* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 13.02.2026 Pronounced on: 02.04.2026 + CRL.A. 487/2002 TARUN ALIAS ROCKY .....Appellant Through: Mr.Rakesh Kr. Dudeja, Mr.Davendra Kumar and Ms.Priti, Advs.

versus STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr.Aman Usman, APP with Mr.Manvendra Yadav, Adv. with Inspector Sunil Kumar, P.S. Lodhi Colony.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

J U D G M E N T

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

1. This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 07.05.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 95/01, titled State v. Tarun @ Rockey convicting the appellant of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘IPC’).

2. The appellant further challenges the order dated 07.05.2002 passed by the learned Trial Court, imposing the punishment of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- on the appellant. In default of payment of the fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 10.03.2001, a complaint was lodged by Ms. Savitri Devi, PW-6, alleging that at about 2 p.m., her son Ramesh (the deceased) was playing Holi. When she went to call him for lunch, she saw the appellant, Tarun @ Rocky, stab the victim with a knife and flee. On receiving information of the incident, PCR came to the spot and took the injured victim to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Hospital for treatment. It is also the case of the prosecution that on the way to the hospital, the victim made a statement to the effect that Rocky had assaulted him. However, when the victim reached the Hospital, he was declared to be unfit for giving statement.

4. On the basis of the above information, a case was initially registered under Section 324 of the IPC. However, the victim passed away in the hospital at around 2 a.m., on the intervening night of 10.03.2001 and 11.03.2001, and the case was converted to one under Section 302 of the IPC.

5. The appellant resided in House no. 40, in the vicinity of the house of the complainant, and was arrested on 10.03.2001 from his house. It is also the case of the prosecution that, subsequent to his arrest, the appellant made a disclosure statement regarding the knife used by him for stabbing the deceased victim. The appellant then led the police party to the recovery of a knife from an empty cooler installed outside his house. A blood-stained pyjama belonging to the appellant was also recovered and seized from his house.

6. During the investigation, earth control was taken from the place of the incident along with blood samples of the deceased. On a perusal of the CFSL Report, it was found that the blood group of the deceased matched the blood group on the earth control, the clothes of the deceased, the clothes of the appellant and the knife recovered at the instance of the appellant.

7. On the basis of the above allegations, vide order dated 02.08.2001, a charge under Section 302 of the IPC was framed against the appellant by the learned Trial Court. The appellant pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed trial.

8. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 12 witnesses, including PW-3 and PW-6, who are stated to be the eye-witnesses to the incident and are considered vital for the present appeal. The testimonies of some of the other prosecution witnesses, that is PW-5, the initial Investigating Officer, PW-9, to whom the deceased allegedly informed the name of the assailant as the appellant, and PW- 7, the doctor who details the injuries suffered by the deceased, will also be discussed in detail hereinafter.

9. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded on 27.11.2001, wherein he denied the charges alleged, and stated that he was not present at the spot, but had gone out to visit his relati