Delhi District Court
State vs Sumit@Dabba on 8 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANUJ AGRAWAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-3, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
DLSE010005572021
SC No. 47/2021
CNR NO. DLSE01-000557-2021
State
Vs.
1) Sumit @ Dabba
S/o Shri Ramesh
R/o House No. 696, A Block,
Gautampuri Phase-1,
Badarpur, New Delhi.
(Proceedings qua him abated vide order dated 07.02.2024)
2) Kartik @ Vijavasan
S/o Sundram,
R/o House No. A-1300,
Gautampuri Phase -1,
Badarpur, New Delhi.
FIR No. 343/2020
PS: Sarita Vihar
U/s: 392/302/34 IPC &
411/201 IPC
Instituted on : 04.12.2020
Committed on : 11.01.2021
Reserved on : Not reserved
Decided on : 08.04.2026
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.1 of 31
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Kartik @ Vijavasan has been sent to face trial for the
offences punishable under Sections 392/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The case of the prosecution is that on 05.09.2020, at about 8:00 PM, at
Kachcha Rasta from Sarita Vihar, Mathura Road towards Lal Mandir, Ali
Vihar, within the jurisdiction of PS Sarita Vihar, the accused, along with
co-accused Sumit @ Dabba (since deceased), in furtherance of their
common intention, committed robbery of a mobile phone belonging to the
deceased Sani Dayal, namely VIVO 1718, black in colour, and during the
course of the said robbery, murdered him by stabbing.
2. Brief facts: The case of the prosecution is that on 05.09.2020, at
about 8:00 PM, witnesses Sanjay Singh and Rohan were traveling by
motorcycle through Aali Vihar jungle, they heard cries for help and saw a
group of boys fleeing and discovered Sani Dayal lying on the ground with
multiple stab wounds. The witnesses told about the same to patrolling
police officers, who transported the victim to Apollo Hospital, where he
was declared brought dead.
2.1) The police registered a murder case and found that the victim’s
mobile phone was missing, however, traced the location of the missing
phone to the Gautampuri area, which led them to accused Sumit alias
Dabba, who revealed that he used a social networking app (“Gay Blued
App”) to lure the victim to a meeting. Accused Sumit disclosed that he
alongwith his accomplice Kartik, took the victim into the jungle on a
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.2 of 31
borrowed scooty and that when the victim resisted their attempt to rob him
of his money and phone, Kartik held him down, while he stabbed him in
the chest.
2.2) Thereafter, the police recovered the weapon of offence i.e. knife,
victim’s stolen mobile phone, the scooty used during the incident and the
blood-stained clothes of the accused. During arrest of co-accused Kartik,
an illegal country-made pistol was also found in his possession. Forensic
evidence, including blood samples and post-mortem reports, confirmed
that the cause of death was “hemorrhagic shock due to stab wounds.”
3. The investigation culminated in the filing of a final report/
chargesheet under section 173 CrPC against the accused persons Sumit @
Dabba and Kartik @ Vijavasan for the offence punishable u/s
302/201/394/397/411/34 IPC.
4. Upon completion of investigation and after compliance with the
necessary legal formalities, the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions. Vide order dated 18.08.2022, charge for offences punishable
under Sections 392/302/34 IPC was framed against both the accused
persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The accused
Sumit @ Dabba (since deceased) was, in the alternative, also charged for
the offences punishable under Sections 411 IPC and 201 IPC.
5. During course of trial, a report dated 09.01.2024 was received
from Jail Superintendent, Central Jail – 11, Mandoli, Delhi, mentioning
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.3 of 31
that accused Sumit @ Dabba was found brought dead as per MLC No.
BD/2614/01/24 & CR No. 7975 and in view of the said report, the
proceedings against accused Sumit @ Dabba stood abated.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
6. In support of its allegations, prosecution produced 29 witnesses. A
summary of the witnesses produced and their connection with the incident
is as follows :
Witness Witness Name Purpose
No.
PW1 Dr. Karthi Vignesh He conducted the postmortem
Raj of deceased Sani Dayal vide
report Ex. PW1/B.
PW2 ACP Mukesh Kumar He proved scaled site plan
Jain Ex.PW2/A of the spot i.e.
Aali Vihar, Sarita Vihar.
PW3 Sanjay Singh Material witness.
PW4 Rohan Material witness.
PW5 Dr. Rupam, Apollo He proved the MLC of
Hospital. deceased Sani Dayal
Ex.PW5/A.
PW6 Vinod Kumar Family members of deceased
and and who identified his dead body
PW7 Sunil Dayal vide identification memo
Ex.PW6/A.
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.4 of 31
PW8 Arjun Kumar He is owner of mobile Oppo
company Ex.M1 allegedly
used by accused Sumit @
Dabba (since expired).
PW9 Sonu He is the registered owner of
scooty No. DL-3SEQ-8944
allegedly used in alleged
incident by accused Sumit @
Dabba (since expired).
PW10 Sunny He is brother of Sonu, who
denied giving the scooty of
his brother to accused Sumit
@ Dabba.
PW11 Pankaj His testimony is not relevant
for adjudication of present
trial.
PW12 ASI Virender He delivered the copy of FIR
to Sr. Police officials and to
the concerned Area
Magistrate.
PW13 SI Ved Prakash He is witness to the
investigation. He is also a
witness to the alleged
recovery of scooty no.
DL3SEQ8944 at instance of
accused Sumit and its seizure
by IO vide memo
Ex.PW13/A.
PW14 HC Amit Kapasiya Material witnesses who
and and reached to the spot
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.5 of 31
PW16 HC Ombir immediately after the
incident.
PW15 ASI Adesh Kumar Concerned MHC(M).
PW17 HC Vikram Witness to investigation. He
deposed about taking the dead
body of victim to mortuary
and also producing accused
persons to AIIMS hospital for
their medical examination.
PW18 SI Kulbir He took complainant to Tihar
jail for identification of
accused persons who refused
to participate in test
identification proceedings.
PW19 ASI Yadvir The concerned Duty Officer,
he proved copy of DD No.
83A Ex.PW19/A regarding
arrival of victim as brought
dead in Apollo Hospital.
PW20 Insp. Neeraj He filed FSL result
Ex.PW20/A by way of
supplementary chargesheet.
PW21 HC Mahesh He took the exhibits of
present case to FSL.
PW22 Insp. V.S. Rana He is the Investigating
Officer/IO.
PW23 Dr. Kapil Dev He proved his report
Mudgil, FSL Expert Ex.PW20/A.
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.6 of 31
from Chemistry
Division.
PW24 Dr. Sarabjit Singh, He proved his report
FSL expert from Ex.PW24/A.
Biology Division
PW25 Insp. Subhash Kumar He filed the CDRs of mobile
Mishra number 9990784978 and
9315468774 by way of
supplementary chargesheet.
He also filed the FSL report
Ex.PW24/A by way of
another supplementary
chargesheet.
PW26 ASI Ravi Kumar He is the Incharge District
Crime Team and he proved
Crime Scene Inspection
Report Ex.PW26/P7.
PW27 Praveen Kumar, the He proved the CDR / CAF /
Nodal Officer from Cell ID Chart and requisite
Reliance Jio. certificate under Indian
Evidence Act Ex.PW27/A of
mobile no. 9990784978 and
9315468774 for the period
15.08.2020 to 07.09.2020.
PW28 Retired SI The concerned Duty Officer,
Sh. Rajender Singh. who proved copy of FIR
Ex.PW28/A and endorsement
on rukka Ex.PW28/B.
PW29 HC Amit Singh The concerned Photographer
of Mobile Crime Team and
took photographs Ex.
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.7 of 31
PW29/A1 to A6 of the scene
of crime.
7. MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD: The testimony of material
witnesses is being discussed hereinunder, whereas brief of remaining
testimonies has already been given in the preceding paragraph.
8. PW3 Mr. Sanjay Singh is the material witness and his testimony is
reads as under:
“I am residing at the aforesaid address with my family on rent.
I am Driver by profession. I can write and read Hindi Language. I
belong to village Gopalpura, PS Bhind, District Bhind, Madhya
Pradesh. Sh. Rohan is my friend. It was the date 5-6.09.2020, I along
with my friend Rohan were going to our house on bike DL-3SCN8071
make Honda Dream after taking the petrol from Sarita Vihar, Mathura
Road, Petrol Pump. While going to our house when we entered in the
forest of Aali Vihar where we found one person was lying in a injured
condition on the way in the jungle towards Lal Mandir.
We had reached near the injured. I had tried to ask him but he
could not respond and blood was oozing from the chest of the injured.
After seeing the same we reached near the Police Post and told the
police official that one person in injured condition in the jungle. On
which 3-4 police official accompanied me. One auto was arranged and
injured was put up in the auto and police officials along with Rohan
took the injured to the hospital in the auto. Thereafter, I had gone at
my house. Rohan after returning from hospital informed me thatSC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.8 of 31
injured had expired on the way to the hospital. I had not seen anyone
near the spot of incident where I had saw a person lying in injured
condition. Police official had made inquiry from me and my
statementwas recorded by the police. The statement is Ex.PW-3/A
which bears my signatures at point A.On 15.09.2020, I was called by the police on which I reached at
Tihar Jail for the identification of the accused persons arrested in this
case by the police, but the accused persons had refused to join their
TIP proceedings. I had not gone to PS thereafter for the identification
of accused persons. I cannot identify the accused persons if shown to
me.
At this stage, witness is asked to identify the accused persons
namely Sumit @ Dabba and Kartik present in court today but he could
not identify them.
At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP seeks to cross-examine the witness as
he is resiling from his earlier complaint and statement recorded u/s 161
Cr.P.C. Heard. Allowed.
XXXXX by Ld. Addl. PP for State.
At this stage, statement Ex.PW-3/A is shown to the witness.
After going through the same, witness states that date was 5 th of the
month but due to lapse of time I could not recall the same. It is wrong to
suggest that we had reached at about 8:00 pm and when we were passing
from Aali Vihar jungle, Mathura Road towards Lal Mandir on a road of
the jungle where we had heard the noise of bachao bachao. It is wrong
to suggest that thereafter I along with Rohan reached towards the same
on the motorcycle. It is wrong to suggest that in the light of motorcycle
I had seen some boys running towards Aali Vihar Jungle.
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.9 of 31
It is correct that later on I came to know that name of injured
was Sunny Dayal who had expired due to stab injury at Apollo Hospital.
It is wrong to suggest that I am having suspicion upon those boys to
whom I had seen running from the spot in the jungle. It is wrong to
suggest that those boys had murdered the injured with a knife. It is
wrong to suggest that I had told the police in the statement that I can
identify those boys if produced before me.
At this stage, the supplementary statement recorded U/s 161
Cr.PC dt.17.09.2020 Mark X is shown to the witness on which he
denied having so made to the police. It is wrong to suggest that on
17.09.2020 I came to know that accused persons who had murdered the
deceased on 05.09.2020 in Aali Vihar Jungle had been brought in the
PS Sarita Vihar. It is wrong to suggest that I had visited PS Sarita Vihar
where I had identified two boys in the office of IO of the case by stating
that these are the boys to whom I had seen running from the spot of
incident from Aali Vihar Jungle. It is wrong to suggest that I am
intentionally not deposing the true facts of the case. It is wrong to
suggest that I am intentionally not identifying the accused persons
Sumit @ Dabba and Kartik present in the court today and trying to save
them as I have been won over by them.
(emphasis supplied)
9. PW4 Rohan is the other material public witness examined by
prosecution and his testimony is reads as under:
“I am residing at the aforesaid address with my parents on rent.
Sh. Sanjay Singh is my friend. On 05.09.2022, I along with my friend
Sanjay Singh were going to our house on bike no.DL-3SCN8071 makeSC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.10 of 31
Honda Dream after taking the petrol from Sarita Vihar, Mathura Road,
Petrol Pump. While going to our house when we entered in the forest of
Aali Vihar in between 6-7 pm where we found one person was lying in
a injured condition on the way in the jungle towards Lal Mandir. We
had reached near the injured. I had tried to ask him but he could not
respond and blood was oozing from the chest of the injured. After
seeing the same, I along with Sanjay Singh reached at the Police Post
and met some police official. We told them that one person in injured
condition is lying in the jungle. On which 3-4 police official
accompanied us.
One auto was arranged and injured was put up in the auto and
police officials along with me took the injured to the Apollo hospital in
the auto. Thereafter, Sanjay Singh had gone to his house. I returned
from hospital and informed Sanjay Singh that injured had expired on
the way to the hospital. I had not seen anyone near the spot of incident
running towards Aali Vihar Jungle. Police official had made inquiry
from me and my statement was recorded by the police.
On 15.09.2020, I was called by the police on which I reached at
Tihar Jail for the identification of the accused persons arrested in
this case by the police, but the accused persons had refused to join their
TIP proceedings. I had not gone to PS for the identification of accused
persons. I cannot identify the accused persons if shown to me.
At this stage, witness is asked to identify the accused persons
namely Sumit @ Dabba and Kartik present in court today but he could
not identify them.
At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP seeks to cross-examine the witness
as he is resiling from his earlier complaint and statement recorded u/s
161 Cr.P.C. Heard. Allowed.
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.11 of 31
XXXXX by Ld. Addl. PP for State.
At this stage, statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC Mark Y is
shown to the witness. After going through the same, he denies having
so made to the police. It is wrong to suggest that when I had reached
near the spot at about 8:00 pm, we were passing from Aali Vihar jungle,
Mathura Road towards Lal Mandir on a road of the jungle where we
had heard the noise of bachao bachao.
It is wrong to suggest that thereafter I along with Sanjay Singh
reached towards the same on the motorcycle. It is wrong to suggest that
in the light of motorcycle I had seen some boys running towards Aali
Vihar Jungle. It is wrong to suggest that I am having suspicion upon
those boys to whom I had seen running from the spot in the Aali Vihar
jungle. It is wrong to suggest that those boys had murdered the injured
with a knife. It is wrong to suggest that I had told the police in the
statement that I can identify those boys if produced before me.
At this stage, the supplementary statement recorded U/s 161
Cr.PC dt.17.09.2020 Mark Z is shown to the witness on which he
denied having so made to the police. It is wrong to suggest that on
17.09.2020 I came to know that accused persons who had murdered
the deceased on 05.09.2020 in Aali Vihar Jungle had been brought in
the PS Sarita Vihar. It is wrong to suggest that I had visited PS Sarita
Vihar where I had identified two boys in the office of IO of the case
by stating that these are the boys to whom I had seen running from
the spot of incident from Aali Vihar Jungle.
It is wrong to suggest that I am intentionally not deposing the
true facts of the case. It is wrong to suggest that I am intentionally notSC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.12 of 31
identifying the accused persons Sumit @ Dabba and Kartik present in
the court today and trying to save them as I have been won over by
their family members.
(emphasis supplied)
10. PW14 is HC Amit Kapsiya and his testimony is reads as under:
“In the intervening night of 05/06.09.2020, I was posted as
Constable at PS Sarita Vihar. On that day, I alongwith HC Ombir
were returning after investigation of case FIR on the motorcycle and
when we reached at Aali Vihar jungle, where two boys met us and
informed that one person is lying in the jungle in injured condition
having a stab injury. Thereafter, we reached inside the jungle and
found that one person was lying on the way in pool of blood.
We took the injured to Apollo Hospital where doctor had
declared the injured dead. Inspector V.S. Rana had also reached at
Apollo hospital. I was left at the Apollo Hospital. Inspector V.S. Rana
and HC Ombir had left for the spot. Inspector V.S. Rana returned to
the hospital where he had handed over tehrir to me for registration of
FIR. I reached at the PS where I handed over tehrir to duty officer.
Duty officer handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka and
handed over the same to Inspector V.S. Rana. I had handed over the
exhibits handed over by the doctor to Inspector V.S. Rana which was
seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/A which bears my signature at
point A.Thereafter, I alongwith IO reached at the spot of incident
where site plan of the spot at my instance Ex.PW14/B which bears
my signature at point A was prepared by the IO. The exhibits wereSC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.13 of 31
lifted from scene of crime and converted into parcel and seized by
the IO and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/C
which bears my signature at point A.The accused Sumit @ Dabba had disclosed in his disclosure
statement about presence of co-accused Kartik near Pir Baba, Aali
jungle. Thereafter, we alongwith the accused Sumit @ Dabba
reached near Pir Baba Aali jungle where accused Sumit @ Dabba
had pointed out towards the person as to be Kartik who was
apprehended by us. Thereafter, he was arrested and personally
searched vide memo Ex.PW-14/D which bears my signature at point
A. He was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW-14/E which bears
my signature at point A. Accused Kartik was formally searched on
which a country made pistol was recovered from his possession.
IO had prepared a rukka regarding the recovery of country
made pistol from accused Kartik and sent me to PS for registration of
FIR. I handed over the rukka to DO for registration of FIR.
Thereafter, I returned at the above said spot. Thereafter, as per
disclosure statement of the accused Kartik, he led us house No. 1300,
Ground floor, Gautampuri Phase-I, Badarpur, New Delhi. Thereafter,
he led us in a room and from beneath the bed a knife was taken out
by him and handed over the same to IO.
The IO had measured the knife and prepared the sketch
memo of the knife in which details of measurement was mentioned
by the IO. Sketch memo of knife is Ex.PW-14/F which bears my
signature at point A. The recovered knife was kept in a transparent
plastic box and taped with doctor tape and sealed by the IO with his
seal. The knife was taken into possession vide seizure memo
Ex.PW-14/G which bears my signature at point A. The site plan ofSC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.14 of 31
recovery of knife was prepared by the IO which is exhibited as
Ex.PW-14/H which bears my signature at point A. My statement
was recorded by the IO.
He identified the knife Ex.P1 as the same knife which was
recovered at the instance of accused Kartik.
11. PW16 is HC Ombir who deposed on line of PW-14.
12. PW22 is Investigating Officer V.S. Rana who deposed about
investigation conducted by him. He inter alia deposed about recording of
statement of PW Sanjay Singh and Rohan, arrest of both the accused and
recovery of weapon of offence i.e. knife Ex.P1 at instance of accused
Kartik. He proved following documents:-
(i). MLC and OPD card of accused Kartik @ Vijayvasan and Sumit @
Dabba – Ex.PW22/A and Ex.PW22/B.
(ii) Parcel No. 1 containing clothes, shoes and shocks of deceased – Ex.P3
(iii) Parcel no. 8 containing earth control – Ex.P4.
(iv) Parcel No. 7 containing blood stain earth control – Ex.P5.
(v) Parcel no. 3 containing right hand nail clipping of deceased – Ex.P6.
(vi) Parcel no. 9 containing blodo in gauze at the spot – Ex. P7.
(vii) Parcel No. 5 containing blood gauze of deceased – Ex.P8.
(viii) Parcel no. 11 containing blood sample of accused Kartik – Ex.P9.
(ix) Parcel no. 12 containing blood sample of accused Sumit – Ex.P10.
(x) Parcel no. 4 containing right hand nail clipping of deceased – Ex.P11.
(xi) Parcel no. 2 three tubes containing of blood sample of deceased –
Ex.P12.
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.15 of 31
13. Examined under section 313 of CrPC, the accused either pleaded
ignorance about the incriminating evidence or denied the same as
incorrect. He claimed to be falsely implicated.
14. Accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.
15. Heard. Record perused.
16. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the
guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any,
must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to
travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution
appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt
necessarily has to go to the accused.
17. Since the case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, it
would be apt to have a look on the law in this regard. Supreme Court in
Anwar Ali and Another Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh, Crl Appeal
No.1121/2016 dated 25.09.2020, held as under:-
“5.4 It is also required to be noted and it is not in dispute that
this is a case of circumstantial evidence. As held by this Court in
catena of decisions that in case of a circumstantial evidence, the
circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so
complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within
all human probability the crime was committed by the accused
and none else and the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain
conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any
other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such
evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the
accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. In the
case of Babu (supra), it is observed and held in paragraphs 22 toSC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.16 of 31
24 as under:
“22. In Krishnan v. State (2008) 15 SCC 430, this Court after
considering a large number of its earlier judgments observed as
follows: (SCC p. 435, para 15)
“15. … This Court in a series of decisions has consistently held
that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such
evidence must satisfy the following tests:
(i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought
to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(ii) those circumstances should be of definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain
so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that
within all human probability the crime was committed by the
accused and none else; and
(iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction
must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other
hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence
should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but
should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See Gambhir v. State
of Maharashtra (1982) 2 SCC 351)”
23. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984)
4 SCC 116 while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has
been held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the
chain is complete and the infirmity or lacuna in prosecution
cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions
precedent before conviction could be based on circumstantial
evidence, must be fully established. They are: (SCC p. 185, para
153)
(i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned
“must” or “should” and not “may be” established;
(ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should
not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the
accused is guilty;
(iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency;
(iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the
one to be proved; and
(v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.17 of 31
any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the accused. A
similar view has been reiterated by this Court in State of U.P. v.
Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114 and Pawan v. State of Uttaranchal
(2009) 15 SCC 259.
24. In Subramaniam v. State of T.N (2009) 14 SCC 415, while
considering the case of dowry death, this Court observed that the
fact of living together is a strong circumstance but that by alone
in absence of any evidence of violence on the deceased cannot be
held to be conclusive proof, and there must be some evidence to
arrive at a conclusion that the husband and husband alone was
responsible therefor. The evidence produced by the prosecution
should not be of such a nature that may make the conviction of
the appellant unsustainable. (See Ramesh Bhai v. State of
Rajasthan (2009) 12 SCC 603).”
5.5 Even in the case of G. Parshwanath (supra), this
Court has in paragraphs 23 and 24 observed as under:
“23. In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
should, in the first instance, be fully established. Each fact sought
to be relied upon must be proved individually. However, in
applying this principle a distinction must be made between facts
called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be
drawn from them on the other. In regard to proof of primary facts,
the court has to judge the evidence and decide whether that
evidence proves a particular fact and if that fact is proved, the
question whether that fact leads to an inference of guilt of the
accused person should be considered. In dealing with this aspect of
the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies. Although
there should not be any missing links in the case, yet it is not
essential that each of the links must appear on the surface of the
evidence adduced and some of these links may have to be inferred
from the proved facts. In drawing these inferences, the court must
have regard to the common course of natural events and to human
conduct and their relations to the facts of the particular case. The
court thereafter has to consider the effect of proved facts.
24. In deciding the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence
for the purpose of conviction, the court has to consider the
total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of
which reinforces the conclusion of guilt and if the combined
effect of all these facts taken together is conclusive in
establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be
justified even though it may be that one or more of these
facts by itself or themselves is/are not decisive. The facts
established should be consistent only with the hypothesis ofSC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.18 of 31
the guilt of the accused and should exclude every hypothesis
except the one sought to be proved. But this does not mean
that before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon
circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and
every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever,
extravagant and fanciful it might be. There must be a chain
of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of
the accused and must show that in all human probability the
act must have been done by the accused, where various links
in chain are in themselves complete, then the false plea or
false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to
the court.”
18. In Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs State of Maharashtra, Crl.
Appeal No. 1348/2013 dated 02.03.2021 Apex Court observed as under:
“11. The law with regard to conviction on the basis of
circumstantial evidence has been very well crystalised in the
judgment of this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v.
State of Maharashtra:-
“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the
following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an
accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be”
established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction
between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as
was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the observations were made
: [SCC para 19, p. 807 : SCC (Cri) p. 1047]
“19. …..Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused
must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict
and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long
and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should
not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused
is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency,
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.19 of 31
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one
to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave
any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the
panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial
evidence.”
19. Further, in State of Odisha Vs Banabihari Mohapatra and
Anr., Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1156/2021, dated 12.02.2021,
Supreme Court held as under:-
“35. Before a case against an accused can be said to be fully
established on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from
which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must fully be
established and the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. There has to be a
chain of evidence so complete, as not to leave any reasonable
doubt for any conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must
have been done by the Accused.
36. In Shanti Devi v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2012) 12
SCC 158, this Court held that the principles for conviction of the
accused based on circumstantial evidence are:
“10.1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
sought to be proved must be cogently or firmly established.
10.2. The circumstances should be of a definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
10.3. The circumstances taken cumulatively must form a chain so
complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within
all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused
and none else.
10.4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction
must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other
hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence
should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but
should be inconsistent with his innocence.”
37. Keeping the above test in mind, we have no iota of doubt that
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.20 of 31
the Trial Court rightly acquitted the Accused Respondents. There
is a strong possibility that the accused, who was as per the
opinion of the doctor who performed the autopsy, intoxicated
with alcohol, might have accidentally touched a live electrical
wire, may be while he was asleep. The impugned judgment of the
High Court dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay does not
call for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India.
38. It is well settled by a plethora of judicial pronouncement of
this Court that suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of
proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved
guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This proposition has been
reiterated in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam reported in AIR 2013
SC 3817.
39. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR
1973 SC 2773, this Court observed:-
“Another golden thread which runs through the web
of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if
two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case
one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his
innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused
should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in
cases where in the guilt of the accused is sought is to be
established by circumstantial evidence.”
20. Next, in Anjan Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Assam (2017)
14 SCC 359, it was observed:
“(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is
to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances
concerned ‘must’ or ‘should’ not and ‘may be’ established;
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they
should not the explainable on any other hypothesis except that
the accused is guilty;
(3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature of
tendency;
(4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the
one to be provided; and
(5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistentSC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.21 of 31
with the innocence of the accused and must shown that in all
human probability the act must have been done by the
accused (See: Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashra (1984) 4 SCC 116; M G Agarwal v. State of
Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 200).”
21. The principles with regard to appreciation of circumstantial
evidence have also been explained in Gagan Kanojia Vs. State of Punjab
(2016) 13 SCC 516.
22. Therefore, the principle, as laid down in aforesaid judicial
dicta, is that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, circumstances from
which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such
circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the
circumstances should be complete, forming a chain and there should be no
gap left in the chain of evidence. The various circumstances in the chain of
events must be such so as to rule out the reasonable likelihood of
innocence of accused. The missing of important link snaps the chain of
circumstances and the other circumstances cannot in any manner establish
guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
23. As to the law on circumstance of last seen, Apex Court in
Nizam & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, Crl. Appeal No. 413/2007, decided
on 04.09.2015, discussed the law regarding last seen theory. It was
observed: –
“Elaborating the principle of “last seen alive” in State of
Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254, this Court
held as under:- “23. It is not necessary to multiply with
authorities. The principle is well settled. The provisions of
Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and
categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially
within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving thatSC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.22 of 31
fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the
deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when
he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which
appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory. If he
does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he
fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his
special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon
him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on
circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a
reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on
him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of
circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift
the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon
the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused
does not throw any light upon facts which are specially
within his knowledge and which could not support any
theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the court
can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an
additional link which completes the chain. The principle has
been succinctly stated in Naina Mohd., Re. (AIR 1960 Mad
218)” The above judgment was relied upon and reiterated in
Kiriti Pal vs. State of West Bengal, (2015) 5 Scale 319.”
24. Further, in Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy & Anr vs State
Of Andhra Pradesh, Appeal (Crl.) 997 of 2005 Apex Court held as follows:
“It is now well-settled that with a view to base a conviction
on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the
pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching
evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a
chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of
guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot be on any other
hypothesis. It is also well-settled that suspicion, however, grave
may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall
take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the
basis of the circumstantial evidence. [See Anil Kumar Singh v.
State of Bihar, (2003) 9 SCC 67 and Reddy Sampath Kumar v.
State of A.P. (2005) 7 SCC 603].
The last-seen theory, furthermore, comes into play where the
time gap between the point of time when the accused and the
deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is
so small that possibility of any person other than the accused
being the author of the crime becomes impossible. Even in such
a case courts should look for some corroboration.”
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.23 of 31
25. In case of State of U.P. v. Satish, Appeal (Crl.) 256-257 of
2005, with regard to last-seen theory following was held:
“The last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap
between the point of time when the accused and the deceased
were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so
small that possibility of any person other than the accused being
the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult
in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last
seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of
other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any
other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the
deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come
to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. In this case there is
positive evidence that the deceased and the accused were seen
together by witnesses.”
26. The other cases of Supreme Court based on last-seen theory is
tabulated below for ease of appreciation and understanding:
1 Bodh Raj @ Bodha v.
State of Jammu and The last seen theory comes into play where the
Kashmir, (2002) 8 time gap between the point of time when the
SCC 45; accused and deceased were seen last alive and
when the deceased is found dead is so small that
possibility ……………
2 Tipparam Prabhakar
v. State of Andhra 8. The last-seen theory comes into play where
Pradesh, (2009) 13 the time-gap between the point of time when the
SCC 534; accused and the deceased were seen last alive
and when the deceased is found dead is so small
that possibility ………………
3 Rishi Pal v. State of
Uttarakhand, (2013) 18. Finally in Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab
12 SCC 551; (2005) 12 SCC 438, this Court held that it is not
possible to convict Appellant solely on basis of
‘last seen’ evidence in the absence of any other
links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the
Court gave benefit of doubt to accused persons.
4 Krishnan v. State of
Tamil Nadu, (2014) 24. In Jaswant Gir vs. State of Punjab, (2005) 12
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.24 of 31
12 SCC 279;
SCC 438, this Court held that in absence of any
other links in the chain of circumstantial
evidence, the appellant cannot be convicted
solely on the basis of “last seen together” even if
version of the prosecution witness in this regard
is believed.
5 Kiriti Pal v. State of
West Bengal, (2015) 14. From the evidence of PWs 6, 7 and 10,
11 SCC 178; prosecution has thus established that Anjali was
last seen alive in the company of first appellant
Kiriti Pal on the evening of 11.11.2008 and that
at about 10.00/10.30 p.m., first appellant Kiriti
Pal came alone. The theory of “last seen alive”
comes into play when the time gap between the
way the accused and the deceased were last seen
together and the deceased was found dead was
so small, the possibility of any other person
committing the murder becomes impossible.
……………..
6 State of Karnataka v.
Chand Basha, (2016) 14. The prosecution story relies upon the ‘last
1 SCC 501; seen together’ theory, which resulted into the
death of Ganesh. This Court has time and again
laid down the ingredients to be made out by the
prosecution to prove the ‘last seen together’
theory. The Court for the purpose of arriving at
a finding as to whether the said offence has been
committed or not, may take into consideration
the circumstantial evidence. However, while
doing so, it must be borne in mind that close
proximity between the last seen evidence and
death should be clearly established. Yet, the
prosecution has failed to prove the evidence
which establishes the ‘last seen together’ theory
beyond reasonable doubt …………
7 Rambraksh v. State of
Chhattisgarh, (2016) 12. In the present case as noticed above the
12 SCC 251; Sessions Court as well as the High Court
convicted the appellant/ accused No.2 on the
basis of last seen evidence, the correctness of
which is also doubtful. The High Court had
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.25 of 31
failed to appreciate the aforesaid fact and erred
in affirming the judgment of conviction passed
by the Sessions Court. We are satisfied that the
conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained
in law and liable to be set aside.
8 Anjan Kumar Sharma
v. State of Assam, 21. It is clear from the above that in a case
2017 (6) SCALE 556 where the other links have been satisfactorily
made out and the circumstances point to the
guilt of the accused, the circumstance of last
seen together and absence of explanation would
provide an additional link which completes the
chain. ………………………..
27. Having discussed the settled legal position governing cases based on
circumstantial evidence and the “last seen” theory, this Court now
proceeds to examine whether the prosecution has been able to establish a
complete and unbroken chain of circumstances against accused Kartik @
Vijavasan?
28. PW3 Sanjay Singh was cited as a material witness by the
prosecution to establish the circumstance of last seen and identification of
the accused persons allegedly seen fleeing from the spot. However, upon
careful scrutiny, it emerges that PW3 did not support the prosecution case
on material particulars. He deposed that while passing through Aali Vihar
jungle along with PW4 Rohan, he found an injured person lying on the
road and informed the police. He categorically stated that he did not see
any person near the spot, did not hear any cries for help, did not see any
boys running from the scene, could not identify the accused persons,
denied having identified the accused at the police station, and further
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.26 of 31
denied making any incriminating statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
Even during cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP, PW3 denied the entire
incriminating portion of his earlier alleged statements.
29. In view of the above, the testimony of PW3 fails to establish the
presence of the accused at the spot, the circumstance of last seen,
identification of the accused, or any suspicious conduct attributable to
them. Consequently, the testimony of PW3 does not advance the
prosecution case and rather demolishes the very foundation of the “last
seen” theory.
30. PW4 Rohan, the other public witness examined by the prosecution,
also did not lend support to the prosecution case on material aspects. He
deposed that while passing through the jungle he noticed an injured person
lying on the road and thereafter informed the police. However, he
categorically stated that he did not see anyone running from the spot, did
not hear any cries of “bachao bachao”, did not identify the accused at the
police station, could not identify the accused persons in Court, and denied
having made any supplementary statements to the police implicating the
accused.
31. In view of the aforesaid testimony, PW4 was declared hostile by the
prosecution. His evidence, therefore, fails to establish that the accused
were seen fleeing from the spot or that the deceased was last seen in the
company of the accused. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.27 of 31
this crucial circumstance.
32. The law regarding the “last seen” theory mandates that such
evidence must be reliable and must rule out the possibility of any third
person’s involvement.
33. In the present case:
• No witness has proved that the deceased was last seen with the
accused.
• No witness has proved that the accused were seen fleeing from the
spot.
• No witness has identified the accused.
34. Hence, the most crucial circumstance of last seen remains unproved.
35. PW14 HC Amit Kapasiya and PW16 ASI Ombir, the police
witnesses, deposed regarding the steps taken during investigation,
including reaching the spot on receiving information, shifting the injured
to the hospital, seizure of exhibits, arrest of accused Kartik at the instance
of co-accused Sumit, recovery of a country-made pistol from accused
Kartik, and recovery of the alleged weapon of offence i.e. knife at his
instance. Their testimony primarily establishes the procedural aspects of
investigation and the alleged recovery proceedings conducted by the
police. However, in view of failure of prosecution to establish the
circumstance of last seen, the mere recovery of alleged weapon of offence
at instance of accused Kartik pales into insignificance.
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.28 of 31
36. Be that as it may, it is settled law that the sole circumstance i.e.
recovery of weapon of offence cannot result into conviction of an accused
in a case based upon circumstantial evidence. Reference can be made to
the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Saddak Hussain vs State
(NCT Of Delhi), Crl. Appeal No. 717/2018, decided on 15 May 2019,
wherein it was observed as under:-
“40. Moreover, there is no direct evidence against the
appellant for upholding his conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Mere recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the
appellant cannot be the sole premise on which a judgment of
conviction under Section 302 IPC could be recorded. It is too
slender an evidence to hold him guilty of such an offence.
This is particularly so when the fifth accused, who as per the
prosecution, is the one who had pulled out the pistol and fired
at the deceased, has been acquitted by the learned ASJ. There
is also no explanation as to why despite the second accused,
who was arrested on 26.12.2016, three days before the
appellant was arrested, stated in his disclosure statement that
he could get the weapon of offence recovered from a third
person, no steps were taken in that direction. In the absence of
any other evidence connecting the appellant with the
commission of the murder of the deceased, the trial court
could not have proceeded to convict him for the offence under
Section 302 IPC while proceeding to acquit the remaining
accused. For the aforesaid reason too, the impugned judgment
is unsustainable, being contrary to the settled legal position
and is accordingly quashed and set aside alongwith the order
on sentence.”
37. To summarize the discussion and appreciation of evidence made
hereinabove, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish a
complete and unbroken chain of circumstances against the accused. The
case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence; however, the most crucial
links in the chain remain unproved. There is no eyewitness to the incident
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.29 of 31
and the prosecution has failed to establish the “last seen” circumstance
inasmuch as both the material public witnesses (PW3 and PW4) have
turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution on identification or
presence of the accused near the spot. The accused has not been identified
by any witness during investigation or in Court. The prosecution has also
failed to establish any clear and convincing motive against accused Kartik.
In these circumstances, the chain of circumstantial evidence remains
incomplete and incapable of ruling out every hypothesis consistent with
the innocence of the accused.
38. In Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406, it was held
that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof and the
prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of “may be” true but
has to upgrade it in the domain of “must be” true in order to steer clear of
any possible surmise or conjecture.
39. Further, in Jose vs. Sub Inspector of Police, Koyilandy & Ors.,
(2016) 10 SCC 519, the Supreme Court held as under:-
“In a criminal prosecution, the court has a duty to ensure
that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of
legal proof and in a situation where a reasonable doubt is
entertained in the backdrop of the evidence available, to
prevent miscarriage of justice, benefit of doubt is to be
extended to the accused. Such a doubt essentially has to be
reasonable and not imaginary, fanciful, intangible or non-
existent but as entertainable by an impartial, prudent and
analytical mind, judged on the touch stone of reason and
common sense. It is also a primary postulation in criminal
jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence
available, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other
to his innocence, the one favourable to the accused ought to be
adopted.”
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.30 of 31
40. In light of aforesaid circumstances, this court has no hesitation in
holding that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution have not
been fully established and they are not conclusive in nature. It is not a case
where the only hypothesis of guilt of accused can be inferred from the
facts brought on record. The prosecution has failed to elevate its case from
the realm of “may be true” to “must be true” as indispensably required in
law for conviction on basis of circumstantial evidences on a criminal
charge. The prosecution from the quality and quantity of the evidence
could not prove the chain of circumstantial evidence which could only lead
to one inference i.e. the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, accused Kartik
@ Vijavasan stands acquitted in the instant case of all the charges levelled
against him. He is directed to furnish bail bonds in terms of section 437A
CrPC.
Digitally signed
by ANUJ
ANUJ AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2026.04.08
15:36:32 +0530
Announced in the open (ANUJ AGRAWAL)
Court on 08.04.2026 Additional Sessions Judge-03,
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi
SC No. 47/2021 State v. Kartik @ Vijavasan Page No.31 of 31
