Delhi District Court
State vs Neetu on 13 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI BANSAL
LD. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02,
DWARKA COURTS, S-W DISTRICT, NEW DELHI.
In the matter of: -
State Vs. Neetu
S/o Sh. Mool Chand
R/o Village Chadod,
PS Mathon, District Bonda,
Uttar Pradesh.
Sessions Case No. 70/21.
FIR No. 717/20.
PS Chhawla.
CNR No. DLSW01-001210-2021.
Charge-sheet filed U/s 302/201 IPC.
Charge(s) framed against accused U/s 302/201 IPC.
Neetu
Date of filing of charge-sheet 20.10.2020
Date of case committed to Sessions 30.01.2021.
Court
Date of arguments 04.04.2026.
Date of judgment 13.04.2026.
Decision Acquittal.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Neetu is facing trial for offences alleged to be
committed u/s 302/201 IPC. He is accused of committing
murder of Bhupender in the intervening night of 21-
22.07.2020, between 2.30 am to 3.00 am, in the house of
one Mahender Singh, at gali no. 7, Goyla Vihar, Goyla
Dairy. It is further alleged that accused Neetu after
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 1 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:08 +0530
commission of murder has hidden dead body in a vacant
plot bearing no. 23/23, gali no. 7, Goyla Vihar, Goyla Dairy,
near St. Thomes School, so as to screen himself from the
legal punishment.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as per charge-sheet, are
that on 22.07.2020, SI Shubham Singh received an
information vide DD No. 44A that Const. Ram Swaroop has
informed by phone that suspect Neetu has been caught at
Chhawla drain, who on interrogation told that he had
murdered his partner and he can get the dead body
recovered. SI Shubham Singh left for spot. SHO concerned
was telephonically informed about the incident, who also
reached at the spot alongwith staff and found Const. Ram
Swaroop and Const. Jitender with accused Neetu. Crime
Team was already called at the spot. SI Shubham Singh
reached at the spot and got inspected the spot from Crime
Team. Photographs of the spot were taken.
3. At the instance of accused, dead body of Bhupender, aged
about 28-30 years, was found lying in a vacant plot near the
crime scene. The dead body soaked in blood was found
lying in a ruined room with severe injury marks on his face
and head. The accused informed that he had a fight with
Bhupender that night, and at about 2.30-3.00 am in the
night, he had killed Bhupender inside the room by hitting on
his head and face with an iron rod and the dead body was
dumped in a ruined room lying nearby after covering the
dead body with garbage from the plot. The dead body was
wearing blue colour pants and light pink colour t-shirt,
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 2 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:07 +0530
which had printed front. The dead body was covered with
garbage lying around.
4. Crime Team had already taken photographs of the spot on
the instructions of Inspector. Photographs were taken even
after taking the dead body out and there were blood stains in
the room built inside house no. 23/23, gali no. 7, Goyala
Vihar, which was also photographed by Crime Team.
Exhibits were lifted from the spot and taken into police
possession. Thereafter, the present case was got registered.
5. During investigation, the dead body was got preserved at
RTRM Hospital, site plan was prepared. Disclosure
statement of accused was recorded. Accused got recovered
iron pipe by which he killed Bhupender, which was hide
under the bushes in the plot, where the dead body thrown.
6. During further investigation, police recorded statement u/s
161 CrPC of house owner Mahender for whom the accused
used to work. He stated that he met Neetu and Bhupender
near St. Thomas School about 5-6 days ago and they agreed
to for him. He brought Neetu and Bhupender to his house at
23/23, gali no. 7, Goyla Vihar, Goyla Dairy, New Delhi, and
they started working in his house. There are 5 rooms in his
house and a cow lives in one room. Till the work is over, he
gave the room in which the cow lives to Neetu and
Bhupender. His tenant Renu lives in the room next to his
room. Bhupender used to fight with Neetu after getting
drunk and used to make noise and abuse Neetu. Even on
the night of 21-22.07.2020, Bhupender drank alcohol and
started fighting and abusing Neetu. He explained to
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 3 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:08 +0530
Bhupender and then went to his room. Neetu came to the
room with police. He was also present at home at that time.
Neetu went ahead and got the blood soaked dead body of
Bhupender recovered from the vacant plot, who had many
injury marks on his face and head. Neetu told that he had a
fight with Bhupender that night, whom he killed inside the
room at around 2.30-3.00 am in the night by hitting him on
the head and face with an iron rod and the dead body was
found in a ruined empty room nearby. Neetu had thrown the
dead body in the bathroom and covered it with garbage so
that no one suspects him. The dead body was wearing a
blue pant.
7. Site plan of spot was prepared, where accused Neetu killed
Bhupender and threw the body in a ruined empty plot and
covered it with garbage.
8. Disclosure statement of accused was recorded wherein he
admitted his guilt.
9. Statement of Renu, who lived in the room next to the
accused, was recorded u/s 161 CrPC, wherein she
mentioned that she alongwith her family used to live in the
house of Mahender Singh, who brought two labourers
namely Bhupender and Neetu for work his house.
Bhupender was an alcoholic and used to abuse and fight
with Neetu after drinking alcohol. On 21-22.07.2020, also
Bhupender abused and fought with Neetu. Her landlord
Mahender explained to Bhupender and went to his room.
Neetu came to the room with the police and recovered the
blood soaked dead body of Bhupender from the vacant
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 4 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:13 +0530
ruined plot, who had many injury marks on his face and
head. Neetu told that he had a fight with Bhupender that
night, whom he killed inside the room by hitting him on the
head and face with an iron rod at around 2.30-3.00 am in the
night and threw the dead body in the vacant ruined room
and covered the body with garbage so that no one suspects
him. The dead body was wearing blue colour pants and
light pink colour printed t-shirt, which was printed from the
front and the dead body was covered with garbage lying
around.
10. During investigation, accused got recovered iron pipe,
which was taken into police possession. Recovery of iron
pipe was videographed. Case property was deposited in
malkhana. Postmortem on the dead body of deceased was
got conducted. As per postmortem report cause of death is
cerebral damage consequent upon blunt force injury to head;
all the injuries are ante-mortem in nature and could have
been caused by hard and blunt force trauma. Scaled site
plan was got prepared. Statement of relevant witnesses
were recorded.
11. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by
the IO before the Court through the SHO. Supplementary
charge-sheet was also filed in the Court by the IO through
SHO. Copy of charge-sheet was received by ld. defence
counsel on behalf of accused on 07.12.2020 u/s 207 CrPC.
Vi d e order dated 27.01.2021, the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions u/s 209 CrPC.
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 5 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:13 +0530
12. Vide order dated 23.04.2022, the Ld. Predecessor Court
framed charges against the accused u/s 302/201 IPC.
Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
13. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 21 witnesses.
The testimonies of prosecution witnesses alongwith its
nature has been discussed briefly in the following
paragraphs.
Chart of Witnesses Examined
PW No. PW Name Description
PW1 Pushpender Brother of deceased/witness of
dead body identification memo
PW2 Mahender Landlord of accused and
deceased
PW3 ASI Raj Kumar Witness of various seizure
memos
PW4 HC Rakesh Kumar MHC(M)
PW5 ASI (Retired) Bhagwan Incharge, Mobile Crime Team
Yadav
PW6 ASI Banwari Lal Member of Mobile Crime Team
PW7 HC Vikas Member of Mobile Crime Team
PW8 SI Shubham Initial IO
PW9 HC Pradeep Messenger to FSL
PW10 W-HC Minakshi Duty Officer-cum-DD Writer
PW11 HC Sunil Duty Officer
PW12 Ranjeet Pal Videographer of recovery
proceedings of weapon of
offence
PW13 HC Jai Bhagwan Preserver of dead body
PW14 HC Ram Swaroop Beat Officer, who firstly
apprehended the accused in
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 6 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:09 +0530
suspected condition
PW15 HC Jitender Kumar Beat Officer, who firstly
apprehended the accused in
suspected condition
PW16 HC Ashok Kumar Messenger to FSL
PW17 HC Balram Messenger to rukka and FIR
PW18 Renu Neighbour of the deceased and
the accused
PW19 Dr. Uttam Kondle Prepared MLC of the deceased
PW20 Inspector Gyanender Rana IO of the case
PW21 Inspector Pankaj Kumar IO of supplementary charge-
sheet
Chart of Exhibited Documents
Exhibit No. Description of Document Proved By
Ex.PW1/A Dead body identification memo PW1
Ex.PW3/A Seizure memo of clothes of deceased PW3
Ex.PW3/B Seizure memo of nail clippings PW3
Ex.PW3/C Seizure memo of viscera PW3
Ex.PW3/D Seizure memo of blood gauze PW3
Ex.PW4/A Entry of register no. 19 vide serial no. 2125 PW4
(OSR) dated 22.07.2020
Ex.PW4/B Entry of register no. 19 vide serial no. 2125 PW4
(OSR)
Ex.PW4/C Copy of RC No. 154/21/20 PW4
(OSR)
Ex.PW4/D Acknowledgment of case property acceptance PW4
(OSR)
Ex.PW4/E Copy of RC No. 164/21/20 PW4
(OSR)
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 7 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:12 +0530
Ex.PW4/F Acknowledgment of case property acceptance PW4
(OSR)
Ex.PW5/A Mobile Crime Team report PW5
Ex.PW7/A-1 Photographs of spot clicked by photographer PW7
to of Crime Team
Ex.PW7/A-38
Ex.PW8/A Seizure memo of blood sample, blood earth PW8
control collected by ASI Jai Bhagwan,
Incharge, Mobile Crime Team, from the spot
Ex.PW8/B Seizure memo of earth control garbage, earth PW8
control garbage mixed with blood and blood
stained jute bag lying near the dead body
Ex.PW8/C Tahrir/rukka PW8
Ex.PW8/D Seizure memo of weapon of offence i.e. an PW8
iron rod
Ex.PW8/E Unscaled site plan PW8
Ex.PW8/F Arrest memo of accused PW8
Ex.PW8/G Personal search memo of accused PW8
Ex.PW8/H Disclosure statement of accused PW8
Ex.P-1 Dirty and muddy blackish jute bag PW8
Ex.P-2 Iron rod PW8
Ex.PW10/A DD No. 44A PW10
Ex.PW11/A Endorsement on rukka PW11
Ex.PW11/B Copy of FIR PW11
Ex.PW11/C Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act PW11
Ex.P-3 DVD containing videography of recovery PW12
proceedings of weapon of offence
Ex.PW16/A Copy of RC No. 164/21/20 PW16
Ex.PW16/B Acknowledgment of case property acceptance PW16
Ex.PW18/PX1 Statement of PW Renu PW18
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 8 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:08 +0530
Ex.PW19/A MLC No. 2536 PW19
Ex.PW20/A Seizure memo of sealed pulanda containing PW20
blood stained clothes of accused
Ex.PW20/B Form 25.35-B PW20
Ex.P-4 Earth control garbage PW20
Ex.P-5 Earth control garbage mixed with blood PW20
Ex.P-6 Earth control PW20
Ex.P-7 Earth control stained with blood PW20
Ex.P-8 Blood PW20
Ex.P-9 Clothes of deceased PW20
Ex.P-10 Nail clipping of deceased PW20
Ex.P-11 Viscera of deceased PW20
Ex.P-12 Blood gauge of deceased PW20
Ex.P-13 T-shirt of accused, which he worn at the time PW20
of his arrest
Ex.P-1 Pant of accused, which he worn at the time of PW20
his arrest
Ex.PW21/A Supplementary charge-sheet PW21
Chart of admitted documents u/s 294 CrPC
Exhibit No. Description of Document
Ex.PX-1 (colly) FSL report (running into 6 pages)
Ex.PX-2 (colly) MLC and related documents (running into 4 pages)
Ex.PX-3 GD No. 62A
Ex.PX-4 GD No. 68A
Ex.PX-5 GD No. 91A
Ex.PX-6 Scaled site plan
Ex.PX-7 (colly) PM report alongwith related documents (running into 5
pages)
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 9 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:07 +0530
Ex.PX-8 Dead body identification memo
14. PW1 Pushpender deposed that in month of July 2020, he
came to Delhi and identified dead body of his brother
Bhupender at RTRM Hospital vide identification memo
Ex.PW1/A. At that time, his brother was residing in the
house of Mahender as tenant in Goyla Dairy.
15. PW2 Mahender deposed that at the time of incident, he was
constructed a shed for his cattles, which he had kept at his
house no. 23/23, gali no. 7, Goyla Vihar, Goyla Dairy, and
hired accused Neetu and Bhupender to construct the shed,
who met him outside on a road in front of St. Thomas
School. He further deposed that both Neetu and Bhupender
agreed to do the work and they installed cemented shed in
his house. Out of five rooms of his house, he gave a room
to Neetu and Bhupender to stay during the pendency of
work. Neetu and Bhupender told PW2 that when weather
will be appropriate they will leave the place. His other
tenant Babli was also residing in other room alongwith his
wife Renu.
16. During cross examination of PW2 by ld. Additional PP for
State, he deposed that when police came with Neetu, Neetu
led them to the plot, where blood stained dead body of
Bhupender was lying and that dead body was having injury
on head and face. That Neetu disclosed that he had a fight
with Bhupender in the night and about 2.30-3.00 am, Neetu
hit Bhupender with iron rod and killed him and his dead
body was thrown in a room and then Neetu covered it with
garbage, so that nobody gets any suspicion. (Vol. At that
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 10 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:10 +0530
time, Neetu was in custody of police and was sitting in the
PCR van.) That at that time, Bhupender was wearing a blue
color pant and pink color printed t-shirt and his dead body
was covered in garbage. PW2 also identified the dead body
to be of Bhupender.
17. PW3 ASI Raj Kumar deposed that on 23.07.2020, he
alongwith Inspector Gyanender Rana reached at RTRM
Hospital, where identification of dead body of deceased
Bhupender was got conducted through relatives of deceased
namely Pushpender and Babu Lal. Thereafter, postmortem
examination on the dead body of deceased Bhupender was
got conducted and after postmortem examination, concerned
doctor given him a sealed parcel sealed with the RTRM
Hospital containing viscera of the deceased alongwith
sample seal. He further deposed that thereafter, another
sealed parcel containing cloths of deceased, other sealed
parcels containing nail clippings of right and left hand of
deceased and other sealed parcel containing blood gauze of
deceased were handed over by the doctor concerned and
said sealed exhibits were seized by the IO in his presence
vide seizure memo of cloths of deceased Ex.PW3/A, seizure
memo of nail clippings Ex.PW3/B, seizure memo of viscera
Ex.PW3/C, seizure memo of blood gauze Ex.PW3/D. He
also deposed that thereafter, dead body was handed over to
its relatives for cremation.
18. PW4 HC Rakesh Kumar deposed that on 22.07.2020, SI
Shubham Singh has given him 6 sealed parcels/exhibits
alongwith copies of its seizure memo and Inspector
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 11 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:09 +0530
Gyanender Rana has given him 2 sealed parcels/exhibits
alongwith copies of its seizure memo. Said sealed exhibits
were deposited in the malkhana and he made entry (running
into 3 pages) in register no. 19 vide serial no. 2125 dated
22.07.2020 Ex.PW4/A (OSR).
19. He further deposed that on 23.07.2020, Inspector Gyanender
Rana has given him 5 sealed parcels/exhibits alongwith
copies of its seizure memo, which he deposited in the
malkhana and made entry in register no. 19 vide serial no.
2125 Ex.PW4/B (OSR).
20. He also deposed that on 19.08.2020, seized exhibits i.e.
sealed wooden box containing viscera of deceased
alongwith sample seal were got deposited in FSL, Rohini,
for examination through Const. Pradeep as per directions of
SHO concerned. After depositing the same in FSL, copy of
RC No. 154/21/20 Ex.PW4/C (OSR) alongwith
acknowledgment of case property acceptance Ex.PW4/D
(OSR) were handed over to him by Const. Pradeep.
21. He further deposed that on 27.08.2020, 12 sealed parcels
alongwith sample seal were also got deposited in FSL vide
RC No. 164/21/20 Ex.PW4/E (OSR) through Const. Ashok
for examination and after that he received the copy of RC
alongwith acknowledgment of case property acceptance
Ex.PW4/F (OSR).
22. PW5 ASI (Retired) Bhagwan Yadav deposed that on
22.07.2020, he was posted as Incharge at Mobile Crime
Team, PS Dwarka South, Dwarka Sector-9, New Delhi, and
at about 12.45 pm, upon receiving information from PS
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 12 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:11 +0530
Chhawla regarding murder of a person, he alongwith team
members including HC Vikas (Photographer), HC Banwari
Lal (Finger Print Proficient), HC Jai Singh (Videographer),
reached at the spot i.e. 23/23, Mahender ka Makaan, Goyla
Vihar, Gali No. 7, Chhawla, New Delhi, where SHO and
other police officials met them. Thereafter, at the
instructions of IO SI Subham, he inspected the spot and
prepared his report Ex.PW5/A and handed over his report to
IO.
23. PW6 ASI Banwari Lal deposed that on 22.07.2020, he
alongwith ASI Bhagwan Yadav (Incharge Crime Team), HC
Vikas (Photographer), Const. Jai Singh (Videographer),
reached at the spot i.e. 23/23, Mahender ka Makaan, Goyla
Vihar, Gali No. 7, Chhawla, New Delhi, where SHO and
other police officials met them. One dead body was lying
there in a damaged room on a plot. Garbage was also lying
there. Opposite that plot, in a room some blood spots were
also there. Thereafter, at the instructions Incharge Crime
Team, he inspected both the places and tried to lift chance
prints but since there was no plain surface to lift chance
prints, no chance print could be obtained. Thereafter, he
informed about the same to Incharge Crime Team.
24. PW7 HC Vikas deposed that on 22.07.2020, he was
assigned duty of Photograph in Mobile Crime Team and he
alongwith ASI Bhagwan Yadav (Incharge Crime Team), HC
Banwari Lal (Finger Print Proficient), Const. Jai Singh
(Videographer), reached at the spot i.e. 23/23, Mahender ka
Makaan, Goyla Vihar, Gali No. 7, Chhawla, New Delhi,
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 13 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:10 +0530
where SHO and other police officials met them. One dead
body was lying at the spot and on the instructions of
Incharge Crime Team, he clicked 38 photographs
Ex.PW7/A-1 to Ex.PW7/A-38 from different angels at the
spot from the digital camera and later, he took printout of
the photographs on 5 sheets and handed over the same to
IO.
25. PW8 SI Shubham deposed that on 22.07.2020, on receiving
DD No. 44A, he reached at place of occurrence i.e. a house
no. 23/23, near St. Thomas School, Goyla Vihar, Goyla
Dairy, where SHO and other police staff were found there.
Members of Crime Team were also present at the spot.
During inspection of the spot, blood sample, blood earth
control were collected by ASI Jai Bhagwan, Incharge,
Mobile Crime Team, and same were handed over to him,
which he taken into police possession vide seizure memo
Ex.PW8/A. Crime scene was photographed by government
photographer.
26. He further deposed that accused Neetu was also present at
the spot who led them to a adjoining plot of said house,
where some garbage was lying, and dead body of a person
namely Bhupender was got recovered. Deceased was
wearing blue colour pant and pink colour printed t-shirt.
There were multiple injuries on the face and head of
deceased. Dead body was got photographed. From there,
earth control garbage, which was lying near the dead body,
earth control garbage mixed with blood lying near the dead
body and blood stained jute bag lying near the dead body
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 14 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:07 +0530
were separately sealed and were taken into police
possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/B.
27. He also deposed that he prepared tahrir/rukka Ex.PW8/C
and got registered present FIR through Const. Balaram.
Further investigation of this case was marked to IO
Inspector Gyanender Rana. Before registration of the case,
place of incident was inspected and a site plan Ex.PW2/D-1
was prepared.
28. He further deposed that during investigation, accused Neetu
led them to the place, where dead body was found lying and
at some distance from the place of dead body, accused
Neetu got recovered weapon of offence i.e. an iron rod,
which was sealed and it was taken into police possession by
IO in his presence vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/D. Unscaled
site plan Ex.PW8/E regarding the place of recovery of said
weapon of offence was prepared by IO in his presence.
Dead body of deceased was got preserved in the mortuary of
RTRM Hospital through Const. Jai Bhagwan.
29. He further deposed that accused Neetu was arrested, his
personal search was conducted and whatsoever he disclosed
was reduced into writing, vide his arrest memo Ex.PW8/F,
personal search memo Ex.PW8/G and disclosure statement
Ex.PW8/H. Thereafter, he left the spot and custody of
accused was with IO.
30. He identified a dirty and muddy blackish jute bag Ex.P-1
and an iron rod Ex.P-2.
31. PW9 HC Pradeep deposed that on 19.08.2020, on the
instruction of IO Inspector Gyanender Rana, he collected
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 15 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:13 +0530
one sealed wooden box containing viscera of deceased, vide
RC No. 154/21/20 Ex.PW4/C and deposited the same in
FSL, Rohini. After depositing the same, he handed over
copy of acceptance of acknowledgment Ex.PW4/D to the
MHC(M).
32. PW10 W-HC Minakshi deposed that on 22.07.2020, she
received an information from Const. Ram Swaroop that ” ek
suspect aadmi Neetu to Chhawla nale par pakad rakha hai,
jisne puchtach par bataya hai ki mene apne sathi ka mardur
kar diya hai, mai dead body recover kara sakta hun, IO
bheja jaye”. Said information was got fed in official
computer through CCTNS Operator vide DD No. 44A
Ex.PW10/A and same was handed over to SI Shubham to
proceeded further and information to this effect was given to
concerned SHO.
33. PW11 HC Sunil deposed that on 22.07.2020, upon receiving
rukka from Const. Balram sent by SI Shubham, he gone
through the same and made his endorsement Ex.PW11/A on
rukka. Thereafter, he registered present FIR. Copy of FIR
Ex.PW11/B (OSR) and original rukka were handed over to
Const. Balram for handing it over to SI Shubham for further
investigation. He also issued certificate u/s 65B Indian
Evidence Act Ex.PW11/C.
34. PW12 Ranjeet Pal deposed that he is running a
photographer shop under the name and style of Ranjeet Pal
Studio at Kharanga Main Road, Qutub Vihar Phase-1, Goyla
Dairy. At the request of police official, he videographed the
recovery proceedings and thereafter, handed over the video
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 16 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:13 +0530
recording to IO in a DVD Ex.P-3. DVD was played in the
Court and found containing two files bearing names
“004.mp4” and “005.mp5”. Videos shows recovery
proceedings of weapon of offence of this case. PW12
identified the videos prepared by him.
35. PW13 HC Jai Bhagwan deposed that on 22.07.2020, on the
instructions of IO Inspector Gyanender Rana, he got
preserved dead body of Bhupender in mortuary of RTRM
Hospital vide MLC No. 2534. He further deposed that on
the direction of IO, he left the PS on government
motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-1S-Z-5345 and
provided/handed over copy of FIR to concerned Ld. MM,
Joint CP, Western Range and DCP concerned.
36. PW14 HC Ram Swaroop and PW15 HC Jitender Kumar
deposed that on 22.07.2020, at about 11.30 am, they were
on patrolling duty and during patrolling, when they reached
near Chhat Ghat nala, Chhawla, one person was in
suspicious condition coming towards them. Some blood
stains were visible on his clothes. On asking, he disclosed
that he had killed his friend Bhupender and hide the dead
body under garbage at a vacant plot, Goyla Dairy, Goyla
Vihar, which is situated near his residence. That person
further disclosed that he can show the place where he has
hidden the dead body.
37. They further deposed that PW14 immediately passed said
information to SHO Inspector Gyanender Rana and Duty
Officer concerned. IO Inspector Gyanender Rana came at
the spot. On asking, said person disclosed his name to
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 17 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:04 +0530
police party as Neetu and thereafter, accused led police
party to gali no. 7, Goyla Vihar, Goyla Dairy, near St.
Thomas School, to a vacant plot and pointed out towards an
abandoned room and told that he had hide the dead body of
his friend there.
38. They also deposed that members of Crime Team were called
at the spot by IO, which inspected the spot and dead body of
a male person aged about 26-28 years was found under the
garbage. There are several injury marks on his face and
head and the dead body was in a pool of blood. Deceased
was wearing blue colour pant and pink colour printed t-shirt.
Spot was got photographed. Dead body was taken out from
the garbage.
39. They further deposed that accused disclosed the name of
deceased as Bhupender. Accused also informed that the
deceased was living with him for last about 4-5 days at his
house no. 23/23, gali no. 7, Goyla Vihar, Goyla Dairy, New
Delhi. They reached at said residence, where IO made
inquiry from public persons. Mahender owner of said house
was called, who informed that deceased was residing with
accused for last 4-5 days in his house and they both were
doing labour job at his plot. Mahender further informed that
accused and deceased used to drink and fighting with each
other on previous night and he tried to make them
understand.
40. They also deposed that SI Shubham came at the spot.
During inspection of the spot, blood sample in blood gauze
piece, blood sample and blood earth control were collected
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 18 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:05 +0530
by ASI Jai Bhagwan, Incharge, Mobile Crime Team, and
thereafter, the same were handed over to SI Shubham,
which he took into police possession, vide seizure memo
Ex.PW8/A. They also deposed that from the spot, earth
control garbage, which was lying near the dead body, earth
control garbage mixed with blood lying near the dead body
and blood stained jute bag lying near the dead body were
separately sealed and taken into police possession vide
seizure memo Ex.PW8/B.
41. They further deposed that SI Shubham prepared rukka
Ex.PW8/C and got registered present FIR through Const.
Balaram and thereafter, copy of FIR and original rukka were
handed over to IO Inspector Gyanender Rana, who carried
out further investigation. They also deposed that accused
Neetu was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW8/F. Accused
was personally searched vide personal search memo
Ex.PW8/G. During investigation, accused made disclosure
statement Ex.PW8/H. They also deposed that accused led
police party to the bushes and got recovered one iron pipe
with the help of which he killed the deceased. Said pipe was
taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/D.
Videography of recovery of the iron pipe was also got done.
PW14 and PW15 identified dirty and muddy blackish jute
bag Ex.P-1 and iron rod Ex.P-2.
42. PW16 HC Ashok Kumar deposed that on 27.08.2019, on the
instruction of IO, he collected 15 sealed pulandas from the
MHC(M) vide RC No. 164/21/20 Ex.PW16/A and deposited
the same in FSL, Rohini. After depositing the same, he
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 19 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:09 +0530
handed over copy of acceptance of acknowledgment
Ex.PW16/B to the MHC(M).
43. PW17 HC Balram deposed that on 22.07.2020, upon
receiving information that murder was committed at house
no. 23/23, gali no. 7, Goyala Vihar, Goyala Dairy, he
reached at the spot, where SI Shubham, Const. Jitender,
Const. Ram Swaroop and Crime Team members met. A
dead body whose name he came to know as Bhupender,
aged about 28-30 years, was found lying in a room. There
were many marks of injury on the face and head of the dead
body. SI Shubham prepared a rukka and handed over him
for registration of FIR and thereafter, he handed over
original rukka alongwith copy of FIR to SI Shubham.
Accused Neetu was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW8/F.
At the instance of accused, one iron pipe i.e. weapon of
offence was recovered from the bushes of the plot, which
was taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PW8/D.
Videography of spot and recovery of iron pipe was done. He
got medically examined the accused at RTRM hospital vide
MLC No. 2536/20 and exhibits were handed over by the
doctors in sealed condition. He came back to PS and he
handed over all the exhibits to the IO alongwith accused.
44. PW18 Renu deposed that in the year 2020, he was residing
on rent in the house of Mahender Singh at gali no. 7, Goyla
Vihar, Goyla Dairy, Delhi. Mahender brought two labour
persons namely Neetu and Bhupender for the purpose of
constructions and a room adjacent to her room was given to
said two persons for residence by Mahender Singh. During
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 20 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:09 +0530
rainy seasons of 2020, one day she came to know that
Bhupender was murdered. Police came at the spot and
apprehended Neetu. Neetu was handcuffed in police
custody and he was telling that he had committed the
murder of Bhupender.
45. During cross examination by ld. Additional PP for State, she
deposed that the incident happened in the night of 21-
22.07.2020. When accused Neetu was quarreling with
deceased Bhupender, Mahender tried to make them
understand not to fight with each other and then Mahender
left to his house. Accused lead police party for recovery of
dead body of Bhupender from a nearby plot. She had seen
dead body of Bhupender, who was having injury mark on
face and head. She stated to police that accused Neetu told
that he had a fight in the intervening night with Bhupender
and at about 2.30 am, Neetu killed Bhupender with the help
of iron rod by giving blows on his head and face. Her
statement Ex.PW18/PX1 was recorded by police during
investigation on 22.07.2020.
46. PW19 Dr. Uttam Kondle deposed that on 22.07.2020, at
about 20:59 hours, he examined Neetu, who was brought for
medical examination by Const. Balram. He sealed clothes
of patient at the request of IO and prepared MLC No. 2536
Ex.PW19/A of said patient. Clothes after sealing were
handed over to Const. Balram.
47. PW20 Inspector Gyanender Rana deposed about the
investigation carried out by him in this case and proved
various documents including seizure memo Ex.PW20/A of
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 21 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:10 +0530
sealed pulanda containing blood stained clothes of accused,
Form 25.35-B Ex.PW20/B and scaled site plan Ex.PX-6. He
identified jute bag Ex.P-1, iron rod/pipe Ex.P-2, earth
control garbage Ex.P-4, earth control garbage mixed with
blood Ex.P-5 seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/B, earth
control Ex.P-6, earth control stained with blood Ex.P-7 and
blood Ex.P-8 seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/A, clothes
of deceased Ex.P-9 seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A,
nail clipping of deceased Ex.P-10 seized vide seizure memo
Ex.PW3/B, viscera of deceased Ex.P-11 seized vide seizure
memo Ex.PW3/C, blood gauge of deceased Ex.P-12 seized
vide seizure memo already Ex.PW3/D and one t-shirt
Ex.P-13 and pant Ex.P-1 of accused, which he worn at the
time of his arrest and same were handed over to him into a
sealed pulanda seized by him vide Ex.PW20/A.
48. PW21 Inspector Pankaj Kumar deposed that on 14.05.2022
he filed supplementary charge-sheet Ex.PW21/A. During
investigation, he collected FSL report Ex.PX-1 of the
exhibits.
49. Accused has admitted following documents u/s 294 CrPC: –
(i) FSL report (running into 6 pages) as Ex.PX-1 (colly).
(ii) MLC and related documents (running into 4 pages) as
Ex.PX-2 (colly).
(iii) GD Nos. 62A, 68A and 91A as Ex.PX-3 to 5.
(iv) Scaled site plan as Ex.PX-6.
(v) PM report alongwith related documents (running into 5
pages) as Ex.PX-7 (colly).
(vi) Dead body identification memo as Ex.PX-8.
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 22 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:05 +0530
50. After closing of prosecution evidence, separate statement of
accused was recorded u/s 313 CrPC, wherein he denied all
the charges against him. He also stated that he is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in this present case because
he is a poor person. He also stated that entire case as well
as evidence has been created/manufactured at the behest of
IO/police in order to frame him in this case.
51. Accused opted to lead defence evidence and has examined
only one witness in his defence. The testimonies of defence
witness alongwith its nature has been discussed briefly in
the following paragraphs.
Chart of Witnesses Examined
DW No. DW Name Description
DW1 Sachin Kr. Patel Meteorologist-A, Regional
Meteorological Centre, India
Meteorological Department,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
Chart of Exhibited Documents
Exhibit No. Description of Document Proved By
Ex.DW1/A Authorisation letter to appear before the Court DW1
and depose
Ex.DW1/B Letter dated 08.07.2024 received in their DW1
office from the office of ld. counsel for
accused requesting to provide weather data for
21.07.2020, 22.07.2020 and 23.07.2020 of
Dwarka and Najafgarh areas in Delhi
Ex.DW1/C Their letter no. RMCND-16015(12)/2/2024- DW1
RWFC-RMCND/77 dated 24.07.2024
pursuant to letter Ex.DW1/B
Ex.DW1/D Cloud cover (in Okta) as mentioned in letter DW1
(colly) Ex.CW1/C, which can be interpreted based on
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 23 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:13 +0530
the glossary of IMD, which is already
available online
52. DW1 Sachin Kr. Patel deposed that he has been authorised
to appear and depose before the Court vide letter
Ex.DW1/A. He further deposed that letter dated 08.07.2024
(Ex.DW1/B) was received in their office from the office of
Mr. Bharat Gupta, ld. counsel for accused, requesting to
provide weather data for 21.07.2020, 22.07.2020 and
23.07.2020 of Dwarka and Najafgarh areas in Delhi.
Pursuant to said letter, he issued letter no.
RMCND-16015(12)/2/2024-RWFC-RMCND/77 dated
24.07.2024 (Ex.DW1/C) on behalf of Head RMC, New
Delhi, wherein the data mentioned is based on the
measurement and records of India Meteorological
Department (hereinafter referred as IMD). The cloud cover
(in Okta) as mentioned in said letter can be interpreted
based on the glossary of IMD, which is already available
online and is also on record as Ex.DW1/D (colly and
running into 13 pages) and relevant portion is at point A on
page no. 9.
53. Final arguments were advanced by Ms. Rajesh Kumari, ld.
Additional PP for State and Sh. Bharat Gupta, ld. counsel
for accused.
54. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as
“Sharad Bridhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra“,
(1984) 4 SCC 116, has laid down the five golden principles
for appreciation of circumstantial evidence and has termed
the same as Panchsheel of the Proof of Case based on
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 24 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:11 +0530
circumstantial evidence. The said five golden principles are
as follows: –
a. The circumstances from which the conclusion of the
guilt is to be drawn should be and not merely ‘may be’
fully established.
b. The facts so established should be consistent only with
the hypotheses of the guilt of accused, that is to say,
they should not be explainable on any other
hypotheses except that the accused is guilty.
c. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and
tendency.
d. They should exclude every possible hypotheses except
the one to be proved.
e. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not
to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all probability the act must have been
done by the accused.
55. Thus, before recording the conviction of accused the
abovesaid five conditions must be satisfied. The prosecution
has to establish its case on the basis of abovesaid five
golden principles and to secure conviction of accused,
the prosecution must fulfill the following requirements: –
(i) The circumstances from which the inference of the
guilt of the accused is to be drawn must be firmly
established.
(ii) The established circumstances must be of such definite
tendency that points out towards the guilt of accused.
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 25 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:10 +0530
(iii) The chain of the circumstances must be so complete
and there should not be any snap in the chain of
circumstances.
(iv) The chain of circumstances must be so complete and
incapable of any other hypotheses then that the guilt of
the accused and same should also be inconsistent with
the innocence of the accused and must exclude every
other possible hypotheses except with the hypotheses
pointing out towards the guilt of the accused.
56. The law relating to circumstantial evidence, as explained in
several decisions including “Sharad Birdichand Sarda Vs.
State of Maharashtra“, AIR 1984 SC 1622, “Tanviben
Pankajkumar Divetia Vs. State of Gujarat“, (1997) 7 SCC
156, “Harishchandra Ladaku Thange Vs. State of
Maharashtra“, AIR 2007 SC 2957, and “Vithal Eknath
Adlinge Vs. State of Maharashtra“, AIR 2009 SC 2067, is
fairly well settled.
57. Reference can be made to the case of “Sanatan Naskar &
Another Vs. State of West Bengal“, (2010) 8 SCC 249 ,
where it was observed as follows: –
“27. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that it is a
case of circumstantial evidence as there was no
eyewitness to the occurrence. It is a settled principle of
law that an accused can be punished if he is found guilty
even in cases of circumstantial evidence provided, the
prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt
complete chain of events and circumstances which
definitely points towards the involvement and guilt of the
suspect or accused, as the case may be. The accused will
not be entitled to acquittal merely because there is no
eyewitness in the case. It is also equally true that an
accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial
evidence subject to satisfaction of the accepted principlesFIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 26 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:14 +0530
in that regard."
58. In “Gagan Kanojia Vs. State of Punjab“, (2006) 13 SCC
516, the Supreme Court opined: –
“9. Indisputably, charges can be proved on the basis of
the circumstantial evidence, when direct evidence is not
available. It is well settled that in a case based on a
circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove that
within all human probabilities, the act must have been
done by the accused. It is, however, necessary for the
courts to remember that there is a long gap between ‘may
be true’ and ‘must be true’. Prosecution case is required to
be covered by leading cogent, believable and credible
evidence. Whereas the court must raise a presumption that
the accused is innocent and in the event two views are
possible, one indicating to his guilt of the accused and the
other to his innocence, the defence available to the
accused should be accepted, but at the same time, the
court must not reject the evidence of the prosecution,
proceeding on the basis that they are false, not
trustworthy, unreliable and made on flimsy grounds or
only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. The
prosecution case, thus, must be judged in its entirety
having regard to the totality of the circumstances. The
approach of the court should be an integrated one and not
truncated or isolated. The court should use the yardstick of
probability and appreciate the intrinsic value of the
evidence brought on records and analyze and assess the
same objectively.”
59. It can thus clearly be seen that it is necessary for the
prosecution that the circumstances from which the
conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established. The Court held that it is a primary principle that
the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty
before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that
there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction
between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be
proved’. It has been held that the facts so established should
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 27 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:11 +0530
be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to
say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis
except that the accused is guilty. It has further been held that
the circumstances should be such that they exclude every
possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. It has been
held that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show
that in all human probabilities the act must have been done
by the accused.
60. It is settled law that suspicion, however strong it may be,
cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An
accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no
matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be
innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
61. The brief facts of the case as enumerated by the IO in the
charge-sheet are that upon receiving of GD No. 0044A at
13.44.05 hours, it became known that accused Neetu was
apprehended by the police official for the murder of
deceased Bhupender. Thereafter, Crime Team was called at
the spot for inspection. The Crime Team had inspected the
spot and seized earth control garbage, which was lying near
the dead body, earth control garbage mixed with blood lying
near the dead body, jute bag stained with blood lying near
the dead body vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/B and earth
control, earth control stained with blood and blood lying
near the place of occurrence, where accused murdered the
deceased vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/A. The Crime Team
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 28 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:11 +0530
had also taken the photographs, which are Ex.PW7/A-1 to
Ex.PW7/A-38. At the same time, accused Neetu got
recovered iron rod stained with blood from the bushes in a
vacant plot seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/B.
Thereafter, FIR was registered on 22.07.2020 at 16.34
hours. It is further stated that after the registration of FIR,
the dead body was preserved in RTRM Hospital and scaled
site plan were prepared i.e. Ex.PW8/E, Ex.PW2/D-1 and
Ex.PX-6, accused Neetu was arrested and his disclosure
statement was recorded. In the disclosure statement, it was
recorded that the dead body and the weapon of offence were
recovered at the instance of accused Neetu. Thereafter,
statement of other witnesses namely Mahender and Renu
were recorded by the police. It is further stated in the
charge-sheet that in the presence of photographer HC Vikas
weapon of offence i.e. iron rod was recovered from a room
by accused Neetu and the same was seized. It is also stated
that thereafter the dead body of deceased Bhupender was
identified by his brother and brother-in-law, postmortem
was conducted upon the same and the charge-sheet was filed
u/s 302 r/w/s 201 IPC.
62. At the outset, it is most relevant to point out that the police
had carried out faulty investigation in the present case. It is
evident that no FIR was registered immediately upon receipt
of GD No. 0044A at 13.44.05 hours and the FIR was came
to be registered only at 4.34 pm. Before the registration of
FIR, the weapon of offence was already recovered and
seized vide Ex.PW8/D and the dead body was already
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 29 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:12 +0530
recovered. After the registration of FIR, accused Neetu was
arrested at 6.30 pm from Gali No. 7, Goyla Vihar, Goyla
Dairy, New Delhi. Thereafter, his disclosure statement was
recorded, which is Ex.PW8/H. In the disclosure statement,
it is recorded that the dead body was already recovered by
the police officials at the instance of accused Neetu and the
weapon of offence i.e. iron rod can be recovered at the
instance of accused Neetu. In pursuance of the disclosure
statement, the iron rod was not recovered as is evident from
the seizure memo Ex.PW8/D. In the seizure memo
Ex.PW8/D, the inks in which case FIR No. 717/20 and DD
No. 44A is written are different. DD No. 44A and the entire
seizure memo is recorded with gel pen, whereas FIR No.
717/20 is recorded with ball pen, which clearly highlights
that the seizure memo Ex.PW8/D was modified/altered by
the police officials. In the charge-sheet, the IO has
categorically stated that the iron pipe was recovered from
the room, which was photographed by HC Vikas, however,
as per the seizure memo Ex.PW8/D, the iron rod was
recovered from the bushes in a vacant plot and not from the
room. HC Vikas was examined by the prosecution as PW7.
He in his cross examination has stated that no iron rod was
recovered by the IO in his presence and IO had not told him
to click photograph of any iron rod. This casts doubt upon
the manner of investigation.
63. In the instant case before registration of FIR, the dead body
was recovered. It is the case of the prosecution that the dead
body was recovered at the instance of the accused Neetu.
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 30 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:09 +0530
However, in case of “Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Vs. State
of UP“, (2023) 16 SCC 512, it has been categorically held
as under: –
“56. The requirement of law that needs to be fulfilled
before accepting the evidence of discovery is that by
proving the contents of the panchnama. The investigating
officer in his deposition is obliged in law to prove the
contents of the panchnama and it is only if the
investigating officer has successfully proved the contents
of the discovery panchnama in accordance with law, then
in that case the prosecution may be justified in relying
upon such evidence and the trial court may also accept the
evidence. In the present case, what we have noticed from
the oral evidence of the investigating officer, PW−7,
Yogendra Singh is that he has not proved the contents of
the discovery panchnama and all that he has deposed is
that as the accused expressed his willingness to point out
the weapon of offence the same was discovered under a
panchnama. We have minutely gone through this part of
the evidence of the investigating officer and are convinced
that by no stretch of imagination it could be said that the
investigating officer has proved the contents of the
discovery panchnama (Exh.5). There is a reason why we
are laying emphasis on proving the contents of the
panchnama at the end of the investigating officer, more
particularly when the independent panch witnesses though
examined yet have not said a word about such discovery
or turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution.
In order to enable the Court to safely rely upon the
evidence of the investigating officer, it is necessary that
the exact words attributed to an accused, as statement
made by him, be brought on record and, for this purpose
the investigating officer is obliged to depose in his
evidence the exact statement and not by merely saying
that a discovery panchnama of weapon of offence was
drawn as the accused was willing to take it out from a
particular place.
57. Let us see what has been exactly stated in the
discovery panchnama (Exh.5) drawn on 24.01.2010. We
quote the relevant portion as under:
“Today on 24.1.2010, the arrested accused
Ramanand alias Nandlal Bharti son of Late
Shri Gobre, resident of− Naamdar Purwa,
Hamlet− Amethi, original resident of village−
Basadhiya, Police Station− Isanagar, District−
Lakhimpur Kheri has been taken out of theFIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 31 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:06 +0530
lock−up, taken in confidence and then
interrogated by me− the Station House Officer
Yogendra Singh before Hamrah S.S.I. Shri
Uma Shankar Mishra, S.I. Shri Nand Kumar,
Co. 374 Mo. Usman, Co. 598 Prabhu Dayal,
Co. 993 Santosh Kumar Singh, Co. 394
Shrawan Kumar then he confessed the offence
occurred in the incident and weepingly said in
apologizing manner that, “I myself have
committed this crime to get government grant
for being a rich man and to marry Km. Manju
D/o Kanhai, resident of Pakadiya, Police
Station− Tambaur, District− Sitapur regarding
whereof the detailed statement has been
recorded by you. The baanka used in the
incident and the pant−shirt, on which blood
spilled from the bodies of deceased persons
got stained and which had been put off by me
due to fear, have been kept hidden at a secret
place by me which I can get recovered by
going there.”
In expectation of recovery of murder weapon and
blood−stained clothes, I−the Station House Officer
Yogendra Singh alongwith aforesaid Hamrahis departed
carrying accused Ramanand alias Nandlal Bharti by
official jeep UP70AG0326 alongwith driver Raj Kishor
Dixit for the destination pointed out by the accused, vide
Rapat No.− 7 time 07.15…” [Emphasis supplied]
58. We shall now look into the oral evidence of the
PW−7, Investigating Officer wherein, in his examination
in chief, he has deposed as under:
“In January 2010 I was posted as Station
House Officer, Kotwali Dhaurahara. On
22.1.10, I myself had taken the investigation
of aforesaid case. On that day I had copied
chik, rapat and recorded the statements of chik
writer H. Constable Dhaniram Verma and
complainant of the case. After recording the
statement of complainant of the case Shambhu
Raidas I inspected the occurrence spot on his
pointing out and prepared the site plan which
is present on record; on which Exhibit Ka−6
has been marked. And I had also recorded the
statement of hearsay witnesses Ahmad
Hussain and Nizamuddin. On 23.1.10, I
recorded the statements of witnesses
Kshatrapal, Rustam Raidas. On 24.1.10, I
arrested accused Ramanand and recorded hisFIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 32 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:09 +0530
statement and when he expressed that − he
may get recovered the murder weapon used in
the incident, I recovered the murder weapon
baanka before the witnesses on his pointing
out; which had been sealed−stamped at the
spot and its recovery memo had been prepared
at the spot itself, which is present on record as
Exhibit Ka−5….”
[Emphasis supplied]
59. We shall also look into the oral evidence of the
PW−6, Uma Shankar Mishra who at the relevant point of
time was serving as a Sub−Inspector Chowki In−charge
Bahjam, Police Station. It appears that the PW−6 had also
participated in the proceedings of discovery panchnama.
He has deposed in his examination in chief as under:
“On 24.11.2010, I was posted at Police
Station− Dhaurahara. That day, Ramanand S/o
Gobre Rio Naamdar Purwa, Police
Station−Dhaurahara, domicile of village
Basadhiya, Police Station− Isha Ganj,
District− Kheri, the arrested accused of Crime
No. 49/10 U/S 302 State versus Ramanand
alias Nandlal Bharti, was taken out of male
lock up by the then In−charge Inspector and
followers S.I. Nand Kumar, Co. Mo. Usman,
Co. Prabhu Dayal, Co. Santosh Kumar Singh
and Co. Shravan Kumar, and interrogated by
the Incharge Inspector in my presence, during
which he confessed and told that he would get
recovered the murder weapon used in the
murder and his blood stained pant−shirt which
he had kept hidden at a secret place. On this,
expecting the recovery of murder weapon and
blood stained clothes, the SHO along with
followers and force, carrying accused
Ramanand with him, departed on an official
jeep ~ vide GD No. 7 time 7:15 a.m dated
24.01.2010. On the way, he picked up public
witnesses Chhatrapal S/o Rameshwar and
Pratap S/o Asharfi Lal, both residents of
Naamdar Purwa, Hamlet− Amethi for the
purpose of recovery.”
[Emphasis supplied]
60. From the aforesaid two things are quite evident. In
the original panchnama (Exh.5), the statement said to have
been made by the accused appellant figures, however, in
the oral evidence of the PW−7, investigating officer &
PW−6, Sub−Inspector the exact statement has not been
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 33 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:12 +0530
deposed, more particularly when it comes to the
authorship of concealment. The contents of the
panchnama cannot be read into evidence as those do not
constitute substantive evidence.
61. Further, the examination−in−chief of the PW−6,
Sub−Inspector and PW−7, investigating officer does not
indicate that they were read over the panchnama (Exh.5)
before it was exhibited, since one of the panch witnesses
was not examined and the second panch witness though
examined yet has not said a word about the proceedings of
the discovery panchnama. Everything thereafter fell upon
the oral evidence of the investigating officer and the
Sub−Inspector (PW−6).
62. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to and rely
upon the decision of this Court in the case of Murli v.
State of Rajasthan reported in (2009) 9 SCC 417, held as
under:
“34. The contents of the panchnama are not
the substantive evidence. The law is settled on
that issue. What is substantive evidence is
what has been stated by the panchas or the
person concerned in the witness box…….”
[Emphasis supplied]
63. One another serious infirmity which has surfaced is
in regard to the authorship of concealment by the person
who is said to have discovered the weapon.
64. The conditions necessary for the applicability of
Section 27 of the Act are broadly as under:
(1) Discovery of fact in consequence of an
information received from accused;
(2) Discovery of such fact to be deposed to;
(3) The accused must be in police custody
when he gave information; and
(4) So much of information as relates
distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is
admissible – Mohmed Inayatullah v. The State
of Maharashtra: AIR (1976) SC 483Two conditions for application –
(1) information must be such as has caused
discovery of the fact; and
(2) information must relate distinctly to the
fact discovered − Earabhadrappa v. State of
Karnataka: AIR (1983) SC 446″
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 34 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:10 +0530
65. We may refer to and rely upon a Constitution Bench
decision of this Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh
v. Deoman Upadhyaya reported in AIR (1960) SC 1125,
wherein, Paragraph−71 explains the position of law as
regards the Section 27 of the Evidence Act:
“71. The law has thus made a classification
of accused persons into two: (1) those who
have the danger brought home to them by
detention on a charge; and (2) those who are
yet free. In the former category are also those
persons who surrender to the custody by
words or action. The protection given to these
two classes is different. In the case of persons
belonging to the first category the law has
ruled that their statements are not admissible,
and in the case of the second category, only
that portion, of the statement is admissible as
is guaranteed by the discovery of a relevant
fact unknown before the statement to the
investigating authority. That statement may
even be confessional in nature, as when the
person in custody says: “I pushed him down
such and such mineshaft”, and the body of the
victim is found as a result, and it can be
proved that his death was due to injuries
received by a fall down the mineshaft.”
[Emphasis supplied]
66. The scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence
Act were illuminatingly stated in Pulukuri Kottaya and
Others v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67, which have become
locus classicus, in the following words:
“10. ….It is fallacious to treat the “fact
discovered” within the section as equivalent to
the object produced; the fact discovered
embraces the place from which the object is
produced and the knowledge of the accused as
to this, and the information given must relate
distinctly to this fact. Information as to past
user, or the past history, of the object produced
is not related to its discovery in the setting in
which it is discovered. Information supplied
by a person in custody that “I will produce a
knife concealed in the roof of my house” does
not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives
were discovered many years ago. It leads to
the discovery of the fact that a knife is
concealed in the house of the informant to his
knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have
been used in the commission of the offence,FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 35 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:06 +0530
the fact discovered is very relevant. But if to
the statement the words be added “with which
I stabbed A” these words are inadmissible
since they do not relate to the discovery of the
knife in the house of the informant.”
67. What emerges from the evidence in the form of
panchnama is that the appellant stated before the panch
witnesses to the effect that “I will show you the weapon
used in the commission of offence”. This is the exact
statement which we could read from the discovery
panchnama and the Investigating Officer also could not
have deposed as regards the exact statement other than
what has been recorded in the panchnama. This statement
does not suggest that the appellant indicated anything
about his involvement in concealment of the weapon.
Mere discovery cannot be interpreted as sufficient to infer
authorship of concealment by the person who discovered
the weapon. He could have derived knowledge of the
existence of that weapon at the place through some other
source. He may have even seen somebody concealing the
weapon, and, therefore, it cannot be presumed or inferred
that because a person discovered weapon, he was the
person who concealed it, least it can be presumed that he
used it. Therefore, even if discovery by the appellant is
accepted, what emerges from the panchnama of the
discovery of weapon and the evidence in this regard is that
he disclosed that he would show the weapon used in the
commission of offence. In the same manner we have also
perused the panchnama Exh.32 wherein the statement said
to have been made by the accused before the panchas in
exact words is “the accused resident of Roghada village
on his own free will informs to take out cash and other
valuables”.
68. What emerges from the evidence of the investigating
officer is that the accused appellant stated before him
while he was in custody, “I may get discovered the murder
weapon used in the incident”. This statement does not
indicate or suggest that the accused appellant indicated
anything about his involvement in the concealment of the
weapon. It is a vague statement. Mere discovery cannot be
interpreted as sufficient to infer authorship of concealment
by the person who discovered the weapon. He could have
derived knowledge of the existence of that weapon at the
place through some other source also. He might have even
seen somebody concealing the weapon, and, therefore, it
cannot be presumed or inferred that because a person
discovered the weapon, he was the person who had
concealed it, least it can be presumed that he used it.
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 36 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:11 +0530
Therefore, even if discovery by the appellant is accepted,
what emerges from the substantive evidence as regards the
discovery of weapon is that the appellant disclosed that he
would show the weapon used in the commission of
offence.
69. In Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U. P., AIR (1981)
SC 911, this Court observed that the evidence of discovery
of pistol at the instance of the appellant cannot, by itself,
prove that he who pointed out the weapon wielded it in the
offence. The statement accompanying the discovery was
found to be vague to identify the authorship of
concealment and it was held that pointing out of the
weapon may, at the best, prove the appellant’s knowledge
as to where the weapon was kept.
70. Thus, in the absence of exact words, attributed to an
accused person, as statement made by him being deposed
by the investigating officer in his evidence, and also
without proving the contents of the panchnama (Exh.5),
the trial court as well as the High Court was not justified
in placing reliance upon the circumstance of discovery of
weapon.
71. If it is the case of the prosecution that the PW−2,
Chhatarpal Raidas, s/o Rameshwar Raidas had acted as
one of the panch witnesses to the drawing of the discovery
panchnama, then why the PW−2, Chhatarpal Raidas in his
oral evidence has not said a word about he having acted as
a panch witness and the discovery of the weapon of the
offence and blood stained clothes being made in his
presence. The fact that he is absolutely silent in his oral
evidence on the aforesaid itself casts a doubt on the very
credibility of the two police witnesses i.e. PW−6 and
PW−7 respectively.
72. In the aforesaid context, we may also refer to a
decision of this Court in the case of Bodhraj alias Bodha
and Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir reported in
(2002) 8 SCC 45, as under:
“18. …..It would appear that under Section
27 as it stands in order to render the evidence
leading to discovery of any fact admissible,
the information must come from any accused
in custody of the police. The requirement of
police custody is productive of extremely
anomalous results and may lead to the
exclusion of much valuable evidence in cases
where a person, who is subsequently taken
into custody and becomes an accused, afterFIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 37 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:12 +0530
committing a crime meets a police officer or
voluntarily goes to him or to the police station
and states the circumstances of the crime
which lead to the discovery of the dead body,
weapon or any other material fact, in
consequence of the information thus received
from him. This information which is otherwise
admissible becomes inadmissible under
Section 27 if the information did not come
from a person in the custody of a police officer
or did come from a person not in the custody
of a police officer. The statement which is
admissible under Section 27 is the one which
is the information leading to discovery. Thus,
what is admissible being the information, the
same has to be proved and not the opinion
formed on it by the police officer. In other
words, the exact information given by the
accused while in custody which led to
recovery of the articles has to be proved. It is,
therefore, necessary for the benefit of both the
accused and the prosecution that information
given should be recorded and proved and if
not so recorded, the exact information must be
adduced through evidence. The basic idea
embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is
the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent
events. The doctrine is founded on the
principle that if any fact is discovered as a
search made on the strength of any
information obtained from a prisoner, such a
discovery is a guarantee that the information
supplied by the prisoner is true. The
information might be confessional or
non−inculpatory in nature but if it results in
discovery of a fact, it becomes a reliable
information. It is now well settled that
recovery of an object is not discovery of fact
envisaged in the section. Decision of the Privy
Council in Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor [AIR
1947 PC 67 : 48 Cri LJ 533 : 74 IA 65] is the
most−quoted authority for supporting the
interpretation that the “fact discovered”
envisaged in the section embraces the place
from which the object was produced, the
knowledge of the accused as to it, but the
information given must relate distinctly to that
effect. (See State of Maharashtra v. Damu
Gopinath Shinde [(2000) 6 SCC 269 : 2000
SCC (Cri) 1088 : 2000 Cri LJ 2301] .) No
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 38 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:05 +0530
doubt, the information permitted to be
admitted in evidence is confined to that
portion of the information which “distinctly
relates to the fact thereby discovered”. But the
information to get admissibility need not be so
truncated as to make it insensible or
incomprehensible. The extent of information
admitted should be consistent with
understandability. Mere statement that the
accused led the police and the witnesses to the
place where he had concealed the articles is
not indicative of the information given.”
[Emphasis supplied]
73. Mr. Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the State
would submit that even while discarding the evidence in
the form of discovery panchnama the conduct of the
appellant herein would be relevant under Section 8 of the
Evidence Act. The evidence of discovery would be
admissible as conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act
quite apart from the admissibility of the disclosure
statement under Section 27 of the said Act, as this Court
observed in A.N. Venkatesh vs. State of Karnataka, (2005)
7 SCC 714:
“9. By virtue of Section 8 of the Evidence
Act, the conduct of the accused person is
relevant, if such conduct influences or is
influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact.
The evidence of the circumstance, simpliciter,
that the accused pointed out to the police
officer, the place where the dead body of the
kidnapped boy was found and on their
pointing out the body was exhumed, would be
admissible as conduct under Section 8
irrespective of the fact whether the statement
made by the accused contemporaneously with
or antecedent to such conduct falls within the
purview of Section 27 or not as held by this
Court in Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi
Admn.) [(1979) 3 SCC 90 : 1979 SCC (Cri)
656 : AIR 1979 SC 400] . Even if we hold that
the disclosure statement made by the
accused−appellants (Exts. P−15 and P−16) is
not admissible under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act, still it is relevant under Section
8…..”
[Emphasis supplied]
74. In the aforesaid context, we would like to sound a
note of caution. Although the conduct of an accused may
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 39 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:13 +0530
be a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, yet
the same, by itself, cannot be a ground to convict him or
hold him guilty and that too, for a serious offence like
murder. Like any other piece of evidence, the conduct of
an accused is also one of the circumstances which the
court may take into consideration along with the other
evidence on record, direct or indirect. What we are trying
to convey is that the conduct of the accused alone, though
may be relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act,
cannot form the basis of conviction.
75. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, we have
reached to the conclusion that the evidence of discovery of
the weapon and the blood stained clothes at the instance of
the accused appellant can hardly be treated as legal
evidence, more particularly, considering the various legal
infirmities in the same.”
64. In this case, the dead body and the weapon of offence were
already recovered and thereafter, the disclosure statement of
the accused was recorded, which means that the weapon of
offence was not recovered as a fact discovered after
recording of the disclosure statement and, therefore, the
disclosure statement is inadmissible in evidence in its
entirety.
65. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence and,
therefore, it becomes pertinent to evaluate the incriminating
circumstances highlighted by the prosecution. The
incriminating circumstances are: –
(A) Last seen together theory.
(B) Motive.
(C) Disclosure statement of accused Neetu.
(D) Scientific evidence.
66. Now, this Court shall evaluate the aforesaid incriminating
evidence one by one.
(A) Last seen together theory.
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 40 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:06 +0530
67. As per the case of prosecution, the deceased was last seen in
the company of accused Neetu and for that purpose,
prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW2
Mahender and PW18 Renu. However, both the witnesses
i.e. PW2 Mahender and PW18 Renu have not supported the
case of prosecution. PW2 Mahender had denied that the
deceased had abused the accused after consuming liquor and
a fight broke between them due to the said reason. In his
cross examination, he has stated that he is not aware about
any quarrel or fight between the accused and the deceased
and as per him both the accused and the deceased were
having cordial relations. Similarly, PW18 Renu in her
testimony has stated that no quarrel has been taken place
between the accused and the deceased. The abovesaid
testimonies by PW2 Mahender and PW18 Renu disproves
the case of prosecution. Thus, the last seen theory
propounded by the prosecution stands failed on account of
the testimonies of PW2 Mahender and PW18 Renu.
Moreover, the FSL report Ex.PX-1 (colly) with respect to
the viscera of deceased Bhupender does not support the case
of the prosecution as ethyl alcohol was not detected. Thus,
the story of the prosecution fails even on the account of
deceased Bhupender being intoxicated.
(B) Motive.
68. Motive is relevant u/s 8 of Indian Evidence Act. Motive is a
force that moves a man to do a particular work. Generally
there can be no action without any motive. Under Section 8
of Evidence Act, several factors including preparation,
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 41 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:06 +0530
previous threat, previous altercation, previous litigation
between the accused and the victim becomes relevant. The
motive for the commission of offence is of vital importance
in a criminal trial and in cases based on circumstantial
evidence motive itself will be a circumstance which the
Court has to consider deeply. The existence of motive which
operates in the mind of perpetrator may not be known to
others and hence it has to be inferred from the facts and
circumstances of this case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in judgment titled as “Sheo Shankar Singh Vs. State
of Jharkhand & Another“, (2011) 3 SCC 654, observed as
under: –
“15. The legal position regarding proof of motive as an
essential requirement for bringing home the guilt of
accused is fairly well settle by a long line of decision of
this Court. These decisions have made a clear distinction
between cases where the prosecution relies upon the
circumstantial evidence on one hand and those were relies
upon the testimonies of the eye witnesses on the other. In
the former category of cases proof of motive is given the
importance it deserves, for proof of motive itself
constitutes a link in the chain of circumstances upon
which the prosecution may rely. Proof of motive,
however, recedes into background in cases where the
prosecution relies upon and eye witness account of the
occurrence. That is because if the Court upon a proper
appraisal of the deposition of the eye witnesses comes to
the conclusion that the version given by them is credible,
absence of evidence to prove the motive is rendered
inconsequential. Conversely, even if the prosecution
succeeds in establishing a strong motive for the
commission of the offence, but the evidence of the eye
witnesses is found unreliable or unworthy of credit,
existence of motive does not by itself provide a safe
basis for convicting the accused. That does not, however,
mean that proof of motive even in a case which rests on an
eye witness account does not lend strength to the
prosecution case or fortify the Court in its ultimate
conclusion proof of motive in such a situation certainly
helps the prosecution and supports the eye witnesses.”
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 42 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:06 +0530
69. Similarly, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in judgment
titled as “Chunni Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh“, (2010)
SCC 496, observed as under: –
“12. This in our estimation is the reason and motive for
the crime and not the one which was advanced by the
Counsel appearing for the appellant, or by the time the
incident had taken place, the deceased had legalized his
relationship and married the said Chandrakaliya thereby
giving legal status to PW-1 and PW-2 as his sons. In that
situation, there was no possibility at all of the appellant
inheriting the property of his uncle and therefore the plea
taken by the appellant regarding motive appears to be
without merit. Rather on the other hand, we find clear
motive on the part of appellant/accused committing the
murder of his uncle”.
70. As per the case of prosecution, the accused Neetu had hit
the deceased Bhupender because deceased Bhupender after
intoxication had abused accused Neetu and in a fit of anger,
accused Neetu had hit deceased Bhupender with iron rod.
The prosecution is unable to establish the motive as PW2
Mahender and PW18 Renu have not supported the case of
the prosecution. PW2 Mahender had deposed as under: –
“I am not aware as to whether there was any quarrel or
fight happened between Neetu and Bhupender. In my
knowledge, both were having cordial relations.”
71. Similarly, PW18 Renu had turned hostile and had stated that
“No quarrel had taken place in my presence between the
accused and the deceased”.
72. Therefore, it remains unclear if at all any fight had taken
place between the deceased Bhupender and the accused
Neetu. There is nothing on record to presume that the
deceased Bhupender was drunk and had abused accused
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 43 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:11 +0530
Neetu and thereafter, accused Neetu had attacked deceased
Bhupender. Thus, the prosecution has measurably has failed
to prove motive for commission of offence by accused
Neetu.
(C) Disclosure statement of accused Neetu.
73. Recovery of weapon of offence and other incriminating
material at instance of accused person on the basis of
disclosure statements made by accused person is an
important circumstantial evidence. Section 27 of Indian
Evidence Act is an exception to Section 25 and Section 26
of the said act. Section 27 is based on the doctrine of
confirmation by subsequent events. The principle u/s 27 of
Indian Evidence Act is based on the principle that if any fact
is discovered on the basis of disclosure statement of
accused, the discovery of said fact is a guarantee that the
information given by the accused in his disclosure statement
is true. Such information may be confessional or non-
inculpating in nature but if any new fact is discovered from
such information it will be considered as a reliable
information. The fact discovered on the basis of disclosure
of statement of accused must be relevant facts. Such
information must be given by the person who is accused of
an offence and the recovery of article or discovery of fact
must be based upon the information given by such accused.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as
“Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal Vs. State of UP &
Another“, (2015) 7 SCC 148, has held that: –
“the facts discovered u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act
embraces the place from which object was produced andFIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 44 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:12 +0530
knowledge of the accused as to it and if the accused are
denying their role without proper explanation as to
the knowledge about the incriminating material
recovered on the basis of their statements in police
custody, would justify the presumption drawn by the
Courts below as to the involvement of the accused in the
Crime”.
74. It is a settled principle of law that a confessional statement
made to a police officer is not admissible in evidence and
only the discovery led by such statement is admissible. This
was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
“Aghnoo Naghesia Vs. State of Bihar“, AIR 1966 SC 119,
wherein it was held as under: –
“A little reflection will show that the expression
“confession” in ss. 24 to 30 refers to the confessional
statement as a whole including not only the admissions of
the offence but also all other admissions of incriminating
facts related to the offence. Section 27 partially lifts the
ban imposed by ss. 24. 25 and 26 in respect of so much of
the information whether it amounts to a confession or not,
as relates distinctly to the fact discovered in consequence
of the information, if the other conditions of the section
are satisfied. Section 27 distinctly contemplates that an
information leading to a discovery may be a part of the
confession of the accused and thus, fall within the purview
of ss. 24, 25 and 26 Section 27 thus shows that a
confessional statement admitting the offence may contain
additional information as part of the confession. Again, s.
30 permits the Court to take into consideration against a
co-accused a confession of another accused affecting not
only himself but the other co-accused. Section 30 thus
shows that matters affecting other persons may from part
of the confession.
If the first information report is given by the accused
to a police officer and amounts to a confessional
statement, proof of the confession is prohibited by s. 25.
The confession includes not only the admission of the
offence but all other admissions of incriminating facts
related to the offence contained in the confessional
statement. No part of the confessional statement is
receivable in evidence except to the extent that the ban ofFIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 45 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:07 +0530
s. 25 is lifted by.."
75. It will be useful to advert to the exposition in the case of
“Vasanta Sampat Dupare Vs. State of Maharashtra“, (2015)
1 SCC 253, in particular, paragraphs 23 to 29 thereof. The
same read thus: –
“23. While accepting or rejecting the factors of
discovery, certain principles are to be kept in mind. The
Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor, AIR
1947 PC 67 has held thus: (IA p. 77)
“… it is fallacious to treat the ‘fact discovered’
within the section as equivalent to the object
produced; the fact discovered embraces the
place from which the object is produced and
the knowledge of the accused as to this, and
the information given must relate distinctly to
this fact. Information as to past user, or the
past history, of the object produced is not
related to its discovery in the setting in which
it is discovered. Information supplied by a
person in custody that ‘I will produce a knife
concealed in the roof of my house’ does not
lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were
discovered many years ago. It leads to the
discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed
in the house of the informant to his
knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have
been used in the commission of the offence,
the fact discovered is very relevant. But if to
the statement the words be added ‘with which
I stabbed A’, these words are inadmissible
since they do not relate to the discovery of the
knife in the house of the informant.”
76. In “Mohd. Inayatullah Vs. State of Maharashtra“, (1976) 1
SCC 828; (1976) 1 SCR 715, while dealing with the ambit
and scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Court held
that: (SCC pp. 831-32, paras 11-13)
“11. Although the interpretation and scope of Section 27
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 46 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:08 +0530
has been the subject of several authoritative
pronouncements, its application to concrete cases
is not always free from difficulty. It will therefore be
worthwhile at the outset, to have a short and swift
glance at the section and be reminded of its requirements.
The section says:
’27. How much of information received from
accused may be proved.–Provided that, when
any fact is deposed to as discovered in
consequence of information received from a
person accused of any offence, in the custody
of a police officer, so much of such
information, whether it amounts to a
confession or not, as relates distinctly to the
fact thereby discovered, may be proved.’
12. The expression ‘provided that’ together with the
phrase ‘whether it amounts to a confession or not’ show
that the section is in the nature of an exception to the
preceding provisions particularly Sections 25 and 26. It is
not necessary in this case to consider if this section
qualifies, to any extent, Section 24, also. It will be seen
that the first condition necessary for bringing this section
into operation is the discovery of a fact, albeit a relevant
fact, in consequence of the information received from a
person accused of an offence. The second is that the
discovery of such fact must be deposed to. The third is
that at the time of the receipt of the information the
accused must be in police custody. The last but the most
important condition is that only ‘so much of the
information’ as relates distinctly to the fact thereby
discovered is admissible. The rest of the information has
to be excluded. The word ‘distinctly’ means ‘directly’,
‘indubitably’, ‘strictly’, ‘unmistakably’. The word has
been advisedly used to limit and define the scope of the
provable information. The phrase ‘distinctly relates to the
fact thereby discovered’ is the linchpin of the provision.
This phrase refers to that part of the information supplied
by the accused which is the direct and immediate cause of
the discovery. The reason behind this partial lifting of the
ban against confessions and statements made to the police,
is that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of
information given by the accused, it affords some
guarantee of truth of that part, and that part only, of the
information which was the clear, immediate and
proximate cause of the discovery. No such guarantee or
assurance attaches to the rest of the statement which may
be indirectly or remotely related to the fact discovered.
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 47 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:06 +0530
13. At one time it was held that the expression ‘fact
discovered’ in the section is restricted to a physical or
material fact which can be perceived by the senses, and
that it does not include a mental fact (see Sukhan v.
Emperor, AIR 1929 Lah 344; Ganu Chandra Kashid v.
Emperor, AIR 1932 Bom 286). Now it is fairly settled that
the expression ‘fact discovered’ includes not only the
physical object produced, but also the place from which it
is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this
(see Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor; Udai Bhan v.
State of U.P., AIR 1962 SC 1116; (1962) 2 Cri LJ 251;
1962 Supp (2) SCR 830).” (emphasis in original)
77. In “Aftab Ahmad Anasari Vs. State of Uttaranchal“, (2010)
2 SCC 583, after referring to the decision in Pulukuri
Kotayya, the Court adverted to seizure of clothes of the
deceased which were concealed by the accused. In that
context, the Court opined that (Aftab Ahmad Anasari case,
SCC p. 596, para 40)
“40. … the part of the disclosure statement, namely, that
the appellant was ready to show the place where he had
concealed the clothes of the deceased is clearly admissible
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act because the same
relates distinctly to the discovery of the clothes of the
deceased from that very place. The contention that even if
it is assumed for the sake of argument that the clothes of
the deceased were recovered from the house of the sister
of the appellant pursuant to the voluntary disclosure
statement made by the appellant, the prosecution has
failed to prove that the clothes so recovered belonged to
the deceased and therefore, the recovery of the clothes
should not be treated as an incriminating circumstance, is
devoid of merits.”
78. In “State of Maharashtra Vs. Damu“, (2000) 6 SCC 269, it
has been held as follows: (SCC p.283, para 35)
“35. … It is now well settled that recovery of an object is
not discovery of a fact as envisaged in [Section 27 of the
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 48 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:12 +0530
Evidence Act, 1872]. The decision of the Privy Council in
Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor is the most quoted
authority for supporting the interpretation that the ‘fact
discovered’ envisaged in the section embraces the place
from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the
accused as to it, but the information given must relate
distinctly to that effect.”
79. The place of recovery is a public place but it is a vacant
plot. The law that deals with recovery of evidence from
open place dealt by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
“Dinesh Kumar Mathur Vs. State”, Crl. A. No. 696/2012″,
as under:-
“31. The second limb of the argument of Ms.Dubey is
that the recovery was from an open area visible to the
naked eye and hence, outside the contours of Section
27 of the Evidence Act. In this regard, we may usefully
refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in State of H.P. v.
Jeet Singh, (1999) 4 SCC 370 wherein recovery was
effected from tobacco bushes, heap of rubbish situated in
the compound of the residence of the accused and his
cowshed and the High Court had repelled the
circumstance inter alia as recoveries made were “open and
accessible to others”; this was reversed by the Supreme
Court observing as under: –
“26. There is nothing in Section 27 of the
Evidence Act which renders the statement of
the accused inadmissible if recovery of the
articles was made from any place which is
“open or accessible to others”. It is a fallacious
notion that when recovery of any
incriminating article was made from a place
which is open or accessible to others, it would
vitiate the evidence under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act. Any object can be concealed in
places which are open or accessible to others.
For example, if the article is buried in the
main roadside or if it is concealed beneath dry
leaves lying on public places or kept hidden in
a public office, the article would remain out of
the visibility of others in normal
circumstances. Until such article is disinterred,
its hidden state would remain unhampered.
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 49 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:08 +0530
The person who hid it alone knows where it is
until he discloses that fact to any other person.
Hence, the crucial question is not whether the
place was accessible to others or not but
whether it was ordinarily visible to others. If it
is not, then it is immaterial that the concealed
place is accessible to others.”
(Emphasis Supplied) [See also Titu v. State,
ILR (2007) 1 Del 990 (paragraphs 28 and 29)]
60.4.5 Similarly, the Supreme Court in State of
Maharashtra v. Bharat Fakira Dhiwar, (2002) 1 SCC 622
found the recovery of a blood stained grinding stone from
tall grass from a place very close to the house of the
accused/respondent not to be from an open place as
“[u]ntil they were disinterred, at instance of Respondent,
their hidden state had remained unhampered.”
In Ibrahim Musa Chauhan @ Baba Chauhan v. State of
Maharashtra, 2013 (3) SCALE 207 the Supreme Court
found the recovery of a plastic bag containing hand
grenades from a heap in which lay broken tiles was not
from an open place. The relevant portion reads as under: –
“133. Undoubtedly, the appellant’s disclosure
statement had been made before the police, as
well as the panch witness. The fact that he did
not disclose the place where the contraband
had been hidden remains entirely insignificant,
for the reason that he had led the police party
to the said place, and that the said recovery
had been made at his behest. The open space
from where the recovery had been made
though was accessible to anybody, it must be
remembered that the contraband had been
hidden, and that it was only after digging was
done at the place shown by the appellant, that
such recovery was made. Hence, it would have
been impossible for a normal person having
access to the said place, to know where the
contraband goods were hidden.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
In a recent judgment, a coordinate bench of this Court, of
which one of us (G.S. Sistani, J.) was a member, in Jite v.
State, MANU/DE/ 1791/2017 had repelled the submission
that the recovery of the weapon of offence, i.e. dagger,
was doubtful as being recovered from a park allowing
access to the public in general, by finding that as the
dagger was concealed in a heap of construction material
and the same was recovered on the very next day, it could
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 50 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:11 +0530
not be said to have been effectuated in an open and
accessible place.
Coming to the case at hand, we find the recovery of the
blade of the darati to be reliable. The Investigation Officer
(PW-27) stated that the kabristan remains closed and not
in use and hence, it cannot be said that the area was open
or accessible. Be that as it may, all the three witnesses to
the recovery (PW-10, 21 and 27) have testified that the
recovery was effected from a polythene bag concealed
amongst the roots of a bargad (banyan) tree and only part
of the polythene was visible from outside. In such
circumstances, the recovery cannot be said to be from an
open area visible to the naked eye. As long as the
polythene remained disinterred, its hidden state continued
and its recovery remains inside the purview of Section 27
of the Evidence Act.”
80. The similar principle has been laid down in “State of
Maharashtra Vs. Suresh“, (2000) 1 SCC 471, “State of
Punjab Vs. Asar Mohammad & Others”, (2019) 12 SCC
253, “Aftab Ahmad Anasari Vs. State of Uttaranchal“,
(2010) 2 SCC 583, “Bhagwan Dass Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi)”, (2011) 6 SCC 396, “Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT
of Delhi)”, (2010) 6 SCC 1, and “Rumi Bora Dutta Vs.
State of Assam“, (2013) 7 SCC 417.
81. This Court has already discussed in above paragraphs that
the disclosure statement of the accused Neetu is entirely
inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon. There
are contradictions in recovery of weapon of offence i.e. iron
rod. In the disclosure statement of accused Neetu, it is
mentioned that iron rod can be recovered by him when the
iron rod was already recovered as is evident from
Ex.PW8/B. The iron rod was never recovered in pursuance
of disclosure statement but in fact have been recovered
much before the registration of FIR, which casts doubt as to
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 51 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:04 +0530
the veracity of recovery proceedings as per the mandate of
Ramanand (supra). Accordingly, the disclosure statement
cannot be relied upon.
(D) Scientific evidence.
82. As per Ex.PX-1 i.e. FSL result of biological examination,
Ex.12 i.e. blood stained gauze cloth piece of deceased was
found to be similar with the DNA profile generated from
source Ex.7 i.e. iron pipe, Ex.8a i.e. t-shirt of accused,
Ex.8b i.e. pants/jeans of accused and Ex.10 and Ex.11 i.e.
nail clippings of deceased.
83. In the instant case, the scientific evidence i.e. Ex.PX-1
points towards the guilt of the accused Neetu, however, the
same cannot be relied upon for the reason that the iron pipe
was recovered before recording the disclosure statement of
accused Neetu and whether the same was recovered at the
instance of Neetu or not is itself disputed. There was no
public witness at the time the said recovery was made.
Accordingly, the recovery done by the police officials is not
as per the mandate of law as discussed in Ramanand (supra).
84. Similarly, it cannot be said with certainty that the blood
allegedly found on the clothes of the accused was planted or
was present because of the commission of offence by
accused Neetu. PW2 Mahender during his cross
examination has deposed as under: –
“Police came to my house with accused Neetu at about
8.30 am. At that time, Neetu was sitting in police van and
he was handcuff. Police told me that a murder has taken
place in your house as told by Neetu to them as such they
came to make inquiry from me. … … … As far as I
remember, Neetu was wearing a jeans on that day. After
recovery of dead body, me and Neetu were again taken toFIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 52 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:05 +0530
PS. I did not notice any blood stains in premises 23/23. I
did not notice any blood on the clothes of Neetu.”
85. This clearly means that no blood was found present on the
clothes of accused Neetu at the time the police was making
the investigation. PW19 Dr. Uttam Kondle in his cross
examination has categorically stated that “All observations
with respect to clothes of patient Neetu are stated in MLC
Ex.PW19/A. It is correct that the MLC does not states that
there was blood on the clothes of the accused”. This again
raises a doubt on the version of prosecution that the blood
stains were present on the clothes of the accused. In this
background, the scientific evidence becomes less reliable
and conviction cannot be based upon the same.
86. Applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in Sharad Birdichand Sarda (supra), this Court is of
considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the
circumstances from which the guilt of accused can be
established. The fact established by the prosecution are not
consistent with the hypotheses of the guilt of accused and
the circumstances are not conclusive in nature. The chain of
circumstances proved by the prosecution is not complete to
prove that in all probabilities the alleged offences have been
committed only by the accused and none else.
87. It is established principle of law that if two views are
possible, the view favourable to the accused must be
accepted. The benefit of doubt must always go to the
accused as the prosecution has to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt.
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 53 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:07 +0530
88. The Hon’ble Apex Court in “Rang Bahadur Singh Vs. State
of UP“, AIR 2000 SC 1209, has held as follows: –
“The timetested rule in that acquittal of a guilty person
should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person.
Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on
the accused. A criminal court cannot afford to deprive lib-
erty of the appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at
least a reasonable level of certainty that the appellants
were the real culprits.”
89. In yet another decision in “State of UP Vs. Ram Veer Singh
& Another“, 2007 (6) Supreme 164, the Hon’ble Apex Court
has held as follows: –
“The golden thread which runs through the web of admin-
istration of justice in criminal cases is that if two view are
possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing
to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence,
the view which is favourable to the accused should be
adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to
ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscar-
riage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the
guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent.
In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is
cast upon the appellate Court to reappreciate the evidence
where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of
ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really com-
mitted any offence or not.”
90. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is
always the burden of prosecution to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence
produced before Court. Crime is an event in real life and is
the product of interplay of different human emotions. In
arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of accused,
charged with the commission of a crime, a criminal Court
has to ensure that facts constituting such crime are proved
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 54 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:08 +0530
beyond the scope of any reasonable doubt. Every case in the
final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts and
merits. Definite doubts or lacunae in the case of the
prosecution may result in benefit of doubt being given to the
accused and consequential acquittal.
91. As far as the present case is concerned, as already noted the
same is based on circumstantial evidence and it is settled
principle of law that in a case which is hinged upon
circumstantial evidence complete chain of circumstances
has to be spelt out by the prosecution and even if one link in
the chain is either missing or broken, the accused must get
the benefit thereof. In the considered opinion of this Court,
none of the circumstances relied by the prosecution have
been proved beyond the standard of reasonable doubt and
thus the accused who has faced trial is entitled for benefit
thereof.
CONCLUSION
92. In the light of above discussions, it is held that prosecution
has miserably failed to prove the circumstances that would
lead to the only hypothesis of the guilt of the accused Neetu.
93. It is, therefore, held that prosecution has failed to establish
charge against accused. Accordingly, accused Neetu stands
acquitted in this case. His personal bond, if any, is canceled
and surety, if any, is discharged. Documents, if any, be
returned to the surety. Case property, if any, be released to
rightful owners. Accused is directed to furnish bonds in
terms of Section 437-A CrPC/481 BNSS in the sum of
Rs.10,000/- within one week from today.
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 55 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:10 +0530
94. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(SHIVALI BANSAL)
Announced in the open ASJ-02, DWARKA COURTS,
Court on 13.04.2025. S-W DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
FIR No. 717/20. State Vs. Neetu.
PS Chhawla. Page No. 56 of 56.
SHIVALI Digitally signed by
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2026.04.13
13:14:07 +0530
