Savita vs State Of Delhi

Court
Delhi High Court


$~1 & 2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010000192001
+ CRL.A. 884/2001
SAVITA .....Appellant
Through: Ms.Adviteeya, Mr.Sandeep Sudhakar
Deshmukh and Mr.Nishant Sharma,
Advs.

versus

STATE OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for the State
with SI Kunal, PS J.P. Kalan.
2
# CNR No. DLHC010001842002
+ CRL.A. 10/2002
MEHTAB SINGH & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Ms. Adviteeya, Adv.

versus

STATE OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for the State
with SI Kunal, PS J.P. Kalan.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV
ORDER (ORAL)

1. Hybrid mode.
2. Challenged in this appeal is the Judgment of conviction dated
30.10.2001 and the consequent Order on Sentence dated 06.11.2001 passed
by the Learned ASJ (Ms. R. Kiran Nath), New Delhi, in Sessions Case No.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 884/2021 & CRL.A. 10/2002 Page 1 of 8

Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
13:06:33


97/97, arising out of FIR No. 107/96 registered at Police
Station Jaffarpur Kalan, under Sections 304B/498A/498A read with Section
34 IPC. By virtue of the impugned judgment, Smt. Savita, Sh.
Mehtab Singh and Sh. Jitender were convicted for the offences punishable
under Sections 304B and 498A read with Section 34 IPC. All three convicts
were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under
Section 304B/34 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for two years along with a
fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further
undergo simple imprisonment for six months under section 498A. Both the
substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently, and the benefit of
Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure („Cr.P.C.‟) was extended to
them.
3. It is relevant to record that during the pendency of the present
proceedings, Appellant No. 1 in CRL.A. 10/2002, namely Sh. Mehtab
Singh, expired on 12.06.2011. Consequently, CRL.A. 10/2002 stands abated
qua Appellant No. 1, Sh. Mehtab Singh, and survives with respect to
Appellant No. 2, Sh. Jitender.
4. This Court had earlier disposed of CRL.A. 884/2001 and CRL.A.
10/2002 vide common judgment dated 28.07.2017, upholding the conviction
and sentence recorded by the Learned Trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the
Appellants preferred SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, registered as
SLP(Crl.) No. 8529/2017 (at the instance of Smt. Savita) and SLP(Crl.) No.
8707/2017 (at the instance of Sh. Jitender). Vide order dated 25.01.2019,
leave was granted in both the petitions, and the same came to be renumbered
as Criminal Appeal Nos. 186/2019 and 187/2019 respectively. Vide order
dated 14.10.2019 passed in the said appeals, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 884/2021 & CRL.A. 10/2002 Page 2 of 8

Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
13:06:33


aside the order of this Court dated 28.07.2017 and remanded both the
matters back to this Court, with a direction to decide the appeals afresh, on
merits.
5. Upon the matter being taken up afresh pursuant to the remand, it has
been submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants that the Trial
Court Record („TCR‟) has been misplaced and submitted a list of deficient
documents. Vide order dated 18.01.2020, the learned counsel for the
Appellants placed on record the list of details of record which are not
available in the reconstructed Trial Court Record. Learned APP upon going
through the said list, had shown his inability to provide any document as
mentioned in the list. On 01.07.2025, the learned counsel for the Appellants
again placed on record certain documents to facilitate reconstruction of the
record which stands reflected in the „List of Documents in the Reconstructed
LCR file with the Status of Availability.‟ Thereafter, continuous efforts have
been made to reconstruct the TCR. Despite the aforesaid efforts, the Station
House Officer („SHO‟), Police Station Jaffarpur Kalan, vide status report
dated 10.04.2026, reported that the documents demanded by the learned
Counsel for the Appellants were not available and could not be traced either
in the police file or in the concerned record/vernacular record room, and are
presumed to be not available on record. On 25.08.2026, this Court recorded
that the issue of the missing documents persisted unabated, and that neither
the State nor the Appellants were in a position to further assist the Court
with any material towards reconstruction of the record.
6. A perusal of the aforesaid „List of Documents‟ discloses that, apart
from the deposition (examination-in-chief and cross-examination) of only
three witnesses, namely Sh. Indra Singh, ASI Mahendra Singh and SI
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 884/2021 & CRL.A. 10/2002 Page 3 of 8

Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
13:06:33


Jaiprakash Singh, the chief and cross-examination of the remaining
witnesses are not available on the reconstructed record. It
further discloses that the following documents, marked as Exhibits by the
Learned Trial Court, have been specifically shown as not available:

LIST OF DOCUMENTS IN THE RECONSTRUCTED LCR FILE
WITH STATUS OF AVAILABILITY

Sl.
Particulars Status in File
No.
Not
5. MLC – Ex. PW 4/A
Available
DD No. 6A – Ex.
6.
PW8/A
Not
Available
Ex. PW1/A –
Statement of father of
deceased (PW1)
Not
Available
7.
Ex. PW1/C –
Statement of handing
over dead body
Not
Available
9.
Letter Marked as Ex.
10.
A
Not
Available
Ex. PW1/C –
11.
Notebook of deceased
Not
Available
Ex. PW2/A –
12.
Statement of PW-2
Not
Available
Ex. PW2/B – Proved
statement recorded
before SDM
Not
Available
13.
Ex.PW3/A Statement
14.
of PW-3
Not
Available
Ex. PW4/A Summary
15.
of death
Not
Available
Ex. PW4/C MLC
17.
Proved
Not
Available
18. Ex. PW5/B1-11 – Not
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 884/2021 & CRL.A. 10/2002 Page 4 of 8

Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
13:06:33


Inquest Papers Available
Ex. PW9/A Arrest and
19.
search
Not
Available
Ex. PW11/A Form
20.
25.35
Not
Available
Ex. PW11/B Order
directing registration
of case
Not
Available
21.
Ex. PW12/A Report of
22.
Handwriting expert
Not
Available
Ex. PW15/B – DD No.
24.
26A
Not
Available
Ex. P1 to P4 – Case
25.
Property
Not
Available
Ex. PW14/B -
27.
Endorsement
Not
Available
Ex. PW14/E – Copy of
PW1/C taken into
possession
Not
Available
31.
Examination of PW-2
Bhagwan (brother of
deceased)
Not
Available
33.
Examination of PW-
3 Phoola Devi (mother
of deceased)
Not
Available
34.
Examination of PW-4
35.
Dr. Deepak Gupta
Not
Available
Examination of PW-5
36.
Dr. Ashok Jaiswal
Not
Available
Examination of PW-6
37.
Dr. Arun Gupta
Not
Available
Examination of PW-7
38.
HC Dhani Ram
Not
Available
Examination of PW-8
39.
Ct. Narender
Not
Available
Examination of PW-9
40.
Ct. Raj Singh
Not
Available
41. Examination of PW-10 Not
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 884/2021 & CRL.A. 10/2002 Page 5 of 8

Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
13:06:33


SI Nand Ji Available
Examination of PW-11
42.
Parkash Chand
Not
Available
Examination of PW-12
43.
CFSL Expert
Not
Available
Not
46. 313 Statements
Available
Evidence of DW1 to
47.
DW3
Not
Available


7. Reliance was placed by learned counsel for the Appellants on
Jitendra Kumar Rode V. Union of India , (2024) 11 SCC 559, Ramesh
Kaushik v. State (NCT of Delhi) , 2022 SCC Online Del 4185, Charanjit
Singh v. Tulshi Dass & Ors. , bearing number as Crl. A. 457/2002, decided
on 17.04.2026, where the courts have reiterated the settled position
governing such a situation as stated in State of U.P. v. Abhai Raj Singh
and Anr. , (2004) 4 SCC 6, the relevant portion whereof is reproduced
hereunder:
“10. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court and
remit the matter back for fresh consideration. It is to be
noted at this juncture that one of the respondents i.e. Om Pal
has died during the pendency of the appeal before this Court.
The High Court shall direct reconstruction of the records
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of our
judgment from all available or possible sources with
the assistance of the prosecuting agency as well as the
defending parties and their respective counsel. If it is possible
to have the records reconstructed to enable the High Court
itself to hear and dispose of the appeals in the manner
envisaged under Section 386 of the Code, rehear the appeals
and dispose of the same, on their own merits and in accordance
with law. If it finds that reconstruction is not practicable but by
ordering retrial interest of justice could be better served —
adopt that course and direct retrial — and from that stage law
shall take its normal course. If only reconstruction is not
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 884/2021 & CRL.A. 10/2002 Page 6 of 8

Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
13:06:33


possible to facilitate the High Court to hear and dispose of the
appeals and the further course of retrial and fresh adjudication
by the Sessions Court is also rendered impossible due to loss of
vitally important basic records — in that case and situation
only, the direction given in the impugned judgment shall
operate and the matter shall stand closed. The appeals are
accordingly disposed of.”

8. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is
evident that despite repeated efforts undertaken by the Registry, the
concerned trial court, the prosecuting agency and both the parties, the Trial
Court Record has neither been reconstructed nor traced and continues to
remain unavailable and untraceable. The deficiency, as noted above, extends
to the depositions of the material witnesses, the statements of the accused
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the entire defence evidence, all of
which constitute the very foundation of the adjudicatory process. In the
absence of such material, this Court is unable to examine and adjudicate on
the correctness of the findings returned by the Trial Court and is deprived
from appreciating the evidence that was led, and from scrutinising the
reasoning forming the basis of the Impugned Judgment.
9. It is trite that adjudication of a criminal appeal necessarily and
essentially requires a complete and effective scrutiny of the Trial Court
Record, and any determination in its absence would amount to a decision
rendered without any evidentiary substratum, which is impermissible under
the law. Moreover, having regard to the fact that the alleged occurrence took
place in the year 1996, the trial concluded and conviction was recorded in
the year 2001, and nearly three decades have since elapsed, this Court is of
the considered view that a direction for retrial would not be a feasible or
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 884/2021 & CRL.A. 10/2002 Page 7 of 8

Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
13:06:33


meaningful exercise, particularly when the foundational material required
for such retrial is itself unavailable.
10. In these circumstances, when the reconstruction of the record is not
possible so as to enable this Court to hear and dispose of the appeals on
merits, the only course open, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in “ State of U.P. v. Abhai Raj Singh and Anr .” (supra), is
to allow the appeal. The Judgment dated 30.10.2001 and the Order of
Sentence dated 06.11.2001 are hereby set aside.

11. The present appeals being CRL.A. 884/2001 and CRL.A. 10/2002,
stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.


VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J
SEPTEMBER 7, 2026/ VS
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 884/2021 & CRL.A. 10/2002 Page 8 of 8

Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
13:06:33