1. Housebreaking and murder of a senior citizen — Conviction under Section 302 IPC based on injured witness identification and recoveries of weapon and stolen articles. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1939
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Raj Kumar @ Bheema – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 4895 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 697 of 2024)
Decided On : 17-11-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. Swaroopanand Mishra, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Dhriti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Shukla, Adv. Mr. Ayush Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. Swaroopanand Mishra, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Dhriti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Shukla, Adv. Mr. Ayush Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR.
Identification of the accused after a long delay, coupled with material inconsistencies in witness testimony, undermines evidential reliability; absence of corroborating evidence leads to an acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 - Sections 3, 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 396, 302, 307, 397, 412 read with Section 34 - Conviction under Section 302 IPC affirmed by High Court - Appeal allowed, acquitting the accused-appellant due to unreliable identification and lack of substantive evidence linking him to the crime. (Paras 70, 71, 72)
(B) Testimony of Eye-Witness - The identification of the accused-appellant nearly eight and a half years after the incident was deemed unsafe - Material improvements in witness's testimony undermined its credibility. (Paras 51, 59, 66)
(C) Recoveries - The recoveries of alleged looted articles lack evidentiary support as the witness did not identify them during the trial, and the son of the deceased, who was supposed to corroborate, did not testify. (Paras 67, 68)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Reliability of dock identification after significant delay — Validity of recoveries without independent witnesses or matching blood groups — Procedural flaws in test identification parade. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 )
3. Identification after long delay by infirm witness via video conferencing is unreliable — TIP proceedings were fundamentally flawed — Recoveries lacked forensic corroboration and proper identification. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 )
4. Dock identification after significant delay by an infirm witness is unsafe without a valid TIP or corroborating forensic evidence. (Para 52 , 56 , 66 , 69 )
5. Appeal allowed — Conviction and sentence set aside — Accused acquitted and ordered to be released. (Para 70 , 71 , 72 )
6. How should a witness be confronted with previous written statements when testifying via video conferencing?
The trial court must ensure a copy of the statement or document is transmitted to the witness through electronic mode to follow the procedure for contradicting witnesses in writing, safeguarding trial fairness and the integrity of the trial. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 )
7. When is dock identification considered unsafe or improbable?
Identification is unsafe when there is an inordinate delay, the witness is infirm or has weak eyesight, the identification occurs via video conferencing, and there are material improvements in testimony that suggest an attempt to fill prosecution lacunae. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 54 , 56 )
8. What is the evidentiary value of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) if the accused was not kept muffled?
If the accused is not kept baparda (muffled) from the time of arrest, the possibility of the witness seeing the accused beforehand increases, which seriously compromises the sanctity and evidentiary worth of the identification proceedings. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 )
9. Does the recovery of an article with human blood suffice for conviction if the blood group does not match the victim?
No, the mere presence of human blood on a recovered article is insufficient for conviction unless it is further corroborated by a matching blood group with that of the deceased or the injured victim. (Para 68 )
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The instant appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 29th September, 2022, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi1[Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.] in Criminal Appeal No. 281 of 2021, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant Raj Kumar @ Bheema2[Hereinafter, referred to as the “accused-appellant”.] came to be dismissed, affirming the judgment dated 12th February, 2021, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi3[ Hereinafter, referred to as the “trial Court”.]. By the said judgment, while the accused-appellant was acquitted of the charges under Sections 3 , 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 19994[For short, ‘MCOCA’.], and Sections 396, 307, 397, 412 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18605[For short, ‘IPC’.], he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, whereas the remaining co-accused were acquitted. The High Court further affirmed the order on sentence dated 20th February, 2021, whereby the accused-appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default whereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
PROSECUTION CASE
4. On the intervening night of 2nd/3rd November, 2008, at about 1:50 a.m., an information was received at Police Station, New Friends Colony through wireless operator, regarding an incident of house breaking by night at House No. 81, Sukhdev Vihar, near Escort Hospital, where the intruders were allegedly assaulting the occupants of the premises. At about 2:00 a.m., further information was received at the said Police Station, which was reduced into writing vide DD No. 29A, as per which, Head Constable Bhagirath (PW-7) informed that SI Sanjeev Solanki (PW-17) may be sent to the spot.
5. Pursuant thereto, SI Sanjeev Solanki (PW-17), accompanied by Constable Ashok Kumar (PW-9), proceeded to the place of occurrence and apprised the Additional S.H.O., who arrived there shortly thereafter. Upon entering the premises, they found the sliding door of the drawing room broken, the side grill bent, the house ransacked, and the household articles scattered. A large pool of blood was noticed in the lobby, where the dead body of an elderly male (deceased-Madan Mohan Gulati) was lying, alongside certain articles. Bloodstains and articles in disarray were also observed in the adjoining bedroom.
6. On hearing faint cries emanating from the adjoining bedroom, the police officials rushed inside and found an elderly lady, later identified as Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18), lying in an injured condition. She was immediately shifted to AIIMS Hospital by the PCR. Thereafter, SI Sanjeev Solanki (PW-17), accompanied by Inspector S.K. Sharma (PW-15), proceeded to the Trauma Centre, AIIMS, where Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18) was under treatment. Medico-Legal Certificate (MLC)6[Exh. 21/A.] of the injured, Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18) was prepared on 3rd November, 2008, by Dr. Sharwan. The MLC recorded that the injured was fit for statement and noted multiple grievous stab injuries, including blood clots around the nether region, scalp- deep wounds, and a lacerated wound near the right eyebrow. The nature of the weapon used to cause the injuries was opined to be sharp.
7. Upon being declared fit, the statement (Fard bayan)7[Exh. PW-17/A.] of Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18) was recorded by SI Sanjeev Solanki (PW-17) and based on the said statement, Inspector S.K. Sharma (PW-15) prepared a rukka and handed it over to SI Sanjeev Solanki (PW-17), pursuant to which an FIR8[ FIR No. 601/2018 dated 3rd November, 2008.] came to be registered at Police Station, New Friends Colony, for the offences punishable under Sections 394/397/302/307/34 of IPC.
8. On 5th November, 2008, body of the deceased Madan Mohan Gulati was identifie
