Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta acquitted a man earlier convicted of killing an elderly homeowner during a robbery, concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove his involvement. The Bench held that the case could not rest on the sole eyewitness’s identification, which had been made almost eight years after the event and was found unreliable given her limited eyesight and variations in her later account. In addressing a procedural gap arising from virtual examinations, the Court also directed that whenever a witness is examined through video conferencing, the trial court must ensure that all prior statements intended for confrontation are transmitted electronically to the witness.

The case concerns allegations arising from a night-time intrusion into a residence in Delhi, during which an elderly man was killed and his spouse was seriously injured. According to the prosecution, multiple individuals entered the home, assaulted the occupants, and took valuables. The injured survivor later provided a statement from the hospital describing several intruders carrying tools and weapons. Police registered offences relating to robbery, murder, and attempt to murder, and conducted investigations that included the collection of forensic material, recovery of certain articles, and recording of witness statements.

Also Read: “Sins Of An Accused Cannot Be Visited On Family Members”: Supreme Court Quashes Bail In NDPS Case, Orders Surrender Over 731 Kg Ganja Seizure

The accused was arrested based on the survivor’s description. The prosecution stated that he made disclosure statements leading to the recovery of a blood-stained garment, a tool alleged to be the weapon, and some household items identified as stolen property. Forensic reports were produced, though blood grouping on the recovered garment did not yield a match. A Test Identification Parade was arranged but the accused declined participation. During trial, the survivor identified the accused through video conferencing several years after the incident.

The defence argued that the identification was unreliable due to the witness’s weak eyesight, delay in identification, and alleged prior exposure to the accused’s photographs. It also submitted that the recoveries were not credible, that no independent witnesses were involved, and that the forensic results did not connect the accused to the crime. The prosecution relied on the survivor’s testimony, the recoveries attributed to the accused, and the statements of investigating officers.

The Court recorded the governing principle for interference in an appeal against conviction, stating that “when the judgment under appeal has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice by some misapprehension or misreading of evidence or by ignoring material evidence then this Court is not only empowered but is well expected to interfere to promote the cause of justice.”

Regarding the identification evidence, the Bench noted: “We may note that the possibility of identification of the accused-appellant by Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18) in Court, after a lapse of nearly eight and a half years from the incident, is extremely unlikely.” It further recorded that the witness admitted her eyesight limitation: “her distance vision was weak and that she could not see objects at a distance without spectacles.” The judgment observed: “it is also borne out from the record that even at the time of the incident, she was aged about 73 years and was infirm. She was not wearing spectacles at the time of her deposition via video conferencing.” The Court concluded: “In this background, her purported identification of the assailant after such a long lapse of time, that too over video conferencing, does not inspire confidence.”

On the question of Test Identification Proceedings, the Court quoted: “where the witnesses have had an opportunity to see the accused prior to the holding of the TIP, the evidentiary worth of such proceedings stands considerably diminished.” It also recorded the requirement of maintaining identity: “It is the duty of the prosecution to establish beyond doubt that right from the time of arrest, the accused was kept baparda to rule out the possibility of his face being seen before the identification proceedings are conducted. If the witnesses have had any opportunity to see the accused before the TIP – whether physically or through photographs – the credibility and sanctity of the identification proceedings would stand seriously compromised.”

The Court addressed the prosecution’s reliance on refusal to join TIP, noting: “the prosecution version that efforts made to subject the accused to TIP failed on account of their refusal, stands refuted. While the refusal of the appellant to participate in the TIP may, prima facie, invite an adverse inference, mere such inference cannot support the theory of identification when the very authenticity of the TIP is under a serious cloud of doubt.” It added: “When it stands established from the record that the TIP attempted by the prosecution was fundamentally flawed, and a doubt is created that the identifying witness herself may not even have been present to participate therein, the very foundation of the identification proceedings falls flat to the ground.”

The Bench examined the procedural difficulty in confronting a witness examined virtually. It recorded: “the witness was not present before the Court and the document… could not be shown to her.” It then issued a comprehensive direction: “in every case where, it is proposed to record the statement of a witness over video conferencing and any previous written statement of such witness or a matter in writing is available and the party concerned is desirous of confronting the witness with such previous statement/matter in writing, the trial Court shall ensure that a copy of the statement/document is transmitted to the witness through electronic transmission mode and the procedure provided under Section 147 and Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (corresponding Section 144 and Section 145 of the Evidence Act) is followed in the letter and spirit, so as to safeguard the fairness and integrity of the trial.”

The judgment further stated: “This direction is being issued with a view to avoid procedural irregularities and to prevent disadvantage to any party before the Court, and also to uphold the principles of fair trial, effective cross-examination, and proper appreciation of evidence.”

The Court referred to the forensic result regarding recoveries, noting: “recorded ‘no reaction’ in respect of blood grouping for Exh. 20 (Pant).” After reviewing the entire material, the Bench concluded: “no substantive or credible evidence remains on record to link the accused with the offence.”

Also Read: Arbitral Tribunal’s Refusal To Share Key Documents Vitiated Fairness Of Proceedings: Bombay High Court

“In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the impugned judgments do not stand to scrutiny. The appeal is, thus, allowed.” The Court further directed: “The judgment dated 29th September, 2022, passed by the High Court, as well as the judgment of conviction dated 12th February, 2021, and the order of sentence dated 20th February, 2021, passed by the trial Court, are hereby set aside.”

“The accused-appellant is acquitted of the charges. He has remained in custody for almost 15 and a half years and shall be released from prison forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. Swaroopanand Mishra, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Parkhar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Shubhendu Anand, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv. Ms. Dacchita Shahi, Adv. Ms. Arushi Singh, Adv. Ms. Sunanda Shukla, Adv.

Case Title: Raj Kumar @ Bheema v. State of NCT of Delhi
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1322
Case Number: SLP (Crl.) No. 697 of 2024
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta