LexRAJ KUMAR @ BHEEMA versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 221 : 2025 INSC 1322 Raj Kumar @ Bheema v. State of NCT of Delhi (Criminal Appeal No. 4895 of 2025) 17 November 2025 [Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Appellant-accused was convicted for the offence punishable u/s.302 IPC. The High Court further affirmed the order on sentence dated 20.02.2021, whereby the accused-appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 – u/ss.3, 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), and 3(4) – Prosecution case that accused-appellant along with others did house breaking by night and allegedly assaulted occupants of the premises – Upon entering the premises, the police found the house ransacked, and the household articles scattered – In lobby, a dead body of an elderly male was found – In the adjoining room, an elderly lady-PW-18 was found lying injured – Accused was apprehended based on description given by PW-18 – Accused gave disclosure statement – In furtherance thereof, a blood-stained pant and one chheni were recovered – Primarily three circumstances have been relied upon by the prosecution to bring home its case against the appellant: i) The identification of the appellant in Court by the prosecution witness PW-18 during her sworn testimony; (ii) The refusal of the appellant to participate in the TIP, leading to an adverse inference being drawn against him; (iii) Recovery of weapon of offence stained with human blood – Trial Court convicted accused-appellant u/s.302 of IPC and remaining co-accused were acquitted – The High Court affirmed the conviction – Correctness: Held: The identification of appellant was done by PW-18 while being examined through video conferencing, nearly eight and a half years after the incident – PW-18 used to wear spectacles as her * Author 222 [2025] 12 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports distance vision was weak – At the time of dock identification, the witness was not wearing spectacles – Not even a bare suggestion was put to her by the Public Prosecutor that she had been taken to the police station or jail for TIP proceedings – The witness emphatically denied the suggestion of the Public Prosecutor that she had gone to the Court on 26.12.2008, and identified the assailants – The possibility of identification of the accused-appellant by PW-18 in Court, after a lapse of nearly eight and a half years from the incident, is extremely unlikely – PW-18 was not wearing spectacles at the time of her deposition via video conferencing – In this background, her purported identification does not inspire confidence – In her cross-examination, the witness (PW-18) stated that the accused was wearing a black coloured shirt, which is an improvement introduced for the first time after nearly eight and a half years – In view of the aforesaid glaring facts, it would be unsafe to place reliance on her evidence regarding the identification of the accused – Further, the very sanctity of the TIP stands under a serious cloud of doubt when it is manifest that PW-18 did not go for participating in any such identification parade – 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 – As far as recovery of articles looted is concerned, PW-18 was not made to identify the said articles during her testimony and son of PW-18, who is stated to have identified the articles in the TIP, was not examined during the trial – Thus, there is no credible proof that they are the looted articles – The blood stains on the pant could not be matched with the blood sample lifted from the scene of occurrence or with the blood group of the deceased or the injured victim – On this count alone, guilt cannot be fastened upon the appellant, as the recovery by itself is not sufficient to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt – Therefore, the judgment passed by the High Court as well as trial Court is set aside and the accused-appellant is acquitted of the charges. [Paras 50, 52, 54, 56, 57, 65, 67, 68, 71] Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.144, 145 – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – ss.147, 148 – When evidence of witness is recorded over video conferencing: Held: A plain reading of the ab
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.