$~1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.A. 1192/2024

RAHUL KUMAR .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Kamal Mehta, Mr. Prakash

Kapoor, Mr. Surender Joshi,

Advs. versus

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ....Respondent

Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP with

Mr. Manuvendra Yadav, Adv.

Insp. Amit Kr., PS Palam

Village.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

O R D E R

% 13.01.2026

CRL.M.(BAIL) 2151/2024

1. The present application has been filed under Section 430(1) read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [BNSS], seeking suspension of sentence and release of the

appellant on bail during pendency of the instant appeal.

2. The captioned appeal has been preferred by the appellant, seeking quashing/setting aside of the judgment of conviction dated 20.02.2024 and order on sentence dated 27.02.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03/Special Judge (Companies Act),

Dwarka Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the “Trial Court”) trial court in Sessions Case No. 441519/2016 in FIR No. 325/2016, registered at Police Station Palam Village, whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and has been sentenced, inter alia, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months.

3. The prosecution case, as recorded in the impugned judgment, is that the elder daughter of the complainant named Pooja (victim) got married with the appellant on 14.07.2016. Soon thereafter, the appellant tried getting closer to “R”, the younger daughter of the complainant. The same was to the disliking of the victim. She rebuked them, on which, both of them threatened to kill her. On 23.08.2016, “R” attempted to strangulate the deceased, but could not succeed. On 24.08.2016, at about 4.00 pm, the son of the complainant came to his tea shop and told him that appellant was calling him. He then went to his house and saw the deceased lying on the bed. Her legs were dangling and neck was hanging. There were ligature marks on the neck of the deceased and some bruises around her neck. Appellant was present, however, “R” was missing. The appellant was arrested. A ‘Gamchha’ which was lying on the bed, was seized from the spot. On the pointing out of the appellant, one ‘Chunni’ was seized vide Memo Ex. PW-1/2.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction is legally unsustainable as it is founded on assumptions, surmises and conjectures rather than cogent evidence. It has been submitted that the prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, yet the chain of circumstances is incomplete and fails to unerringly point towards the guilt of the appellant.

5. It is submitted that the “last seen” theory is not applicable in the present case as none of the witnesses saw the deceased alive with the appellant immediately before the incident. The Trial Court assumed the presence of the appellant only on the ground that no cross examination was conducted and that no suggestion was put to PW-3 disputing the fact that the deceased had served snacks to the appellant at 3.00 pm. It is argued that in the absence of any proof of foundational facts, no such presumption could have been drawn.

6. With regard to the ligature material, it is submitted that two ligature materials are stated to have been recovered from the spot, that is, one ‘Gamchha’ and one ‘Chunni’. Prosecution has been clueless as to which of the two allegedly seized ligature materials were used to commit the crime.

7. It is also submitted that no chance prints were lifted from the spot which could connect the appellant with the crime scene. Prosecution has failed to establish the presence of the appellant on the basis of mobile location at the spot of crime at the relevant time. His subsequent conduct shows that he was behaving naturally and did not run away from the spot. Such innocent behaviour of the ap