed an offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC.
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 50 of 52
FINDINGS UNDER SECTION 174A IPC
127. The prosecution has also alleged commission of an
offence punishable under Section 174A IPC.
128. The evidence on record establishes that despite issuance
of coercive process, the accused deliberately absented himself from
the proceedings. Thereafter, proclamation proceedings under Section
82 Cr.P.C. were conducted in accordance with law. CW-1 duly
proved the execution of the proclamation proceedings. The accused
was subsequently declared a Proclaimed Offender by the Ld.
Predecessor Court vide order dated 20.05.2023 and he was
ultimately apprehended only on 10.01.2024.
129. During trial, no material has been placed on record by
the accused to establish that his absence was for any sufficient or
lawful cause. His mere denial under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is
insufficient to rebut the evidence led by the prosecution.
130. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the prosecution has also proved beyond reasonable doubt the
commission of the offence punishable under Section 174A IPC.
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 51 of 52
CONCLUSION
131. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is
satisfied that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt against the accused Azad Singh. Accordingly, the
accused Azad Singh is held guilty and convicted for the offences
punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 174A IPC. Copy of
the judgment be given to the convict free of cost.
132. Accused be heard separately on the question of
sentence. Let a copy of this judgment be supplied to the convict free
of cost forthwith.
Digitally signed
VINOD by VINOD
KUMAR
KUMAR GAUTAM
GAUTAM Date: 2026.07.09
16:13:32 +0500
Announced in Open Court
on 09th July, 2026 (Vinod Kumar Gautam)
Additional Sessions Judge (FTC)-02
South East, Saket Court Complex,
New Delhi/09.07.2026
FIR No. 670/2015 State v. Azad Singh PS : Govindpuri Page 52 of 52
