As per case facts, a young girl was found raped and murdered near a telephone exchange. A wooden stick was found inserted, and she was in a half-naked, injured state, ...
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
I I I I I I N THEHGCOCHEUHRCGFISAPJBI
Reserved on: 17.11.2025
Pronounced on: 16
th
February, 2026
CCL ...Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI
KMDYDLf.HI JM'IyuMDL-DMIWuu2sutIT-:’rufDIa’MIfeDINNi.
Mr. Munish Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Harya na.
********
RAMESH KUMARI, J.
G'I ‘eDI hLYfuLfI uggDusI euYI cDDLI ahsD-I cdI feDI NNiHNehs-HhLI N’LashrfHwhfeHsuwI
(hereinafter referred as CCL) seeking to challenge the judgment of conviction
dated 12.09.2018 and order of sentence dated 19.09.2018 passed by the then
T--s'IpDYYh’LYIk,-4DHr,vHpgDrhusIk,-4DtINehs-MDL7YICourt, Hisar, vide which
the CCL has been convicted and sentenced to undergo the following
YDLfDLrDY.H
Sr.
No.
Offence under
Section
Rigorous
Imprisonment
Fine In default of payment
of fine
1 6 of the
Protection of
Children from
Sexual Offences
Act, 2012
Rigorous Imprisonment
for Twenty Years
Y'GCtCCCbHIFurther undergo
rigorous imprisonment
for two years
RI 0VoHTI’aI6KNI Rigorous Imprisonment
for Twenty Years
Y'GCtCCCbHIFurther undergo
rigorous imprisonment
for two years
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 2
3 201 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment
for Five Years
Y'OCCCbHIFurther undergo
rigorous imprisonment
for one year
4 363 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment
for Seven Years
Y'OCCCbHIFurther undergo
rigorous imprisonment
for one year
OI 0ooHTI6KNI Rigorous Imprisonment
for Ten Years
Y'GCtCCCbHIFurther undergo
rigorous imprisonment
for one year
6 367 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment
for Ten Years
Y'GCtCCCbHI Further undergo
rigorous imprisonment
for one year
7 450 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment
for Seven Years
Y'OCCCbHIFurther undergo
rigorous imprisonment
for one year
8 3(1)(w)(i) of
SC/ST Act
Rigorous Imprisonment
for Five Years
Y'OCCCbHIFurther undergo
rigorous imprisonment
for one year
9 302 IPC The punishment for this
offence is prescribed as
Death Sentence or
Imprisonment for Life
and fine, however, while
invoking the provision of
Section 21 of the
Juvenile Justice (care
and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015,
CCLis sentenced to
undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for
Twenty Years without
remission.
Y'GCtCCCbHIFurther undergo
rigorous imprisonment
for two years
10 3(2)(v) of SC/ST
Act
The punishment for this
offence is prescribed as
imprisonment for Life
and fine, however, while
invoking the provision of
Section 21 of the
Juvenile Justice (care
and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015,
CCL is sentenced to
undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for
Twenty Years without
remission.
Y'GCtCCCbHI Further undergo
rigorous imprisonment
for two years
All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
THE PROSECUTION CASE .HI
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.12.2017, a telephonic information
was received at Police Station, Uklana that one girl child in unconscious
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 3
condition was lying in a street in front of Telephone Exchange, Uklana.
Thereafter Inspector/SHO Sandeep Kumar along with other officials reached
at the spot and found one girl child lying in the stbhhtjC“z8iDOuolhItJbCm.uEtfdC
Incharge of Women Help Desk, Barwala was informed. Inspector Sunita
fyJuUC MEteC “zBD,-mOC T.rrEC AfuEC bhfIehrC ftC tehC olJtCand girl child
accompanied by her family members was shifted to Community Health
Centre, Uklana where PW7 Dr. Rajesh Kumar, Medical Officer, declared the
IeEyrCrhfrjCC“zD8iCOuolhItJbCm.uEtfCEuClbhohuIhCJwCfamily members of the girl
child and Ms. Meenu Sharma, Legal Aid Counsel, recobrhrCotfthxhutCJwC“zD
20 GD (identity withheld), mother of girl child to the effect that she belongs to
Sapela caste (scheduled caste). She along with her family, used to reside in the
hut situated in Indra Colony, Uklana Mandi. She used to beg for food and her
husband R (identity withheld), who is labourer had gone to Gurugram for
labour. A day before i.e. on 8.12.2017 at about 8.00 p.m. she along with her
two sons and two daughters had slept in the hut. In the adjacent hut, Munni
Nath son of Balkar was also sleeping along with his family. On the next
morning at about 7.00 a.m. when she woke up, her daughter G (name
withheld) aged about 6/7 years was found missing. She searched but failed to
trace her. She narrated the incident to her brothebDEuDyfMC7.uuECSfteCfurC
relative Amarnath son of Chhabil Nath and they all started searching her
daughter. When they reached near Telephone Exchange, in an abandoned
street, they found her daughter in an injured and half naked condition. Blood
oozed from her mouth and nose and one thin wooden piece was forcibly found
inserted in the private part (vagina) of her daughter and from anus water was
oozing out. They all were perplexed and reported the matter to Uklana police.
She further stated that police reached at the spot, inspected the place,
photographs were taken and child was shifted to CHC, Uklana. The doctor
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 4
after checking, declared her dead. She further stated that after seeing the body
of her daughter, it appears that some unknown person kidnapped her from the
hut and had taken her at some unknown place and committed rape upon her
and inserted thin piece of wood in the vagina and after subjecting her with
unnatural act, committed her murder. She requested that unknown culprit be
traced and strict action be taken against him. PW2VHiu-dI6LYgDrf’MIp,LhfuI
and Ms. Meenu Sharma, Legal Aid counsel, also attested the said statement.
POLICE INVESTIGATION .H
0'I ALIfeDIcuYhYI’aIfeDIua’MDYuh-IYfufDvDLfI5)'KHORt a case under Sections 302,
376(2)(m), 363, 367 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO
Act’) was registered.
i) Inquest report of dead body of deceased victim was prepared.
hhBI TYI gDMI ’M-DMI y’'0VFVoHFCI -ufD-I 3'GR'RCGVI guYYD- by Superintendent of
Police, Hisar, Special Investigation Team was constituted.
iii) Postmortem examination on the dead body of G was got conducted from the
Board of Doctors at General Hospital, Hisar.
iv) Lady Inspector Sunita and SHO Sandeep Kumar visited the spot and with the
help of Cyber Cell, dump was lifted. Photographs of the place of occurrence
were taken. Members of the Team of Scene of Crime inspected the place of
occurrence. Pawan Kumar EHC No.842 alongwith sniffer dog Moti reached
at the spot and search was conducted with the help of sniffer dog Moti.
v) Inspector Sunita lifted one broken wooden piece from the spot, parceled and
sealed the same. Blood strained soil from the spot was also lifted with cotton
swab. One stone smeared with blood was also found there and it was also
lifted, parceled. Five hairs lying towards left side of blood and twelve hairs
lying towards right side of blood were also lifted, converted into separate
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 5
parcels and sealed. Case property was handed over to SHO of police station
Uklana. Site plan of the spot was prepared.
aE9C mhItEJuoC/nndC/inD-dC/in3893E9CfurC850CJwCO“RCMere added in the original FIR
and Section 376 (2)(m) of IPC was deleted.
vii) Inspector Sunita inspected the hut from where girl child was kidnapped and
site plan was prepared.
viii) The dead body of victim was handed over to ASI Guddi Devi for
postmortem examination. After post mortem examination by Board of
Doctors, the dead body alongwith post mortem report and other documents
and parcel of clothes of G along with sample seal and other parcels such as
vaginal/rectal/oral swab stick, wooden stick, scalp hair, blood from heart and
one sealed envelope, were handed over to ASI Guddi Devi and in due course
the same were deposited in the malkhana.
ix) The neighbourers of victim and other suspected persons were interrogated.
On 10.12.2017 Inspector Sunita reached at the spot and recorded statements of
complainant, her husband and Bega Devi wife of Munni Nath and they all
suspected that CCL has committed the crime.
W9C “fxleyhtoC wJbC bhMfbrC JwC Aoj8d55d555HDCEuC yEh.C Jw information regarding the
CCL were published and pasted on public places.
xi) Photographs of the spot were prepared.
xiii) The consumers whose mobile phones were found active in the Dump of Cyber
Cell were joined in the investigation.
xiv) On 12.12.2017 scaled site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared.
xv) The list of persons involved in such like heinous offences from the year 2012
to 2017 belonging to Hisar Range, District Bhiwani and District Rohtak were
prepared. Footages from CCTV installed near the place of occurrence were
collected and statements of the witnesses were recorded.
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 6
xvi) On 14.12.2017 GD, mother of victim, was produced before learned Illaqa
Magistrate, Hisar and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
xvii) Sh. Jitender Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hisar again inspected the
place of occurrence. About 80/90 feet away from the occurrence, near the
wall of Telephone Exchange, one condom was found and same was lifted
converted into a parcel, sealed and taken into possession.
xviii) Ajay son Mahender, Sunny @ Popli son of Hari Singh, Gulab son of Satbir,
Ajay @ Sunny son of Tarsem, Vijay son of Suresh Kumar, Saket @ Safi son
of Sanjay, Ramesh son of Sita Ram and Popular son of Risal Singh were
joined in the investigation and their statements were recorded.
xix) On 14.12.2017, CCL surrendered in the Police Station and was joined in the
investigation and finding sufficient evidence against him, Section 3(2)(v) of
SC/ST Act was added.
xx) One mobile make Karbon, one purse of brown colour containing two coins of
50 paisa each, 18 old railway tickets, one Condom make Sawan, 16 different
visiting cards, three passport size photographs, one coin of metal and one sim
card of Airtel company were recovered from CCL during his personal search
and same were taken into possession.
xxi) CCL also suffered disclosure statement regarding the occurrence that due to
overdose of smack and sulpha, he committed the crime. In pursuance of
disclosure statement, CCL also pointed out the place of occurrence from
where he after alluring, took away victim and the place where he committed
rape upon her and murdered her.
xxii) Medical examination of CCL was got conducted at General Hospital, Hisar
and concerned doctor handed over to police, sealed parcels of saliva, scalp
hair, beard hair, mustache hair, eye lid hair, pubic hair, blood sample, one
envelope of documents and sample seal which were taken into possession.
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 7
xxiii) CCL in pursuance of his disclosure statement got recovered trouser which he
was wearing at the time of occurrence but had since washed the same.
xxiv) Brother of CCL handed over birth certificate of CCL in which his date of birth
is stated as 15.2.2000.
xxv) Statements of Gulab and Begam @ bega wife of Muninath under Section 164
Cr.P.C. were got recorded from learned Illaqa.
xxvi) On 18.12.2017 case property was sent to FSL, Madhuban and in due course
report was received.
xxvii) On 21.12.2017 complainant GD, her husband R produced their affidavits
regarding age of their family members which were taken into possession. On
26.01.2018, father of victim produced his caste certificate, which was taken
into possession.
xxviii) After necessary permission from learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile
Justice Board, Hisar for Narco Test of CCL, his polygraph and brain mapping
test was conducted at DFSL, Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat.
xxix) On 7.3.2018, copies of Aadhaar Cards of complainant GD and her husband R
were taken into possession.
xxix) After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against
CCL was presented. Report of Narco Test, Polygraph Test and Brain
Mapping test were also received at the Police Station. Statement of Ms. Sunita
Yadav, Child Protection Officer, Hisar was also recorded regarding the extra
judicial confession of the CCL before her. The repobtCfurCotfthxhutCJwC“z08D
Ms. Sunita Yadav, CPO, were submitted before the Court.
4. Preliminary assessment, as stipulated under Section 15 of Juvenile Justice
(Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 was conducted by Juvenile Justice
Board and it was opined that CCL be tried as an adult as per Section 18(3) of
Juvenile Justice Act and thereafter, his case was sent to the Children Court for
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 8
trial.
FRAMING OF CHARGES .H
5. On finding a prima case, vide order dated 19.04.2018 charges under Sections
0VOScBtI0VoHTtI0CRtIRCGtI0o0tI0ooHTtI0oVIuL-I&OCI6KC, Section 6 of POCSO
Act and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act were framed against the
CCL, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Charge was amended
vide order dated 18.05.2018 and the CCL again pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial to the charges leveled against him.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:-
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 43
witnesses and their evidence can be discussed underIa’ss’whL4IeDu-Y.HI
COMPLAINANT EVIDENCE:-
i) PW-2 GD mother of victim in her testimony before the Court proved
YfufDvDLfI5)'KHORIMDr’M-D-I’LIC3'GR'RCGVIMD4uM-hL4Ithe circumstances under
which the body of her daughter was found at a public place. She also proved
eDMIYfufDvDLfI5)'KHOR'IpeDIeuL-D-I’:DMIuaah-u:hfI5)'KHO0tIMD4uM-hL4IfeDIu4DI
of her family, which was taken into possession videIvDv’I5)'KHO&'IpeDIusY’I
identified CCL in the Court at the time of recording of her statement.
ii) PW-21 – ‘R’ father of the victim also corroborated the statemenfI’aIKjHRCI
x1E7'IlDIusY’IgM’:D-IpNIrDMfhahrufDI5)'KHRVtIwehreIhe handed over to the
g’shrDI:h-DIvDv’I5)'KHOVIuL-Ir’gdI’aIehYIuL-IehYIwhfe’s Aadhaar Card vide
vDv’YI5)'KHOFIuL-IKHO3IMDYgDrfh:DsdtIwehreIwDMDIfu/en in police possession
:h-DIvDv’I5)'KHoC'I
iii) PW-22 – Bega Devi w/o Munni Lal , who is sister in law of ‘GD’ also stated
about the circumstances under which the dead body of victim was found. She
also stated that victim was friend of sister of CCL and they used to play
together in the street. CCL often used to listen songs from his mobile phone.
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 9
She also deposed that when she along with ‘GD’ and other females used to go
to answer the call of nature in the morning near railway line CCL used to
watch them by sitting beside railway line with bad intention. They complained
to mother of CCL regarding this. CCL also threatened them to face dire
consequences. House of CCL was located at a distance of half acre from the
slum of ‘GD’. Slum of GD was visible from the house of CCL. CCL used to
listen to songs while standing on the roof of his house and see towards slum.
She also expressed her suspicion that CCL had committed the wrong act with
victim in view of his bad act and his threatening to them. She also identified
NNiI hLI feDI N’,MfI uL-I gM’:D-I eDMI YfufDvDLfI 5)'KH0FI 4ot recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C.
iv) PW-43 – Munni Nath s/o Balkar Nath, also deposed about the condition of
the dead body of the victim. He signed the inquest report prepared by
Inspector Sunita and identified the dead body of the victim vide statement
Ex.P124 and after post mortem dead body of the victim was handed over to
them vide receipt Ex.P125.
INVESTIGATIVE EVIDENCE:-
i) PW27- Inspector Sunita Devi SHO, Women Police Station, Hisar who
conducted initial investigation in this case. She deposed regarding receipt of
information of the offence of this case on 09.12.2017 and she visited the place.
She also stated about the condition of the dead body of the child. She also
deposed that doctor of Uklana was contacted for first aid but after
examination, doctor declared the victim “brought dead|”. Ruqqa regarding
this was handed over to her by doctor. She deposed about recording the
YfufDvDLfI’aI5)'IKHORI’aIx1E7Iv’feDMI’aIfeDI:hrfhvt she made endorsement
Ex.P52/A and sent the same for registration of FIR.
She also deposed about the preparation of inquestIMDg’MfI5)'IKHoFI
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 10
and recording of the statement of witnesses.
She got the post mortem examination of the dead body conducted
by handing the dead body to ASI Guddi and HC Sukhpal vide application Ex.
“Dn‘jCC
C C mehCfyoJClbJahrCoEthClyfuC'Wj“Di5ClbhlfbhrCJuCteh spot and SHO
took photographs of the spot.
C C “zD8iC OuolhItJbC m.uEtfC w.btehbC rhlJohrC teftC EuC tee meantime,
Crime Team reached at the spot and on the instruction of that team, she
collected piece of wooden stick which was lying on the spot, a blood stain
interlocking block of the street and five hair which was found on left side of
blood stains and twelve hair found lying on the right side of blood stains. She
also lifted blood stains from the earth with the help of cotton swab. Piece of
wooden stick, blood stain cotton swab, blood stains interlocking block and
hair were converted into four separate sealed parcels and were sealed with and
were taken into possession vide memo Ex.P71.
She also deposed that thereafter, she went to the place of
occurrence (from where the victim was kidnapped). After spot inspection, she
lbhlfbhrC bJ.UeC oEthC lyfuC 'Wj“Di8jC -wthbC lJotC xJbthx examination of the
victim, the belongings of victim along with post mortem report was taken into
lJyEIhClJoohooEJuCaErhC-uuhW.bhC“DnjCRfohClbJlhbtpCwas deposited with MHC.
PW27 Inspector Sunita also deposed that on 12.12.2017, she got
prepared scale site plans of both the place of occurrence.
She further deposed that on 14.12.2017, she got recorded
statement of complainant ‘GD’ u/s 164 Cr.P.C vide application Ex.P33.
She also stated that on 14.12.2017, she handed over the file of
this case to Incharge, DSP Jaipal Singh, Special Investigating Team (SIT).
After inquiry, CCL was apprehended by Incharge, SIT. Upon personal search
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 11
of CCL, a mobile phone make Karbon of Black colour having a SIM, a purse
of brown colour having two coins of 50 paise, 18 old railway tickets, a
condom make Sawan, different type of visiting cards total sixteen in numbers,
three passport size photographs, one Yantra and one extra Sim of Airtel were
recovered, which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.P73.
She also stated about the disclosure statement Ex74v9A 0c SSj
confessing his involvement in the commission of offence.
She also deposed about getting the statement of PWs Bega and
Gulab recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 16.12.2017 on the instructions
of DSP Jaipal.
Part of case property was produced in the Court at the time of
recording of her statement and the stick is proved RH2k C<74v9d rfsK7 S0TT01
A63(A C<74v9u rfsK6 ATI312A 0c B3HI C<74v996 m01mIkte block having brown
stains Ex.P78(MO). There articles were lifted from the spot.
ii) PW42 Jai Pal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Barwala, who was
heading the SIT, in his testimony before the trial Court deposed about the
investigation conducted by him in this case.
He deposed that on 09.12.2017, at about 8.00/8.15AM, while he
was on VVIP duty, he received information of present case. He reached at
the place of occurrence at about 9.30AM where he found that body of victim
63A 3UIk32) T37k1 T0 SMS B7U313 312 tnvtd yk0yUk 6kre present there
including two police officials namely Head Constable Shishpal and Constable
Pardeep. He inspected the spot and enquired from people about the
occurrence. In the meantime, S.P. Hisar reached there and after giving
instructions to him, he left the spot.
He further stated that after that he went to CHC Uklana where
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 12
Sub Inspector Sandeep, Inspector Sunita alongwith other police officials and
GD complainant/mother of victim with her relatives were present and he
EuolhIthrCtehCrhfrDsJrpCJwCaEItExCfurChuF.EbhrCfsJ.t the facts from the police
officials and GD and her relatives. After giving instructions to Inspector
m.uEtfCtJCUhtCtehClJotxJbthxChWfxEuftEJuCJwCrhfrDsJdy of victim conducted
by Board of Doctors and to collect maximum physical evidence.
PW42 Jaipal Singh, DSP, further deposed that in the meantime, S.P
Hisar has constituted Special Investigating Team under his supervision
consisting of Inspector Joginder, Inspector Sunita and SI Sandeep, SHO PS.
Uklana. He returned to place of occurrence. In the meantime, Cyber Cell
JwwEIEfyoCJwC1“4CqEofbdC1bjC-)fpdCOuDIefbUhdCcJbhuoic Team of IGP Hisar and
Dog Squad Team also reached at the place of occurrence. He passed directions
to all the officials of SIT to collect maximum physical evidence from the spot
and they were also directed to prepare list of suspects. Offence under Section
/in3893x9CMfoCrhyhthrCfurCmhItEJuoC/nndC/inD-dC/in32)(1) and 201 of IPC
were added. On that day, they remained busy in conducting investigation and
in search of accused. CCTV Footage of nearby areas were got inspected and
mobile phones detail and locations were applied through Cyber Cell. List of
suspects of nearby areas were prepared.
He further stated that on next day i.e. 10.12.2017, members of SIT
were directed to investigate the matter thoroughly and Duty were assigned to
xhxshboC JwC mOPC ohlfbfthypjC AhMfbrC JwC 8d55d555HDC Mfo announced and
pamphlets were published to this effect. GD, mother of victim and Begha got
recorded their statements before Inspector Sunita u/s 161 Cr.P.C. in which
they raised suspicion on one of their neighbour namely CCL resident of same
area.
PW42 DSP Jaipal Singh further stated that on 11 .12.2017,
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 13
relatives of victim were enquired about the occurrence. In the meantime, SIT
was expanded by including DSP Jitender, Law and Order, Hisar, ASI
Amrinder Singh and ASI Satpal. All members of SIT were directed to collect
call details of suspects of area and to question from all the suspects of the area.
On 12.12.2017 he had visited place of occurrence again and
enquired from vicinity. On the same day, Members of SC/ST Commission
Haryana visited place of occurrence.
On 13.12.2017, matter was under investigation and efforts were
being made to trace the accused. On the same day at about 4.00 PM. SI
mfurhhlCefoClbJr.IhrC‘D05Co.olhItoCshwJbhCeExCMeJCMere questioned by him.
On 14.12.2017, SI Sandeep produced before him Aja y son of
Mahinder and Sunny @ Popli son of Hari Singh, residents of Uklana. He
enquired from them and recorded statement of Ajay son of Mahinder u/s 161
Cr.P.C. After that he instructed SI Sandeep to summon Gulab, Ajay @ Sunny,
Vijay, Sakit @ Shaffy, Ramesh and Popular and they were produced before
him by SI Sandeep. He questioned all of them individually and recorded their
statements U/S 161 Cr.P.C. They all were let off after recording their
statements.
PW42 Jai Pal Singh, DSP, further stated that around 6.00 PM,
CCL was produced before him by SI Sandeep. In the meantime, Inspector
Sunita appeared before him along with case file after getting the statement of
GD, mother of victim, recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C before learned Magistrate. He
enquired from CCL in the presence of Inspector Sunita and SI Sandeep. After
being satisfied himself, CCL was apprehended in the present case. Thereafter
offence under Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act was added. Personal search of
CCL was conducted. During personal search, a mobile phone make Karbon of
black color having a SIM, a purse of brown colour having two coins of 50
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 14
paise, 18 old railway tickets, a condom make Sawan, different type of visiting
cards total sixteen in numbers, three passport size photographs, one Yantra
and one extra sim of Airtel. All the articles of personal search were seized vide
memo Ex.P73.
C C “zD"8C 1m“C GfElfyC mEuUedC EuC eEoC thotExJupC EuC tehC Rourt stated
about contents of disclosure statement of CCL which was reduced into writing
aErhC'WjC“Di"jCCCCCCCCCCCCC
PW42 Jaipal Singh, DSP, further stated that on the basis of
disclosure statement Ex.P74 dated 14.12.2017 of CCL, on 15.12.2017, he was
taken to the place from where he kidnapped/enticed female child. They
stopped their vehicle near the house of Joginder Kaur which was located
approximately 100 meters short of the place of occurrence and CCL led the
police party to the place from where he kidnapped/enticed victim and he got
demarcated the place of occurrence vide memo Ex P55. Thereafter, CCL led
the police party to the place of occurrence where he had raped and murdered
victim and place was demarcated vide memo Ex.P112.
PW42 DSP Jaipal Singh further stated that CCL showed his
reluctance to get recover his apparels worn by him at the time of occurrence.
He also deposed that CCL was got medico legally examined by
him from GH Hisar vide application Ex.P116. After medical examination of
CCL, Doctor handed over him eight sealed parcels containing clothes and
samples taken from the body of CCL for the purpose of DNA i.e nails, saliva,
oIfylCefEbdChphDyErdCx.otfIehCefEbdCl.sEICefEbCfyJugwith one sealed envelop and
sample seal. Thereafter CCL was produced before learned Illaqa Magistrate,
from where, one day police remand was obtained.
He further deposed that on next day i.e. 16.12.2017, after taking
tehC RR,C J.tC wbJxC tehC lJyEIhC yJIkD.ldC ehC MfoC F.hotEJned by him. During
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 15
interrogation, CCL suffered disclosure statement Ex.P113 to the effect that he
efrCwJbUJtthuCMehbhCehCefrCkhltCPDoeEbtCJwCAhrCIJyJur which he was wearing
at the time of occurrence but trouser worn by him had been kept concealed by
him at his residential house inside the bed which he can get recovered. In
pursuance to his disclosure statement Ex. P113, CCL was taken to his
residential house from where he got recovered his trouser from a bed kept in
the room of his residential house. The trouser was of sky colour and of make
Levi's and Strauss & Co.K. which was having some stains. After converting
the same into sealed parcel with the seal of JP, said trouser was taken into
police possession vide memo ExP114. He also prepared rough site plan
Ex.P117 of place of recovery.
He further stated that brother of CCL produced birth certificate of
CCL issued by Government Primary School, Fateh Chand Colony Uklana
Ex.P5 with regard to his date of birth, which was taken into possession vide
memo Ex. P115.
PW42 Jaipal Singh, DSP, further stated that CCL was produced
before learned PMIJB, Hisar and then taken to G.H. Hisar for his medical
examination by moving application Ex.P118. After hioC xhrEIJDyhUfyypC
examination, he was sent to Observation Home.
He also stated that the case property was handed over to MHC.
PW42 Jaipal Singh, DSP, further stated that on 17.12.2017, call detail
of one mobile number Ex P106(page 1 to 4) was handed over to him by ASI
Amrender and the same was taken into possession Ex.P107.
He also deposed that on 21.12.2017, GD and R (par ents of
victim) handed over their respective affidavits Ex.P53 and Ex. P56 to him
regarding age of their family vide memo Ex.P54. On 26.01.2018, R father of
the victim produced his scheduled caste certificate Ex. P27 which was taken
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 16
into possession vide memo Ex.P57.
PW42 DSP Jaipal Singh further stated that on 02.02.2018, he had
moved application Ex.P119 for issuance of production warrant of CCL for the
purpose of conducting NARCO Test. On the same day, Inspector Sunita
efurhrCeExCbhlJbtCJwC1bjC-)fpdCOuDIefbUhdCmIhuhCJwCCrime Team, IG Office.
On 03.02.2018, he moved application Ex. P120 for taking consent of CCL for
his NARCO test. After getting appointment, CCL was produced before
concerned Scientific Officer Ms. H.R. Shah on 19.02.2018 by DSP Jitender
and SI Sandeep alongwith other officials. After his Narco Test, they returned
to Hisar on 28.02.2018. After that, it was decided by the SIT that Brain
Mapping (BEOS) and Polygraph test should also be got conducted from above
institute. Thereafter, he moved application Ex P121 on 28.02.2018 and after
obtaining necessary sanction from the concerned Court, an appointment was
taken from 05.03.2018 to 09.03.2018 from Directorate of Forensic Science,
Gandhi Nagar (Gujarat) and accordingly, CCL was produced there by DSP
Jitender and SI Sandeep along with other officials
On 07.03.2018, R, father of victim had produced copies of his
and his wife’s Aadhaar cards Ex. P58 and Ex. P59 and the same were taken
into possession vide memo Ex. P60.
He also stated that on 12.03.2018, after completi on of
investigation, SI Sandeep, SHO prepared report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and
submitted the same in the court on 13.03.2018. Thereafter, on 09.05.2018,
o.llyhxhutfbpCIefbUhDoehhtCMfoClbhlfbhrCspCmq4C.HoC173(8) Cr.PC and same
was submitted in the court. CCL was identified by him at the time of
recording of his statement in the Court.
The case property was produced in the Court at th e time of
recording his statement and was Exhibited as under:DC
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 17
The trouser of CCL Ex.P122(MO), kurta Ex. P42(MO) and
Pyjama Ex. P43(MO), vial containing samples of nails of CCL Ex. P44(MO)
parcel containing five vials having scalp hair, musfureDIeuhMtIcDuM-IeuhMtIDdDH
lid hair and saliva Ex. P45(MO) to Ex. P49(MO), vial containing pubic hair
Ex.P50(MO) and vial containing blood sample of CCL Ex.P51(MO) condom
Ex. P123(MO), mobile phone make Karbon of Black colour having a SIM, a
purse of brown colour having two coins of 50 paise, 18 old railway tickets, a
condom make Sawan, different type of visiting cards total sixteen in numbers,
three passport size photographs, one Yantra and one extra sim of Airtel as Ex.
P123(MO) collectively.
iii) PW-41 – Inspector Sandeep Kumar, HAP-113, SHO, PS Civil Lines,
Hisar in his statement before the Court corroborated the statement of PW
Inspector Sunita to the extent that dead body of the victim was found lying at
the spot. He also stated about the condition of the dead body; recording
statement of GD mother of the victim by Inspector Sunita, sending ruqqa to
the police station and registration of FIR, sending dead body through ASI
Guddi and another police official for post mortem examination. As per his
testimony, he took photographs of the place of occurrence as well as of dead
body of the victim with his mobile phone. Under Instructions of Scene of
Crime Team, Inspector Sunita collected a piece of wooden stick which was
lying on the spot, a blood stain interlocking block of the street and five hair
which was found on left side of blood stains and twelve hair found lying on
the right side of blood stains. He is attesting witness of memos Ex.P71 and P6.
He also deposed that on 11.12.2017, he got print out of sixteen
photographs, from Dinesh Kumar son of Rajender, owner of Sach Computer,
8/suLutI -DghrfhL4I feDI gsurDI ’aI ’rr,MMDLrDI uL-I -Du-Hbody of victim which
were stored in his mobile. Said photographs are Exhibited vide Ex.P26/1 to
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 18
16. On the same day, he had enquired from ten suspects including CCL about
the incident. After enquiry, they were let off and were directed to appear on
next day.
He also stated that on 12.12.2017, call details of two suspected
mobile numbers were obtained through Cyber Cell, DPO, Hisar. He had
enquired again from three suspects about the incident. On the same day, call
details of seven mobile numbers consisting of 70 pages Ex. P104 (Page 1 to
i59CMfoClbJr.IhrCspC-mOC-xbhurhbCmEuUedCOuDIefbUhCRyber Cell, Hisar which
was taken into possession vide memo Ex.P105.
PW41 Inspector Sandeep Kumar further deposed that on 14.12.2017
at about 5.50 PM, CCL appeared before him. He produced the CCL before
DSP Jaipal Singh, Incharge of the SIT. DSP Jaipal Singh conducted enquiry
from the CCL. After enquiry, CCL was apprehended by DSP Jaipal Singh. He
also proved memo Ex.P73 vide which articles from personal search of CCL
were recovered and taken into police possession. He also proved disclosure
statement Ex.P74 of CCL vide which he confessed about commission of
offence.
PW41 Inspector Sandeep Kumar further corroborated the
testimony of PW42 DSP Jaipal Singh, as he is attesting witness of the memo
Ex.P55 site plan, Ex.P112, disclosure statement Ex.“D00/dCxhxJoC'Wj“D00"CC
furCC'Wj“D00BjCC
He also deposed that on 03.02.2018, CCL was produ ced before
the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hisar by Jaipal
Singh, DSP Barwala, who was heading the SIT, for obtaining the consent of
juvenile and after his consent, learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice
Board, Hisar passed an order for conducting Narco Test of CCL juvenile from
Directorate of Forensic Science, Gandhi Nagar (Gujarat). He also deposed
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 19
about getting conducted the narco and polygraph, brain mapping test of CCL
from the said institute. He presented a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the
N’,MfIuL-IY,ggsDvDLfuMdIreuM4DHYeDDfIIwuYIY,cvhffD- by him on 09.05.2018.
iv) PW-36 – ASI Amrinder Singh No. 977 Hisar, In-charge Cyber Security
Branch, Hisar deposed that he joined the investigation of this case and
collected dump data of various TSPs from the spot. On 10.12.2017, details of
48 active mobile numbers were extracted from dump data. List of 48 active
numbers with address is proved as Ex. P100, which was taken into police
possession vide memo Ex.P101. He further deposed that on 11.12.2017, he
handed list of another 111 active numbers Ex. P102 (page 1 to 8) was handed
over to the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex. P103. On 12.12.2017 call
details of some numbers Ex. P104 (page 1 to 70) was handed over to
Investigating Officer vide memo Ex. P105. On 17.12.2017, call detail of one
v’chsDI L,vcDMI 5)'I KHGCoSgu4DI GI f’I &BI wuYI euL-D-I ’:Dr to Investigating
Officer vide Ex.P107.
v) PW-40 –Jitender Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Law & Order,
Hisar, was also member of the SIT constituted for the investigation of the
present case. He is the attesting witness of memo of recovery of one used
Condom seized from the spot vide memo Ex.P7.
PW40 Jitender Singh also deposed that on 03.02.2018, CCL was
produced before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board,
Hisar, by Shri Jaipal Singh, DSP Barwala. He also deposed about production
of CCL before the Directorate of Forensic Science, Gandhi Nagar (Gujarat)
for narco test.
PW40 Jitender Singh further deposed that on 12.04.2018 reports of
all the three tests were received in DPO Hisar vide letter Ex. P91, in which
three recommendations were suggested and the same were marked to him for
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 20
clarification vide endorsement Ex. P91/A. Points No. 1 and 2 of the
recommendations were already clarified in the investigation whereas point
No.3 was got clarified from Dr. Ajay. Assistant Director, Scene of Crime,
Hisar, vide his report Ex. P32 on 23.04.2018.
He also deposed that on 26.04.2018, when he was present in his
office at DPO Hisar, Sunita Yadav, Child Protection Officer, Hisar, visited his
office in connection to collect some information regarding POCSO Cases.
During discussion about the POCSO cases with her, she told him that CCL has
confessed about the occurrence of the present case before her on 17.01.2018
when she had visited observation home for routine checking of the inmates.
He recorded the statement of Sunita Yadav and thereafter he went to
Observation Home, Hisar, and collected copy of inspection and arrival register
Ex. P25 having endorsement of Sunita Yadav and copy of attendance register
Ex. P28 of inmates in which the name of the CCL was mentioned at Sr. No.17
Ex. P28. Both the documents Ex.P25 and Ex.P28 were taken into police
possession vide memo Ex.P29.
vi) PW-39 – Inspector Joginder Singh H-48, I/C Special Staff, Hisar was one
of the members of the Special Investigating Team (SIT) constituted to
investigate the present case. He also deposed that on 10.12.2017, he collected
details of 45 active mobile numbers with address e)fMurfD-IaM’vI-,vgI-ufuHI
5)'IKHGCCIuL-IYuvDIwDMDIfu/DLIhLf’Ig’YYDYYh’LI:h-DImemo Ex. P101. He in
his statement before the Court corroborated the statement of PW33 HC Rajesh
W,vuMtI Kj0oI Tp6I TvMhL-DMI phL4eI uL-I Kj0VH5lpI mhMDL-Dr Singh and
Kj0FHJuehL-DMIphL4etINsDM/tIJ,LhrhgusIN’vvhffDDtIUurwala.
vii) PW-37 – EHS Virender Singh, No. 1513 P.S. Uklana deposed that on
13.12.2017, he was posted as Computer Operator in Police Station, Uklana at
the relevant time. He deposed that Investigating Officer produced before him
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 21
two Pen Drives bearing Mark of "JK' and 'MC' make ‘sandisk’ containing data
of CCTV footage along with four CDs for transferring the Data from Pen
Drives to CD. He did the needful without tampering. He further deposed that
all the Four CDs Ex. P109 (1 to 4) (MO) were taken into possession vide
memo Ex. P108 and issued Certificate Ex.P111 under pDrfh’LIoOHUI’aI6L-huLI
Evidence Act.
viii) PW-6 HC Krishan Kumar,I y’'0VoHlhYuMtI TYYhYfuLfI Du-DMtI f’I EpKI iuwI
and Order, Hisar, also joined the investigation of this case. He is the witness
of recovery memo Ex.P7 vide which one used condom from near the place of
occurrence was recovered.
ix) PW-33 – HC Rajesh Kumar, No. 389-Hisar, P.S. City, Hisar, proved the
’cYDM:ufh’LIMDg’MfI5)'KH3VI’aIa’,MINEYI’aINN‘mIa’’fage out of which two
CDs were of CCTV footage of Municipal Committee, Uklana and two were of
'Jagdamba Kiryana Store. He handed over four CCTV footages to the
Investigating Officer
MEDICAL EVIDENCE .HI I
i) PW-7 Dr. Rajesh Kumar, M.O CHC Uklana deposed that on 09.12.2017,
the victim was brought to CHC Uklana by police. After examination she was
declared “brought dead”. Dead body was handed over to police for
postmortem from GH Hisar. He tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.P8 in
D)uvhLufh’LHhLHrehDatI eDI euL-D-I ’:DMI D)uvhLufh’LI Ysip Ex.P9 and ruqqa
Ex.P10 to the Police.
ii) PW-8 Dr. Ritu Gupta M.O Civil Hospital Tohana stated that she was one
of the members of the Board constituted for conducting postmortem
D)uvhLufh’LI ’LI feDI -Du-Hc’-dI ’aI :hrfhv'I I TafDMI g’Yfmortem, postmortem
report Ex.P12 was prepared. She also deposed about cause of death of the
victim as neurogenic shock as a result of injuries -DYrMhcD-IhLIfeDIMDg’MfI5)'KH
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 22
12). She also stated that possibility of rape cannot be ruled out. The duration
between injury and death was variable and between death and post mortem
examination was within 24 hours. She tendered into evidence her affidavit
Ex.P13.
iii) PW-34 – Dr. Meena Malik, M.O. Civil Hospital, Hisar was also one of the
members of the team who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead
body of deceased victim. The Board was constituted vide Endorsement
5)'KGGIuL-Ig’YfHv’MfDvIMDg’MfIhYIgM’:D-IuYI5)'KGR'IShe also tendered into
evidence her affidavit Ex.P98 in support of her exavhLufh’LHhLHrehDaI uL-I
deposed about handing over the belongings of the victim, copy of MLR,
envelope and sample seal to the police.
The case property of this case was produced in the Court at the
time of recording of her evidence in the Court which is a coloured Pajami
Ex.P14(MO), one blue coloured cut torn top Ex.P15(MO), one grey colour
cut and torn inner as Ex.P16(MO) and three swab sticks and one vial of blood
taken from heart of victim taken out, exhibited as ExP17(MO) to Ex
P21(MO) respectively and one envelope containing remnants of wooden stick
as Ex. P67 (MO).
iv) PW-19 – Dr. Amit Kumar, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Hisar
stated that he conducted medical examination of CCL on 15.12.2017. He
deposed that CCL was generally examined and issued report Ex.P39.
Thereafter, CCL was thoroughly examined and he issued MLR Ex.P40. He
also opined that there was nothing to suggest that CCL cannot perform the act
of sexual intercourse.
He also deposed that after medical examination, certain samples
such as blood, scalp hair, mustache hairs, beard hahMtIDdDHsh-IeuhMtIYush:utIguMfI
of nail, pubic hair along with Kurta and Paijama worn by the CCL at that time
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 23
were taken and converted into separate sealed parcels and were handed over to
the police. These articles were produced in the Court at the time of recording
of his statement and exhibited vide Ex. P42 (MO) – Kurta, Ex. P43 (MO) –
Pyjama, Ex. P44 (MO) – Samples of nail of CCL, Ex. P45 (MO) – Scalp hair,
v,YfureDIluhMtI UDuM-I luhMtI5dDHsh-IluhMI PI push:utI 5x. P50 (MO) – Pubic
Hair.
v) PW-17- Dr. Ajay Kumar, Assistant Director, Scene of Crime, Hisar
Range deposed that on 09.12.2017, he received a telephonic message from
SHO, Police Station Uklana for the inspection of the dead body and spot of
occurrence. He visited mortuary in General Hospital, Hisar and place of
occurrence in Uklana. He prepared scene of crime report Ex.P31. He also
gave the opinion that sexual assault and murder of the victim probably took
place at the spot where the dead body was found.
He further deposed that on 23.04.2018, Investigating Officer,
produced before him report of Directorate, Forensic Science, Gujarat seeking
some clarification on the recommendation suggested by Reporting Officer
Shri H.R. Shah, Scientific Officer, Directorate of Forensic Science Gujarat.
After going through the recommendations, on the same day, he explained that
the query as “The questioned blood stains present on the wall as well as on the
ground but not close to the dead body of victim were observed to be
transferred blood stains i.e. these blood stains were resulted from contact
between a blood bearing surface and questioned surfaces were found.” He
opined vide report Ex.P32.
LAB RELATED EVIDENCE .HI
i) PW23 Priya Chaudhary, Senior Scientific Officer, Diatom logy, Serology,
Biology Division, FSL Madhuban (Karnal) deposed about receipt of six and
eleven sealed parcels in Biology Division of Madhuban on 11.12.2017 and
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 24
18.12.2017 respectively. After examinations, the exhibits along with its
original wrappers were sealed with the seal of PC, FSL.
ii) PW24 Dr. Surjit, Senior Scientific Officer (Serology), Forensic Science
Laboratory (H), Madhuban, Karnal deposed about receipt of total 9 sealed
parcels in Serology division from Biology Division. The conditions of seals
were intact and tallied with the specimen seals. The details of which are
mentioned in his report Ex.P62 He also deposed that after examining the
exhibits along with their original wrappers were sealed with the seal of FSL
(H), Serol.
iii) PW25 Gaytri Sen, Assistant Director (Physics), Forensic Science
Laboratory (H), Madhuban, Karnal also deposed about receipt of 2 sealed
parcels (No. 1 & 5) from Biology division. His opinion after laboratory
examination is that– pieces of wooden stick marked Ex. 1 & 5(a) are part of
same stick. After examination, exhibits were returned in 2 sealed parcels with
the seal of AD/Phy/FSL(H).
iv) PW26 Siddharth Kaushik, Assistant Director, Serology, Forensic Science
Laboratory (H), Madhuban, Karnal deposed about receipt of 13 parcels for
DNA comparison/examination. The seals were intact when the parcels were
deposited. She proved report Ex.P64.
EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO NARCO, BRAIN MAPPING AND
POLYGRAPHY
v) PW -28 – Shah Hemangi Rasiklal, Scientific Officer – Forensic
Psychology, Division Gandhi Nagar Gujrat about conducting of Narco, brain
mapping and polygraphy tests of CCL on police requests.
EVIDENCE REGARDING EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION .HI
i) PW-12- Sunita Yadav, Child Protection Officer, Hisar stated that CCL
suffered confession before her regarding commission of crime.
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 25
LINK EVIDENCE.HI
i) PW-16- SI Dara Singh, No. 491-H, Police line Hisar, proved FIR Ex.P30,
which was registered by him on 29.12.2017 after receipt of ruqqa from
Inspector Sunita and he also made endorsement Ex.P30/A on the ruqqa.
ii) PW-5, ASI Guddi Rani stated that she joined the investigation in this case.
She got conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of victim
aM’vI1DLDMusIl’YghfustIlhYuMIuL-IuafDMIg’YfHv’MfDvIexamination, the parcel
containing clothes of the victim, one sealed jar containing vaginal rectal, oral
swab sticks, wooden stick, scalp hair and sample of blood taken from heart
were handed over to her which she handed over to Inspector Sunita.
iii) PW-2, HC Rohtash, No. 1104, Police Station Uklana, tendered his affidavit
Ex.P3 regarding deposit of case property with him and handing over of the
case property to ESI Baljit Singh for deposit in FSL.
iv) PW-3, ESI Baljit Singh, No. 1175, Hisar police Station, Uklana, has
tendered his affidavit Ex.P4 in support of his examhLufh’LHhLHrehDa'IITYIgDMIehYI
affidavit, he deposited the samples with FSL, which was handed over to him
by MHC.
v) PW-1 Raju Walia, Draftsman, S.P Office, Hisar, proved the scaled site
plans Ex. P1 & Ex. P2, which he prepared after spot inspection.
vi) PW-18– Dr. Tarannum Khan JMIC, Hisar deposed that on 14.12.2017, she
MDr’M-D-I feDI YfufDvDLfI 5)'KH0OI ’aI x1E7I r’vgsuhLuLfIunder Section 164
Cr.P.C. on the basis of application Ex.P33 and passed order Ex.P34.
She also deposed that on 16.12.2017, on the ba sis of application
moved by Inspector Sunita, she recorded the statement of Begam @ Bega and
Gubab Singh under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and passed order Ex.P37.
vii) PW-14HI IKrishan Kumar, Naib Tehsildar, Tohana proved the SC/ST
rDMfhahrufDI’aIx 7IaufeDMI’aI:hrfhvI:h-DI5)'KHRVIuLd stated that the caste Sapele
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 26
is recognized as scheduled caste.
viii) PW-15- Kuldeep Sharma, Superintendent, Observation Home, Hisar
proved the record of inspection, arrival register and attendance register of
inmates vide Ex.P25 and Ex.P28, which was taken into police possession vide
memo Ex.P29.
ix) PW-4, Ishwar Singh, JBT teacher, In charge, G.P.S.F.C Colony, Uklana
Mandi, proved the admission record of CCL in which his date of birth is
mentioned as 15.02.2000.
x) PW-38- Mahinder Singh Clerk, Municipal Committee Barwala, Uklana
deposed that on 12.12.2017, on the request of the Investigating Officer, he
extracted the CCTV footage from DVR of CCTV cameras installed on the
outer side of the office of Municipal Committee for the period of 10.00 p.m. to
06.00 a.m. in the intervening night of 08/09.12.2017 and after extracting the
requisite data, transferred the same into one Pen Drive make 'sandisk', Ex.
P111 (МО). He also deposed about integrity of the data.
xi) PW-13- Dinesh Kumar, owner of Sachkhand Computer, Uklana deposed
about printing of sixteen photographs depicting the place of occurrence and
-Du-Hc’-dI’aI:hrfhvI’LIGG'GR'RCGVIufIfeDIuY/hL4I’aIthe Police.
xii) PW-35 – Mukesh, s/o Shri Punyakirti Sharma, Age 23 years, R/O Uklana
Mandi ( photographer ) deposed that he prepared the photographs of CCTV
footage contained in four CDs on the asking of Investigating Officer and
feDYDIge’f’4MugeYIuMDIgM’:D-IcdIehvI:h-DI5)'KH33ISG to 23) which he handed
over to the Investigating Officer.
xiv) PW-32 – Kamal, shopkeeper, deposed that he had installed CCTV Cameras
on the front side of his house at first floor. On the asking of Police, he had
extracted CCTV footage for the period from 10.00 p.m. to 06.00 a.m. of the
intervening night of 08/09.12.2017 and after copying the same into a Pen
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 27
Drive having mark of 'JK", he handed over the said KDLIEMh:DI5)'IKH3oISJABI
to the police. He also deposed about the integrity of the data of CCTV footage.
EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO THE FACT THAT CCL IS ADDICT .HI
i) PW-10 Popular son of Risal Singh, stated that on 08.12.2017 at about
8.00/8.30 p.m. he was present at Tea Stall in village Budhakhera along with
Bholia son of Sattal, in the meantime, Bholia received telephonic call and
after that Bholia gave him two pouches of smack and instructed him to hand
over one pouch each to Gulab and Ajay near Gokalnath temple Budhakhera.
Thereafter, he went to Gokalnath temple Budhakhera where Gulab, Ajay and
two other boys whose name he did not know were present. He handed over
one pouch each to Gulab and Ajay in lieu of Rs.250/HIa’MIDureIg’,reIuL-I4u:DI
Y'OCCbHIf’IUe’shuIuafDMIMDf,MLhL4IfeDMD'IIlDIh-DLfified the CCL in the court as
one of the boys, who was accompanying Gulab and Ajay at the time when he
delivered smack to them.
ii) PW-11- Gulab son of Satbir, stated that they are three brothers and sisters.
Meenu @ Neenu resident of village Parbhuwala is his friend. On 08.12.2017,
at about 8.00/8.30 p.m. he along with friend Meenu was present at village
Parbhuwala. Beenu telephonically called Bholia demanding smack, upon
which, Bholia called him near Gokalnath temple village Budhakhera for
taking smack. After that he along with Beenu had gone to Gokalnath Temple
to get smack from Bholia in the meantime, Ajay and CCL also reached there.
After sometime, Bholia sent his friend Popular for delivering the smack to
them. Popular delivered one pouch to them and another pouch to CCL and
T2udIhLIshD,I’aI Y'ROCbHIDure'II‘eDMDuafDMtIa’,MI’a them went near liquor vend
of Naniha on his motor cycle and consumed smack in abandoned Chobara in
front of liquor vend of Naniha. After consuming smack, CCL took his phone
and called someone for two minutes. He also identified CCL in the Court.
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 28
EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO EXCHANGE OF MOBILE
PHONE BY CCL
i) PW-9 Ajay Son of Shri Mahinder Singh, stated that he is 12
th
pass and
doing computer course from HARTRON Centre Uklana. On 08.12.2017,
CCL, met him in front of HARTRON Centre Uklana, who was having a
mobile phone and told him that he intends to get opened the lock of the same
from an expert. They went to a mobile shop to get opened the lock of his
v’chsDIge’LD'IIpe’g/DDgDMI-DvuL-D-I Y'0CCbHIuYIreuMge for the same. CCL
was not having money at that time, therefore, he went to his house to arrange
v’LDdI uL-I uafDMI uMMuL4hL4I Y'OCCbHI aM’vI ehYI e’,YDtIthey went to Singla
J’chsDI1ussDMdI uL-IuafDMI gudhL4I Y'0CCbHI feDdI eu:DItaken mobile of CCL.
After that they went to house of CCL from where they went to Railway
crossing where Safy met them. After that Sunny, who is a vendor met them.
Sunny and CCL exchanged their phones with each otheMIhLIshD,I’aI Y'FCCbH'II
p,LLdI4u:DI Y'FCCbHIuL-Iv’chsDIge’LDIvu/DIWuMc’LIf’ CCL and took his
phone make Micromax. CCL purchased shoes amountingIf’I Y'&OCbHIaM’vIuI
shop. After that they started running towards their houses. When they reached
near Gokalnath Temple at about 8.00/8.15 p.m two persons who were friend
of CCL met them. After sometime, they went towards bus stand Uklana and
took some Golgappas from a vendor in lieu of Rs.20/H'IITfIuc’,fI3'0CbGC'CCI
p.m. he and CCL proceeded towards their houses. His testimony is of no help
to the prosecution.
This witness was declared hostile and nothing from him could be
extracted that could support the prosecution’s case
ii) PW-29 – Ajay @ Sunny, S/O Shri Tarsem, deposed about exchange of his
mobile make 'Micromax' of CCL on 08.12.2017 and he gave his mobile make
Karbon' and Rs. 800 in lieu of mobile make "Micromax” of CCL. CCL was
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 29
identified at the time of recording his statement before the trial Court.
iii) PW-30 – Vijay Kumar, Mobile Shopkeeper deposed that on 08.12.2017,
two boys including CCL came to his shop and he opened the pattern lock of
their mobile make “Micromax” after charging of Rs. 0CCbHIaM’vIfeDv'III
iv) PW-31 – Ramesh Kumar, Shop keeper deposed that on 08.12.2017 CCL
and another boy Ajay came to his shop and purchased one pair of shoes for
Y'&OCbHIuL-I’LDI’aIfeDvIf’’/Iv’chsDI’aIehYIY’LIpuLjay and called to some
one and told him that he is Ajay. He also identified the CCL in the Court.
7. The prosecution witnesses brought on record the following documents, details
’aIwehreIuMDIuYI,L-DM.H
Ex. P1 Scaled site plan dated 12.12.2017
Ex. P2 Scaled site plan dated 12.12.2017
Ex. P3 Affidavit of PW2 HC Rohtash
Ex. P4 Affidavit of PW3 EASI Baljeet singh
Ex. P5 School certificate in which date of birth of CCL has been
mentioned as 15.02.2000
Ex. P5/A Extract of Admission and withdrawal register
Ex. P6 Recovery memo dated 9.12.2017
Ex. P7 Recovery memo dated 14.12.2017
Ex. P8 Affidavit of PW8 Dr. Ritu Gupta
Ex. P9 OPD slip issued by CHC, Uklana
Ex. P10 Ruqqa dated 9.12.2017
Ex. P11 Endorsement regarding constitution of Medical Board for
post mortem of dead body
Ex. P12 Post Mortem Report
Ex. P13 Affidavit of PW8 Dr. Ritu Gupta
Ex. P14 to 21 (MO) Pyajami, Top, Inner, Jar, Three swab sticks and Vial of
blood
Ex. P22 Statement of Ajay recorded under section 161 Cr.PC. dated
14.12.2017.
Ex. P23 Statement of Gulab recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of
Gulab dated 14.12.2017
Ex. P24 Statement of Gulab Singh son of Satbir Singh recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. dated 16.12.2017
Ex. P24/A Certificate issued by learned Judicial Magistrate over
statement of Gulab Singh dated 16.12.2017
Ex. P25 Extract of registrar of Observation Home, Hisar regarding
entry of PW12
Ex. P26 Photographs of the place of occurrence
Ex. P27 Copy of scheduled Caste Certificate
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 30
Ex. P28 Extract of Attendance Register
Ex. P29 Recovery Memo dated 26.4.2018.
Ex. P30 FIR dated 9.12.2017
Ex. P30/A Endorsement regarding FIR
Ex. P31 Report of Forensic Science Laboratory Madhuban, Kamal
dated 9.12.2017
Ex. P32 Report of Forensic Science Laboratory Madhuban, Karnal
dated 9.12.2017
Ex. P33 Certified copy of statement of GD (mother of victim)
recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. dated 14.12.2017
Ex. P34 Order dated 14.12.2017
Ex. P35 & Ex.
P35/A
Statement of GD recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C.
dated 14.12.2017 and certificate issued by learned
Magistrate.
Ex. P36 Application for recorded statement of witnesses u/s 164
C.r.P.C
Ex. P37 Order dated 16.12.2017
Ex. P38 Statement of Begam @Bega recorded under section 164
CrPC. dated 16.12.2017
Ex. P39 Report of medical examination of CCL
Ex. P40 Medical Report of CCL
Ex. P41 Affidavit of PW19 Dr. Amit Kumar
Ex. P42 to Ex.
P51(MO)
Clothes of CCL And other material required for DNA
purpose.
Ex. P52 Tehrir
Ex. P53 Affidavit of GD (mother of victim)
Ex. P54 Recovery memo dated 21.12.017
Ex. P55 Demarcation report
Ex. P56 Affidavit of R (father of victim)
Ex. P57 Recovery memo of schedule caste certificate of Ramesh
Ex. P58 Copy of Adhar card of R
Ex. P59 Copies of Adhar card of GD (mother of victim)
Ex. P60 Recovery memo of copies of Adhar card of R and GD
(parents of victim).
Ex. P61 to Ex. P64 Reports of FSL
Ex. P65 Letter written by SP, Hisar to The Director FSL. Karnal
dated 26.5.2018
Ex. P66 Letter written by Director, FSL, Madhuban, Karnal to SP,
Hisar dated 28.5.2018.
Ex. P67 (MO) Remnants of wooden stick
Ex. P68 Inquest report
Ex. P69 Application for sending dead body for post mortem
examination.
Ex. P70 Rough Site plan dated 9.12.2017
Ex. P71 Recovery Memo dated 9.12.2017
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 31
Ex. P72 Site Plan dated 9.12.2017
Ex. P73 Recovery Memo dated 14.12.2017
Ex. P74 Disclosure statement of CCL
Ex.P75 to EX.P78
(MO)
Wooden Stick, Cotton Swab of Blood, Hair parcel, Concrete
B lock
EX. P79 Letter written by SP, Hisar for Narco analysis test
Ex. P80 Letter to SP, Hisar by Directorate of Forensic Science,
Gujrat State 18A Gandhinagar
Ex. P81 Letter written by Directorate of Forensic Science, Gujrat
State 18A Gandhinagar to SP Hisar for extension date for
Narco Analysis test
Ex. P82 Certified copy of order dated 22.2.2018
Ex. P83 Report of Narco Analysis Test
Ex. P84 CD from Directorate of Forensic Science, Gujrat State 18A
Gandhinagar.
Ex. P85 Forwarding letter of Narco Analysis report of CCL
Ex. P86 Letter regarding brain mapping & polygraph test dated
28.02.2018
Ex. P87 Letters to SP, Hisar by Directorate of Forensic Science,
Gujrat State 18A Gandhinagar dated dated 3.3.2018.
Ex. P88 Letter regarding polygraph report of CCL to SP, Hisar by
directorate of forensic science of Gujrat state 18A
Gandhinagar dated 22.03.2018
Ex. P89 Report of BEOS dated 22.03.2018
Ex. P90
Certificate of Authorization to examine and report.
Ex. P91 to Ex. P93 Letters to SP, Hisar by Directorate of Forensic Science,
Gujrat State 18A Gandhinagar dated dated 5.4.2018.
Ex. P94 Certified copy of order dated 3.2.2018
Ex. P95 Certified copy of order dated 8.3.2018.
Ex. P96 (MO) Pen Drive
Ex. P97 Observation memo CD Video
Ex. P98 Affidavit of PW34 Dr. Meena Malik
Ex. P99 Photos and CD
Ex. P100 Dump List
Ex. P101 Recovery memo of mobile phone
Ex. P102 Dump list
Ex. P103 Recovery memo regarding list of mobile numbers
Ex.P104 Call detail
Ex. P105 Recovery memo of call detail
Ex. P106 Call detail of mobile No. 7082572533
Ex. P107 Recovery memo of Call detail of mobile No. 7082572533
Ex. P108 Recovery memo of CD footage from CCTV
Ex. P109 (MO) 4 CD
Ex. P110 Certificate
Ex. P111 (MO) Pen Drive
Ex. P112 Demarcation Memo
Ex. P113 Disclosure statement of CCL
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 32
Ex. P114 Recovery memo of pant of CCL
Ex. P115 Recovery memo of birth certificate of CCL
Ex. P116 Application for medical examination of CCL.
Ex. P117 Site plan dated 16.12.2017
Ex. P118 Application for conducting medical examination of CCL
Ex. P119 Application for issuance of production warrant of CCL
Ex. P120 Application for conducting Narco analysis test of CCL
Ex. P121 Certified copy of order dated 16.2.2018.
Ex. P122 (MO) Trouser of CCL.
Ex. P123 Vial containing Condom recovered from the spot.
Ex. P124 (MO) Articles recovered in personal search of CCL
Ex. P125 Receipt regarding dead body of deceased victim.
The evidence of prosecution was closed on 07.08.2018.
8. CCL was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied correctness
of the prosecution evidence led against him and pleaded that he had been
falsely implicated in the present case. He pleaded that he has no concern with
the offence and witnesses had been deposed falsely. He pleaded that on the
night of 08.02.2017, he was in his house till morning. At about 8.00 a.m. of
next morning, his mother woke him up for tea and told him that one Juggi
girl’s dead body was found near wall of Telephone Exchange. He did not go
outside his house in the night of 08.12.2017. Nothing was recovered from his
possession.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE .HI9. DW1 Roshni Devi, who is mother of CCL, deposed about recovery of the
dead body of the victim on 08.12.2017 and further deposed that after four days
her son was taken from home. She went to the police station to enquire and the
police informed her not to worry. She deposed that her son has not committed
any wrong act and he is innocent. When subjected to cross examination she
denied the suggestion that her son consumes drugs.
10. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the trial court convicted and
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 33
sentenced the CCL, as detailed above.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR CCL:-
11. Learned counsel for the CCL has argued that CCL has been wrongly
m01RHmTk2 () TBk TIH3U S0;IT7 =T HA 3I8;k2 TB3TCv
i) It was a blind case of rape and murder as the occurrence took place on the
midnight of 08/09.12.2017, whereas, the FIR was registered against unknown
person at 11.00 a.m. on 09.12.2017. The case of the prosecution is that the
CCL surrendered on 14.12.2017 at Police Station wheIk3A6 m0,yU3H131T r4Dv
20 GD) stated that the CCL was apprehended on next day i.e. 10.12.2017.
ii) The present case is based on circumstantial evidence and the chain of
circumstances to prove the guilt of CCL is not complete.
iii) There are allegations that the CCL is addict, but there is no medical
corroboration to this effect.
iv) DNA of semen on condom does not match with DNA profile of CCL.
v) CCL never suffered any extra judicial confession before PW12 Sunita Yadav,
Child Protection Officer and her testimony is a padding to the false
prosecution case. CCL cannot be convicted solely on the basis of extra judicial
confession. No reliance can be placed upon such a statement as it is not
proved that this statement is suffered voluntarily.
vi) The CCL was compelled to undergo Polygraph, Narco and brain mapping
tests. These tests are not suffered by him voluntarily. Nothing is discovered on
the basis of these tests. The reports cannot be read against the CCL.
RHHK bBkIk HA 10TBH18 H1 5Oj Iky0ITA C<74vut 312 C<74vuA T0 m011kmT TBk SSj
with the alleged offence.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the CCL referred to the
judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Selvi and others vs. State of
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 34
Karnataka and another AIR 2012 SC 1974; Amlesh Kumar vs. The State of
Bihar 2025(3) RCR (Crl.) 267 and Sanjay vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2025
SCC Online SC 572.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED STATE COUNSEL
at7 jk3I1k2 m0;1AkU c0I TBk IkAy012k1TvOT3Tk 3I8;kA that the trial Court has rightly
convicted the CCL on the basis of correct appreciation of evidence. There
was sufficient material available on record to convict the CCL, as such, there
was no illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court.
DISCUSSION:-
13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of
the case.
i) In the present case, a female child is raped and murdered in a ghastly manner.
Her dead body was found at a public place near telephone exchange. A
wooden stick was found inserted in her vagina. The victim was in half naked
condition. Blood was oozing from her mouth and nose. The water was oozing
from her private part. She was found dead when chec7k2 () 4Dv96 iI7 e3GkAB
Kumar, Medical officer. Post mortem examination was conducted on the dead
(02) 0c RHmTH,7 4Dvh iI7 eHT; ’;yT3 312 4Dv@A iI7 feena Malik also
deposed about the cause of death of the victim as “due to neurogenic shock as
3 IkA;UT 0c H1G;IHkA 2kAmIH(k2 H1 4vatK7
bBk y0AT ,0ITk, Iky0IT C<74vat 312 TBk 3ccH23RHT of both the
witnesses proved that the victim suffered following c0;I H1G;IHkACv
1. Abrasion 2.5x1.5 cm in middle of forehead near scalp.
2. Another small abrasion about 2 cm lateral to it on left side.
3. Blood stains present on lower abdomen and inner thighs.
4. Abrasions present on both shoulder blades.
Besides these the haemorrhage was seen in distal part of
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 35
descending colon for about 10 cm. Anal opening was wide about 1.5 cm in
diameter. Abrasions were present around anal opening. A wooden stick 24 cm
and about 3.2 cm in diameter was seen in vagina, 4 cm protruding out and 17
cm in abdominal cavity, perforating through pouch of Douglas, Hymen was
torn.
The extent of injuries on the little body of minor victim proved
that her murder was committed in a ruthless and barbaric manner.
ii) Having observed so, still this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the
seriousness of offence cannot take away the presumption of innocence in
favour of CCL who is accused of commission of crime. Section 6 of POCSO
is invoked in this case. Even in POCSO Act, there is initial presumption in
favour of the person accused of commission of offence. Only after the
prosecution proves the foundational facts against the accused, the statutory
presumption under Section 29 and 30 can be revoked.
iii) The present case is based on circumstantial evidence. In a case based on
circumstantial evidence, as it is settled propositions of law, prosecution needs
to prove it case beyond the reasonable doubt by proving all the circumstances
from which a conclusion contrary to the innocence of the accused can be
drawn. Hon’ble Apex Court in Shard Bardhichand Sharda vs. State of
Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 BkU2 3A ;12kICv
“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 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 36
observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri)
p. 1047]
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must
be and not merely may be guilty before a court can
convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and
‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure
conclusions.”
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say,
they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis
except that the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not
to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused. ……emphasis supplied.”
In this judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the said “five
golden principles” constitute the “Panchsheel” of the proof of a case based on
circumstantial evidence. It is to be scrutinized whether the prosecution proved
the “Panchsheel” principle of proof necessitating judgment of conviction by
the trial Court.
iv) Learned trial Court rendered the judgment of conviction against CCL
primarily on the ground of his extra judicial confession and alleged confession
cDa’MDIg’shrDIh'D'IKjHGRIp,LhfuI9u-u:tINehs-IKM’fDrtion Officer and PW42
DSP Jaipal Singh, respectively along with the previous background of CCL
that he was addicted to drugs and that was found observing the ladies of the
area while they answer the call of nature. The learned trial Court also taken
into consideration the reports of Narco, polygraph and brain mapping tests of
CCL.
RELEVANCEY OF NARCO, BRAIN MAPPING AND POLYGRAPHY
TEST REPORTS
v) In order to prove the narco and polygraph test, feDIgM’YDr,fh’LID)uvhLD-IKjH
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 37
8 CmefeCqhxfuUECAfoEkyfyCmIEhutEwEIC4wwEIhbDcJbhuoEc Psychology, Division
Gandhi Nagar Gujrat. Her statement reveals that CCL was first produced
before her on 19.02.2018. On the said date, she conducted preliminary
interview. On 20.02.2018, she sent CCL to Government hospital for physical
fitness and CCL was again produced on 21.02.2018. On the basis of request
for extension of time, CCL was produced on 26.02.2018 again. Her statement
reveal that she conducted narco analysis test of the CCL in the presence of
Narco Team, such as Anesthetist, Psychiatrist, Photographer and Forensic
Psychologist. After conducting Narco Test, she concluded that CCL son of
Shri Balmat Lohar during the Narco interview was reluctant, had pulled his
hair and became angry to avoid questioning regarding relevant issues of
victim's kidnapping, rape and murder. On the other hand, he revealed the
information during the Narco interview that he had the habit of consuming
sulfa, smack, and fulfilled his sexuality by paying money to Geeta, Moti and
Kinner. Even on the day of incident, he had consumed sulfa and smack.
However, at the same time he might have not found anybody (Geeta and
Kinner) to satisfy his sexual urge, therefore, he might have kidnapped victim
to satisfy his sexual need, which cannot be ignored. Hence, there is possibility
that CCL might have committed rape and murder of victim. Report of Narco
Analysis is Ex. P83 (consisting of 1 to 10 pages) which bears her signatures at
“JEutD-CfurCJuChfIeClfUhCfyoJjC1v1CJwCSfbIJC-ufypoEs Test is Ex. P84 which
was forwarded by her to police vide letter Ex. P85.
She further deposed that on 03.03.2018, she received letter
'Wj“D nC rfthrC 85j58j850 C wbJxC m“dC qEofbC aErhC wJbMfbding letter dated
01.03.2018 of Assistant Director. On 05.03.2018, she again conducted
polygraph test and BEOS test of CCL. She also deposed that CCL gave
consent for conducting both the tests. Preliminary interview of CCL was
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 38
conducted on the next dates i.e. 06.03.2018 and 09.03.2018, two types of
questionnaires were conducted i.e. affirmative test and control question test.
On the basis of these tests, she concluded that his answers are incorrect to the
questions pertaining to the kidnap, rape and murder case of victim. According
to the interview with CCL and case papers, it is found that CCL was
continuously changing his statement. He used to give Rs. 200 to 300 to Geeta
and Kinner for Sex. Once he called Geeta for sex but Geeta refused, as he did
not have money to pay her. On which he and Geeta had quarrel amongst each
other. According to Polygram’s of CCL it depicts that CCL was giving toffee
and biscuit to victim. CCL took victim in room for kiss. On 8
th
December
2017, to take revenge with victim, he might have kidnapped victim from her
juggi towards Telephone Exchange Lane. He tried to have sex with her. Later
as he is sexually pervert, so in anger he inserted the stick in victim’s private
part and killed her.
vi) It is conceded during the course of arguments that no incriminating
information/fact was discovered pursuant to above mentioned Narco, brain
mapping and polygraph test.
RHHK C<74vd6 TBk 23Tk 0c (HITB mkITHcHm3Tk 0c TBk SCL, proved that his date of birth is
15.02.2000 and narco and polygraph test was conducted on 19.02.2018,
21.02.2018, 26.02.2018, 05.03.2018 to 09.03.2018. Meaning thereby, at the
time of conducting of these tests, CCL was major. For the sake of arguments,
if it is presumed that he being a major, consented to these tests, the reports of
these tests and the facts listed cannot be read on record again him in view of
the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Selvi and others (supra).
viii) In Selvi and others (supra) case, Hon’ble Apex Court has the occasion to
determine the constitutional validity of narco and polygraph examinations and
M01;(Uk lyk< S0;IT BkU2 H1 y3I3 807 tt@Cv
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 39
“223. In light of these conclusions, we hold
that no individual should be forcibly subjected to any of
the techniques in question, whether in the context of
investigation in criminal cases or otherwise. Doing so
would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into personal
liberty. However, we do leave room for the voluntary
administration of the impugned techniques in the context
of criminal justice, provided that certain safeguards are
in place. Even when the subject has given consent to
undergo any of these tests, the test results by themselves
cannot be admitted as evidence because the subject does
not exercise conscious control over the responses during
the administration of the test. However, any information
or material that is subsequently discovered with the help
of voluntary administered test results can be admitted, in
accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872.”
ix) Judgment rendered in Selvi and others (supra) case, is also referred by
Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Amlesh Kumar case (supra) wherein
M01;(Uk lyk< S0;IT BkU2 3A ;12kICv
“14. In the course of proceedings, the issue of
undergoing a narco-analysis test voluntarily came to be
raised, which brings us to the second question framed. As
discussed above, this Court in Selvi (supra) had
considered voluntary narco-analysis tests and opined that
the reports thereof cannot be admitted directly into
evidence. Information that is discovered, as a consequence
thereof, can be admitted with the aid of Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
15. xxx xxx xxx
16. Consequently, in our view, a report
of a voluntary narco analysis test with
adequate safeguards as well in place, or
information found as a result thereof, cannot form the sole
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 40
basis of conviction of an accused person. The second
question is, therefore, answered in the negative.”
x) In view of the settled position of law regarding the Narco analysis and
polygraph tests, information extracted from the CCL cannot be read in
evidence against him as in pursuant of that information, no new
information/fact is discovered during the course of investigation. These test
reports are legally inadmissible in evidence.
RELEVANCY OF CONFESSION BEFORE POLICE:-
xi) The prosecution has heavily relied upon the statement of PW42 DSP Jaipal
phL4eI r’MM’c’MufD-I cdI KjH&GI 6LYgDrf’MI puL-DDgI W,vuM regarding the
-hYrs’Y,MDIYfufDvDLfI5)'KHV&I’aINNi'II‘ehYIYfufDvDLfI5)'KHV&IhYIhLIfeDIa’MvI
of confessional statement before the police admitting his involvement in the
ruYDIf’IfeDID)fDLfIfeuf.HII
“|he had reached in his house on that day at about 10.30
PM. After that he went on the roof of his house and played
songs with high volume on his mobile and came down in
his house and took dinner. After that at about 11.30PM, he
again went on roof and played songs on high volume on
this mobile. Upon hearing noise of songs, ‘GD’ came out
from her slums instead of victim. Due to which he became
frightened and came down in his house. After that he again
went to the roof and played songs on high volume in
mobile. Upon hearing sound of songs, victim came out
from her slum and he came down from the roof and went
towards slum of victim and called victim towards him by
giving a signal, as a result, victim started accompanying
him. Thereafter, he kissed victim in an abandoned street
near Telephone Exchange and she also kissed him in
return. Thereafter, he laid victim on earth and pulled down
her pyajami. When he had intercourse with her, she started
shouting, and moving her hands and legs, due to which, he
became perplexed, pressed her mouth with his hands. Due
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 41
to intoxication state, he took a wooden stick which was
lying nearby and inserted in the vagina of victim. After that
body of victim became cold and due to that very state, he
ran away from the spot leaving behind victim at the spot
and went slept in his house. On next day, at about 5:30AM
He calm down from intoxication state, He saw his trouser
having blood stain and he washed away the stains with
help of soap in the bathroom of his house. Again at about
8.00/8.30AM, he woke up and heard noise that victim had
died. He had done this act due to state of over intoxication
and he felt guilt for this act. He wants to live his life with
new beginning. He may kindly be pardoned. He also
disclosed that apparels worn by him at the time of
occurrence have been kept concealed in the roof of his
house and nobody knows about this except him and can get
recovered the same at his instance and also get
demarcated the place of occurrences from where he had
enticed victim and the place where he had done wrong act
with her and murdered her.”
xii) The question arises, can this statement of CCL before PW42 DSP Jaipal Singh
be read against CCL?
Reference can be made here to judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court
in case Govind vs. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC Online SC 2456 decided on
14.11.2025 wherein it is observed :
“15. As per Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the
confession given in the Police custody, cannot be proved
against a person accused of an offence unless it is given in the
immediate presence of the Magistrate. However, Section 27
deals with how much of the information as received from the
accused, in Police custody may be proved. The said Section is
relevant, therefore, reproduced below:
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
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 42
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.
On a glance of the language of the said section, which
starts with the expression "provided that", it is apparent that this
Section is an exception to the preceding Sections 25 and 26. The
language further indicates that when any fact is deposed to as
discovered in consequence of information received from a person
who is in custody of the Police in connection of an offence, it
must relate distinctly to the fact so discovered. For relevancy, the
"facts thereby discovered" is preceded with the words "so much
of such information, whether it amounts to confession or not as
relates distinctly". Special emphasis must be given to the word
'distinctly'. The word "distinctly" has its own importance which is
a derivative of the word 'distinct'. As per Concise Oxford English
Dictionary(9) it means recognizable, different in nature,
individual or separate, readily distinguishable by the senses. As
per Advance Law Lexicon(10), "distinctly" means clearly,
explicitly, definitely, precisely, unmistakably, in a distinct
manner. Therefore, "distinctly", as used in Section 27, is meant
to exclude certain language and to limit and confine the
information which may be proved within definite limits and not
necessarily to include everything which may relate to that
information. The said word "distinctly" indicates directly,
indubitably, strictly and unmistakably, apparently, used in
Section 27 to limit and define the scope of probable information.
Therefore, only that much information as is clearly connected
with the fact discovered can be treated as relevant under the
phrase 'facts discovered'.
xii) Place of occurrence is stated to have been markhrCaErhCxhxJC'Wj“D008C
on the disclosure statement Ex.P74 of CCL. Thus, no new fact or
information is discovered in pursuance of statementC'Wj“Di"CfoCtehClyfIhC
of occurrence was already within the knowledge of the police, from
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 43
where the dead body of victim was recovered. For this reason, his
YfufDvDLfI5)'KHV&IuL-IvDv’I5)'KHGGRIruLL’fIcDIMDu-Iagainst the CCL
being inadmissible in evidence under Sections 25 and 27 of Evidence
Act.
)hhhBI KjH&GI6LYgDrf’MIpuL-DDgIW,vuMIuL-IKjH&0IEpKIkaipal also exhibited
-hYrs’Y,MDI YfufDvDLfI 5)'KHGG0I ’aI NNiI :h-DI wehreI eDIgot recovered
fM’,YDMI :h-DI 5)'KHGG&I aM’vI cD-I /DgfI hLI ehYI MDYh-DLfial house. The
trouser/jeans of CCL was deposited with FSL vide Ex'IKHFIuL-IuYIgDMI
npiIMDg’MfI5)'IKHoRtIcs’’-IwuYIL’fI-DfDrfD-I’LIhf'I
RELEVANCEY OF FSL REPORTS
)h:BI npiIMDg’MfI5)'KHo&IgM’:D-IfeufIfeDIuMfhrsDYIgDrtaining to victim deposited
in the office of FSL were cotton swabs partially stained with dark brown
stains, one concrete block stained with brownish stained, wooden stick
stained with brownish stained, vaginal swab, rectal swab, oral swab,
blood, bunch of hairs described as scalp hair, one gray stripped baby
payjami, one tear and torn blue baby top stained with few brownish
stained, one tear and torn dirty grey stripped inner.
The blood was detected on the swab, concrete block, wooden
Yfhr/tI:u4hLustIMDrfusIuL-I’MusIYwucY'5)'KHODIfeDIYample of blood was also
found as blood. Blood was also detected on scalp hair, baby payjami and
inner. Blood stained were found on the baby top.
One condom was also deposited but there was no blood on it.
The blood was not found on the jeans, payjama, kurta, nail pieces
and pubic hair stated to belong to CCL.
I I ‘eDMDa’MDtI MDg’MfI5)'KHoRI ruLL’fI r’LLDrfI feDI urr,sed with the
offence.
I I Dg’MfI5)'KHoIgM’:DYIfeufIEyTIgM’ahshL4I’aIfeDIcsood on articles
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 44
deposited in the FSL was conducted and the blood found on the wooden
stick (No.5a), one cut and dried cotton wool swabs (No.5b,5c, 5d), hair
(No.5e), sample of blood (No.5f), cut and dirty baby blue shirt (No.6a),
cut and dirty woolen grey payjami (No.6b), cut and dirty grey woolen
upper (No.6c) matches with allelic pattern of cotton wool swab (No.2)
and blood found on the piece of stone slab (No.4). This conclusively
proved that the blood lifted from the scene of crime was the blood of
victim. Her clothes were also stained with blood.
I I 6fIhYIa,MfeDMIYfufD-IhLIfeDIMDg’MfI5)'KHo&IfeufIullelic pattern of item
Nos.9a one cut and dirty white kurta, 9b one cut and dirty white payjama
and 17 i.e. blood of CCL did not match with allelic pattern of item No.7
i.e. one dirty condom.
There was no amplification of data in item Nos.3a and 3b i.e. hair which
was lifted from the scene of crime.
Therefore, there is nothing in this report which could connect the accused
with the blood lifted from the spot of the crime, on the clothes and hair of
victim.
RELEVANCY OF CONFESSION BEFORE CHILD
PROTECTION OFFICER
xv) The prosecution has relied upon the extra judicial confession of CCL
Y,aaDMD-I cDa’MDI KjHGRI p,LhfuI 9u-u:tI Nehs-I KM’fDrfh’n Officer, Hisar
when she visited observation home on 17.01.2018, where the juvenile
was lodged. She deposed that earlier CCL hesitated and did not tell her
anything but after that CCL told that he had committed wrong act about
one month back with a small girl child, who was friend of his sister, due
to which, said small girl died. CCL felt guilty and said that “madam mere
se galti ho gai hai, muje bahut pachtava hai, muje mafi dilwayi jaye”
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 45
and he started crying. She did not disclose to anybody as she was not
aware of the proceedings of this case. On 26.04.2018, she informed about
HT T0 4DvAn i4O :HTk12kI OH18B7
xvi) The CCL was under custody when he allegedly suffered statement before
PW13 Sunita Yadav, Child Protection Officer. The correctness of such
statement would be questionable as to whether, in any case, the same was
voluntarily, without coercion or inducement. There is no independent
corroboration of the said confessional statement of CCL suffered before
PW12 Sunita Yadav. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay’s case (supra) held
that extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. It must be
supported by other evidence and inspires confidence. The learned trial
Court committed an error in relying upon the alleged extra judicial
m01ckAAH013U AT3Tk,k1T 0c SSj T0 4Dvat O;1HT3 >323R for the purpose of
conviction of CCL since this statement has no evidentiary value.
RELEVANCY OF RECOVERY OF CONDOM NEAR THE
PLACE OF CRIME:-
xvii) It is the case of the prosecution that one condom was seized from near the
place where the dead body of victim was found, and was sent to FSL. As
ykI TBk 5Oj Iky0IT C<74vt96 yI0Rk2 01 Ikm0I2 () OH2dharth Kaushik
Assistant Director, Serology, Forensic Science Laboratory (H),
Madhuban, Karnal that DNA profile of semen stains on the source of
item No. 7 (condom) is not matching with DNA profile of semen stain on
source of item No. 9A (kurta), source of item No. 9B (pyjama) and DNA
of CCL (source of item No.17). For this reason, the said condom (item
No.7) recovered from near the place of crime has no relevancy with the
offence of rape and murder of victim and with CCL.
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 46
I I I ‘eDIEyTIgM’ahshL4I’aIYDvDLIYfuhLYI’LI/,MfuH3TIuL-Igd2uvuI3HUI
with sample of blood of CCL is not done. Therefore, it is not proved that
the said semen stains pertains to CCL.
WHETHER THE CCL WAS ADDICT:-
):hhhBI I KM’YDr,fh’LIeuYID)uvhLD-IKjHGCIuL-IKjHGGIf’ prove that CCL was
addicted to take intoxicants. CCL had a clean record before he was
apprehended in this case. He had no criminal antecedents. There are
r’LfMu-hrfh’LYIhLIfeDIfDYfhv’LhDYI’aIKjHGCIK’g,suMIIuL-IKjHGGI1,suc'I
TYIgDMIfeDIfDYfhv’LdI’aIKjHGCIK’g,suMtII’LIMDrDhgfIof telephonic call by
Bholia, he (Bholia) handed over two pouches of Smack to him with
instructions to handover one pouch each to Gulab and Ajay and then he
(PW 10 Popular) went to Goraknath temple Budhakhera where Gulab
and Ajay and two other boys including CCL were present. He handed
over one pouch each to Gulab and Ajay in lieu of Rs'ROCbHIDureIg’,reI
uL-I4u:DI Y'OCCbHIf’IUe’shuI’LIehYIMDf,ML'II‘e,YtIee handed over the said
g’,reI’aIYvur/If’I1,sucIuL-IT2udtIe’wD:DMtIKjHGGI1,lab stated that
Beenu telephonically called Bholia and Bholia called him near Gokalnath
temple village Budhakhera for taking smack. He along with Beenu,
reached there to get smack from Bholia. Ajay and CCL also reached
there. Bholia sent his friend Popular to deliver one pouch to them and
uL’feDMIg’,reIf’INNiIuL-IT2udIhLIshD,I’aI Y'ROCbHDuch. The fact that
Yvur/IwuYI-Dsh:DMD-I f’I NNiIhYI L’fI YfufD-IcdI KjHGCI K’g,suM'I KjHGGI
Gulab also stated that CCL took his phone and called some one for two
minutes. The sim number of said mobile phone was never taken in
possession. The source of smack is also not proved. Bholia, who
ussD4D-sdIeuL-D-I’:DMIfw’Ig’,reDYI’aIYvur/If’IKjHGC Popular is also
not examined. The blood tests of CCL is not conducted to determine
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 47
whether he was an addict and used to consume smack and sulpha. The
ussD4ufh’LIKjHGCIK’g,suMIuL-IKjHGGI1,sucIwDMDIhL-,sging in supply
and consumption of smack cannot be believed. The prosecution failed to
prove that on the night of 08.12.2017, CCL consumed smack or sulpha.
For the sake of arguments, even if is believed that CCL was an
addict, his being addict is not a circumstance to connect him with the
crime.
CONVICTION IS BASED ON SUSPICION CANNOT BE
SUSTAINED
)h)BI KjHRCIx1E7Ir’vgsuhLuLftIeu-IL’fIMuhYD-IY,Yghrhon on CCL regarding his
commission of offence of rape and murder of her daughter when her
statement Ex.P52 was got recorded to PW27 Inspector Sunita.
To prove the indecent and pervert mindset of CCL, PW20 GD
v’feDMI’aIfeDI:hrfhvISr’vgsuhLuLfBIuL-IKjHRRIUD4uIEevi stated that the
CCL used to watch them with bad intention while sitting near the railway
lines, when they used to go there to answer the call of nature in the
v’MLhL4'I‘ehYIaurfIhYIL’fIYfufD-IcdIKjHRCIx1E7Iv’feer of the victim
wehsDIMDr’M-hL4IeDMIYfufDvDLfI5)'KHORIf’IfeDIg’shrD, which is the basis of
lodging the FIR. The CCL is also slum dweller and females of his family
must had to use open public space for defecation. For the sake of
arguments, this part of the testimonies of PW20 mother of victim and
PW22 Bega Devi neighbourer of PW20 are believed, it leads to the only
conclusion that they named CCL in the commission of the offence on the
basis of suspicion. They also got recorded their statements to PW27
Inspector Suita on 10.12.2017 raising their doubt on one of their
neighbourers namely CCL who was resident of same area. In case titled
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 48
Vaibhav vs. State of Maharastra, 2025 SCC Online SC 1304, observed
that “mere suspicion, no matter of rape cannot take place of prove in a
criminal trial. The suspicion ought to have been substantiated by
undeniable, reliable, unequivocal, consistent and credible circumstantial
evidence, which does not leave the probability of any other theory.” In
the present case, there is no circumstance adverse to CCL except that he
happened to be resident of the slum where victim along with her family
was residing and younger sister of CCL was friend of victim. The CCL
is implicated in this case as the crime is of ghastly and sensational nature
and Special Investigating Team was formed to solve the case. Crime was
committed in barbaric manner. However, there must be legally
admissible evidence to sustain the conviction but the evidence produced
by the prosecution is unworthy of credence. There is no circumstance
against the accused to connect him with the alleged offence.
xx) Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that flawed and tainted investigation
has eventually led to the failure of the prosecution case involving the
gruesome rape and murder of a child. Despite there being any reliable
evidence on the record of the case, the CCL was convicted and sentenced
by the learned trial Court and has suffered long incarceration for more
than seven years. The findings recorded in the impugned judgment
holding the CCL guilty of charges framed against him, are based on
conjectures and surmises and hence the judgment and the order of
sentence are unsustainable on the face of the record.
CONCLUSION:
xxi) As a consequence of above discussion, the impugned judgment passed by
learned trial Court do not stand to scrutiny and are hereby set aside.
CRA-D-1050-DB-2018 49
Appeal is allowed. CCL (appellant) is acquitted of the charges.
The appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other case,
subject to furnishing of personal bonds for a period of six months before
concerned learned Illaqa Magistrate/CJM.
A copy of the judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for
compliance.
(GURVINDER SINGH GILL) (RAMESH KUMARI)
JUDGE JUDGE
16
th
Feburary, 2026
ravinder/Jyoti/pooja
Whether speaking/reasoned
√Yes/No
Whether reportable
√Yes/No
The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision in CCL vs. State of Haryana stands as a landmark judgment regarding the high threshold of evidence required in criminal convictions. On CaseOn, this ruling serves as a critical study of how the judiciary balances public pressure in brutal crimes against the fundamental right to a fair trial, ensuring that the burden of proof in criminal law is strictly maintained. As one of the most significant cases available for detailed study on the CaseOn platform, it underscores that even in the most emotionally charged circumstances, suspicion—no matter how strong—can never take the place of legal proof.
The primary legal question addressed in CCL vs. State of Haryana was whether a juvenile could be convicted of murder and sexual assault based on a chain of circumstantial evidence that remained incomplete. Specifically, the court had to determine if the trial court’s conviction, which resulted in a 20-year sentence for the minor, was sustainable given that the DNA evidence was contradictory and the extra-judicial confessions and scientific tests (narco analysis, polygraph, and brain mapping) were challenged as involuntary and unreliable.
In criminal jurisprudence, the law requires something more than suspicion; it requires proof. Under Section 302 IPC and the POCSO Act, the prosecution bears the entire burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
For a conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain of events must be established and clearly point to the guilt of the accused. Furthermore:
The story began on 9th December 2017 in Uklana, Hisar district of Haryana. Early in the morning, the police received information that a young girl, about 6–7 years old, was lying unconscious near the Telephone Exchange. When the police reached the spot, they found the child in a severely injured condition; she was taken to the Community Health Centre where she was sadly declared dead. Her mother, GD, stated the child went missing during the night while the family slept in their hut.
The State of Haryana argued that the CCL was responsible based on:
An alleged confession during interrogation and his pointing out of the crime scene.
An extra-judicial confession made before Child Protection Officer Sunita Yadav.
Circumstantial evidence including blood-stained soil, hair samples, and a wooden stick recovered from the scene.
Forensic examinations and behavioral tests such as polygraph and narco analysis.
The defense argued the case was built on weak suspicion and highlighted that the DNA from semen found on a condom at the scene did not match the CCL. The High Court’s examination revealed several serious problems:
Incomplete Chain: The case was entirely circumstantial, and the links were not fully established.
Contradictions: There was confusion regarding the exact manner in which the accused was apprehended.
DNA Failure: The mismatch between the recovered DNA and the CCL’s profile was a critical flaw.
Involuntary Tests: The narco, polygraph, and brain mapping tests were not voluntary and produced no useful discovery.
Professional Note: Legal professionals can stay updated on high-stakes criminal appeals by utilizing CaseOn’s 2-minute audio briefs, which provide rapid, expert summaries of complex rulings like this one to help analyze specific judicial trends and evidentiary requirements.
After considering all these factors, the High Court concluded that the investigation suffered from serious flaws and the evidence was not strong enough to sustain a conviction. As a result, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the CCL, holding that criminal law cannot punish someone merely on suspicion or incomplete evidence.
About the Author
Aryan Dutt is a 4th-year BA LLB student at Krishna Institute of Law, affiliated with Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut. Through this blog, the aim is to explain complex legal reasoning in clear and practical language. This is curated by CaseOn editorial team.
Note: This blog is written for educational and informational purposes only. Readers are encouraged to read the full judgment and relevant laws before forming any legal opinion or relying on this analysis.
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....