2026 Supreme(Del) 689

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NAVIN CHAWLA, RAVINDER DUDEJA, JJ.
Rajinder & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State N.C.T. of Delhi - Respondent
CRL.A. No. 581 of 2002
Decided On : 26-05-2026

A related witness is not inherently an interested witness; their testimony is credible if natural, cogent, and consistent. The failure to obtain a specific expert medical opinion regarding weapons is not fatal to a conviction where forensic evidence and reliable eye-witness testimony consistently link the accused to the offence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 r/w Section 34 - Murder - Common intention - Conviction upheld where the prosecution relied upon the testimony of a natural eye-witness whose account remained consistent and was corroborated by recovery of incriminating articles and forensic analysis. (Paras 47, 79)

(B) Evidence - Witness credibility - Related witness is not synonymous with an interested witness - Testimony of a family member, if clear, cogent, and naturally appearing, can form the basis of conviction without corroboration, subject to scrutiny with extra care - Normal errors of memory due to shock during an occurrence do not constitute material contradictions. (Paras 57-59, 61)

(C) First Information Report - Registration - Minor procedural delays or variations in recording the initial information at the police control room do not render a case doubtful if the prompt reporting and shift to the hospital are established by documentation. (Para 66)

(D) Investigative Omissions - Non-seizure of personal items of witnesses or failure to present the recovered weapon to a medical expert for opinion is not fatal to the prosecution's case where other evidence, including recovery and forensic reports, establishes a consistent link to the offence. (Paras 54, 77-78) (E) Conduct - Post-offence behavior, including absconding, serves as a relevant circumstantial fact under the law of evidence, acting as a corroborative factor alongside direct testimony for the guilt of the accused. (Para 80)

Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged that four individuals, acting with common intention, surrounded and stabbed the victim to death at midnight. The brother of the victim, who witnessed the struggle, raised an alarm which brought other family members to the spot. The victim was shifted to the hospital and declared dead. The police recovered weapons from the shop of one accused. The defense claimed the accused were falsely implicated due to enmity and that the primary accused suffered from medical conditions at the time of the incident.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the testimony of the eye-witness was reliable and natural. The forensic reports confirmed that blood found on the recovered weapons and clothing matched the blood group of the deceased. The court rejected the alibi provided by the defense, noting that the testimony of the defense witnesses was unnatural and appeared concocted.

Issues: The main issues were whether a related witness could be considered credible, the impact of delays in registering the police complaint, the effect of not obtaining a specific medical opinion on the recovery of the weapon, and whether the common intention of all accused was sufficiently proven.

Ratio Decidendi: A witness related to the victim is a natural witness and not automatically biased, provided their testimony is sterling and withstands cross-examination. Procedural irregularities in initial reporting do not invalidate trial evidence. Conjoint participation in the attack establishes common intention, and forensic consistency in blood groups creates a reliable link between the recovered weapons and the crime.

Result: Appeal dismissed.