Holding

The Supreme Court held that the delayed video identification was unsafe, the TIP was fundamentally flawed, and the recovered articles lacked evidentiary worth, rendering the conviction under Section 302 IPC unsustainable and leading to the appellant's acquittal.

Summary

The appellant Raj Kumar was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC based primarily on the identification by the injured eye‑witness, PW‑18, whose testimony was recorded via video‑link eight and a half years after the incident. The High Court upheld the conviction, relying on the witness's identification, the appellant's refusal to attend a Test Identification Parade (TIP), and the recovery of a blood‑stained pant and a chheni. The Supreme Court examined the reliability of the delayed video identification, the procedural flaws in the TIP, and the lack of forensic linkage of the recovered items, noting that the witness was not wearing spectacles and had made material improvements to her testimony. It also clarified the procedure for confronting witnesses with prior statements when evidence is taken through video conferencing under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. Finding the identification unsafe, the TIP fundamentally flawed, and the recoveries without proper identification unreliable, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment also directed that future video‑conference testimonies must adhere to Sections 147 and 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.

Issues considered

The reliability of an eye‑witness identification recorded via video‑conferencing after a delay of eight and a half years.
Whether refusal to participate in a Test Identification Parade can justify an adverse inference against the accused.
The evidentiary value of recovered weapons and articles lacking forensic corroboration and identification.
The compliance with Sections 147 and 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (and corresponding sections of the Evidence Act) when confronting a remote witness with prior statements.
The sustainability of a conviction under Section 302 IPC in the absence of corroborative evidence.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023s. 147, s. 148
Evidence Act, 1872s. 144, s. 145
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999s. 3, s. 3(1)(i), s. 3(1)(ii), s. 3(2), s. 3(4)

Headnote

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 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

Subjects

Test Identification ParadeIdentification by the Sole Eye-WitnessEvidence as to matters in writingCross-examination as to previous statements in writingTechnologyVideo conferencingSection 147 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023Section 148 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023Identification in Court after delayRecoveries and Non-identification of ArticlesEvidentiary worth

Judgment

[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 above provisions would make it clear
that wherever questions are required to be put as to the matters
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 223

Raj Kumar @ Bheema v. State of NCT of Delhi

in writing/previous statements in writing, the attention of the
witness must be drawn to the document/statement itself – Thus, a
question would arise as to how this procedure would be followed
in cases where the evidence of the witness is being recorded over
video conferencing – In this age of advancement of technology,
instances are galore where, the evidence of witnesses are being
recorded over video conferencing – In such circumstances, none
of the parties should be put to a dis-advantage merely because the
witness is not in attendance before the Court, and the document/
previous statement in writing with which such witness is sought to
be confronted, cannot be shown/put to him – Therefore, this Court
hereby clarifies and directs that 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 u/s.147 and s.148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam (corresponding s.144 and s.145 of the Evidence Act)
is followed in the letter and spirit, so as to safeguard the fairness
and integrity of the trial. [Paras 46-48]

Evidence Act, 1872 – Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Where
the witnesses have had an opportunity to see the accused
prior to the holding of the TIP:
Held: It is trite that 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 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. [Para 62]

Case Law Cited
Koppula Jagdish v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005) 12 SCC 425;
Mekala Sivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2022] 6 SCR 989 :
(2022) 8 SCC 253 – referred to.
224 [2025] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Evidence Act, 1872; Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023; Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime
Act, 1999.

List of Keywords
Test Identification Parade; Identification by the Sole Eye-Witness;
Evidence as to matters in writing; Cross-examination as to previous
statements in writing; Technology; Video conferencing; Section 147
of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023; Section 148 of Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023; Identification in Court after delay;
Recoveries and Non-identification of Articles; Evidentiary worth.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
4895 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2022 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in CRLA No. 218 of 2021

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Ajay Marwah, Swaroopanand Mishra, Mrigank Bhardwaj, Parkhar
Singh.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Shubhendu
Anand, Ms. Priyanka Das, Ms. Dacchita Shahi, Ms. Arushi Singh,
Ms. Sunanda Shukla.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The instant appeal is directed against the final judgment and order
dated 29th September, 2022, passed by the Division Bench of the
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 225

Raj Kumar @ Bheema v. State of NCT of Delhi

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi1 in Criminal Appeal No. 218# of
2021, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant Raj Kumar
@ Bheema2 came to be dismissed, affirming the judgment dated
12th February, 2021, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi3. By the said judgment,
while the accused-appellant was acquitted of the charges under
Sections 3, 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control
of Organised Crime Act, 19994, and Sections 396, 307, 397, 412
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 5, he was
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, whereas
the remaining co-accused were acquitted. The High Court further
affirmed the order on sentence dated 20th February, 2021, whereby
the accused-appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life
with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default whereof, to further undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

PROSECUTION CASE
4. On the intervening night of 2nd/3rd November, 2008, at about 1:50
a.m., an information was received at Police Station, New Friends
Colony through wireless operator, regarding an incident of house
breaking by night at House No. 81, Sukhdev Vihar, near Escort
Hospital, where the intruders were allegedly assaulting the occupants
of the premises. At about 2:00 a.m., further information was received
at the said Police Station, which was reduced into writing vide DD
No. 29A, as per which, Head Constable Bhagirath (PW-7) informed
that SI Sanjeev Solanki (PW-17) may be sent to the spot.
5. Pursuant thereto, SI Sanjeev Solanki (PW-17), accompanied
by Constable Ashok Kumar (PW-9), proceeded to the place of
occurrence and apprised the Additional S.H.O., who arrived there
shortly thereafter. Upon entering the premises, they found the sliding
door of the drawing room broken, the side grill bent, the house
ransacked, and the household articles scattered. A large pool of

1 Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.
2 Hereinafter, referred to as the “accused-appellant”.
3 Hereinafter, referred to as the “trial Court”.
4 For short, ‘MCOCA’.
5 For short, ‘IPC’.
# Ed. Note: “Criminal Appeal No. 218” instead of “Criminal Appeal No. 281” in terms of subsequent corrigendum.
226 [2025] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

blood was noticed in the lobby, where the dead body of an elderly
male (deceased-Madan Mohan Gulati) was lying, alongside certain
articles. Bloodstains and articles in disarray were also observed in
the adjoining bedroom.
6. On hearing faint cries emanating from the adjoining bedroom, the
police officials rushed inside and found an elderly lady, later identified
as Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18), lying in an injured condition. She
was immediately shifted to AIIMS Hospital by the PCR. Thereafter,
SI Sanjeev Solanki (PW-17), accompanied by Inspector S.K. Sharma
(PW-15), proceeded to the Trauma Centre, AIIMS, where Smt. Indra
Prabha Gulati (PW-18) was under treatment. Medico-Legal Certificate
(MLC)6 of the injured, Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18) was prepared
on 3rd November, 2008, by Dr. Sharwan. The MLC recorded that
the injured was fit for statement and noted multiple grievous stab
injuries, including blood clots around the nether region, scalp-deep
wounds, and a lacerated wound near the right eyebrow. The nature
of the weapon used to cause the injuries was opined to be sharp.
7. Upon being declared fit, the statement (Fard bayan)7 of Smt. Indra
Prabha Gulati (PW-18) was recorded by SI Sanjeev Solanki (PW-17)
and based on the said statement, Inspector S.K. Sharma (PW-15)
prepared a rukka and handed it over to SI Sanjeev Solanki (PW-17),
pursuant to which an FIR8 came to be registered at Police Station,
New Friends Colony, for the offences punishable under Sections
394/397/302/307/34 of IPC.
8. On 5th November, 2008, body of the deceased Madan Mohan Gulati
was identified by his son-Vivek Gulati, and by his nephew-Servesh
Gulati (son of the deceased’s younger brother). The post-mortem
examination of the deceased was thereafter carried out, and the post-
mortem report was issued wherein the cause of death was opined
to be shock and haemorrhage on account of multiple antemortem
injuries. The opinion on the weapon of offence (knife/chheni) was
also obtained from the doctor.
9. The accused-appellant was apprehended on 21 st November,
2008, based on the description allegedly provided by the injured

6 Exh. 21/A.
7 Exh. PW-17/A.
8 FIR No. 601/2018 dated 3rd November, 2008.
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 227

Raj Kumar @ Bheema v. State of NCT of Delhi

eye-witness, Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18). It is alleged that the
accused-appellant gave a disclosure statement9, and in furtherance
thereof, he led the police party to an open area near bushes situated
at Pul Prahladpur, from where a blood-stained Eagle brand pant
was recovered from a pit. The pant was duly seized and sealed.
On the following day, while the appellant was on police remand, his
disclosure led to the arrest of the co-accused persons.
10. On 25th November, 2008, pursuant to a supplementary disclosure
statement10, the appellant purportedly led the police party to the
bushes near the railway track behind Priyanka Camp, from where
one chheni was recovered. The same was also seized and sealed.
Thereafter, the accused-appellant also facilitated the recovery of the
robbed articles, namely, one idol of Lord Ganesha and a Panasonic
CD player, from his Jhuggi.
11. Shri Vivek Kumar Gulati, son of the deceased and Smt. Indra Prabha
Gulati (PW-18) identified the case property in the Test Identification
Parade11 conducted on 6th December, 2008. The proceedings12 of
the TIP were conducted by Shri Devendra Kumar Jangala (PW-16),
learned Additional District Judge, West, Tis Hazari Courts.
12. On 24th December, 2008, TIP was organized in respect of the accused
Raj Kumar @ Bheema, Jawahar, Ranbir @ Sintu, and Naeem @ Mota;
however, they refused to participate in the same. Upon comparison,
the fingerprints of the accused Jawahar and Ranbir @ Sintu were
found to tally with the chance prints lifted from the spot. The site
inspection plan was prepared, and the material exhibits were forwarded
to the Forensic Science Laboratory13 on 22nd January, 2009. Upon
completion of the investigation, chargesheet in connection with the
said FIR came to be filed on 2nd February, 2002, against the accused,
namely, Raj Kumar @ Bheema, Ramesh Kumar @ Shankar, Naeem
Khan @ Mota, Jawahar, and Ranbir @ Sintu, in the Court of the
learned ACMM, for offences punishable under Sections 3, 3(1)(i),
3(1)(ii), 3(2), and 3(4) of the MCOCA, and Sections 396, 307, 397, 412
read with Section 34 of IPC. One of the accused, namely, Kastoori,

9 Exh. PW 14/A.
10 Exh. PW-14/N.
11 For short, ‘TIP’.
12 Exh. PW16/B.
13 For short, ‘FSL’.
228 [2025] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

could not be traced out despite best efforts, and proceedings under
Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 197314 were
initiated against him and his name was placed in Column No. 2 of
the chargesheet. Since the offences were triable exclusively by the
Court of Sessions, the learned ACMM, after compliance with the
provisions of Section 207 CrPC, committed the case to the Court of
Sessions for trial, where charges were framed against the accused.
They abjured their guilt and claimed trial.
13. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 27 witnesses and
exhibited 25 documents in consolidated form to prove the guilt of the
accused. The accused Ramesh @ Shankar examined one witness
in defence. Upon closure of prosecution evidence, statements of the
accused persons were recorded under Section 313 CrPC affording
them an opportunity to explain the incriminating material appearing
against them. The accused-appellant, in answer to Question No. 82,
categorically stated, “I am innocent and have been falsely implicated
in the present case. PW-17 Inspector Sanjeev Solanki was known
to me prior to the present case, and he has falsely implicated me
in this case.”

FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT
14. Upon consideration of the arguments advanced by the prosecution
and the defence, and after appreciating the evidence available on
record, the trial Court, vide judgment dated 12th February, 2021,
acquitted the accused persons other than the appellant Raj Kumar
@ Bheema, holding that the case against him stood proved beyond
reasonable doubt only for the offence punishable under Section 302
IPC. He was acquitted of the remaining charges. The conviction
was primarily based on the testimony of the eye-witness, Smt.
Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18), who identified the appellant during
her testimony (recorded over video conferencing) while failing to
identify the remaining accused, coupled with the purported recovery
of weapon of offence at the instance of the accused-appellant.
15. Further, the trial Court, vide order dated 20th February, 2021,
directed the accused-appellant to undergo sentence as mentioned
hereinabove.15

14 For short, ‘CrPC’.
15 Supra para 3.
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 229

Raj Kumar @ Bheema v. State of NCT of Delhi

FINDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT
16. In appeal by the accused-appellant, the High Court affirmed the
findings of the trial Court vide judgment16 dated 22nd September,
2022, finding no infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the
trial Court, holding that the prosecution case essentially rested upon
the identification of the accused-appellant by the injured witness and
the recoveries effected at his instance. The High Court rejected the
submission advanced on behalf of the appellant that the identification
of the appellant by Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18) was doubtful as
she failed to identify the other accused, on the ground that, insofar as
the present accused-appellant was concerned, she was categorical
in her testimony that he was one of the assailants.
17. The High Court observed that non-recovery of the appellant’s finger
prints from the place of incident would not absolve him of participation
in the offence, which stood established by the identification made by
the injured victim, Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18). It was further
noted that pursuant to the disclosure made by the appellant, the
pant allegedly worn by him at the time of incident was recovered, on
which human blood was detected, and no plausible explanation was
forthcoming from the appellant as to the presence of human blood
on his wearing apparel. The Court also held that merely because the
son of the deceased and the injured victim, who had identified the
robbed articles in TIP, did not appear in the witness box to identify
the recovered articles, would not discredit the rest of the evidence
led by the prosecution, which was sufficient to prove the guilt of the
appellant for the offence alleged, beyond reasonable doubt.
18. Aggrieved, the accused-appellant is before us in the present appeal
by way of special leave.

Submissions on behalf of accused-appellant
19. Learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently and fervently urged
that the High Court fell in grave error in affirming the conviction of
the accused-appellant recorded by the trial Court, which is wholly
unsustainable in law. It was contended that the prosecution case rests
entirely upon the testimony of the old and infirm witness Smt. Indra
Prabha Gulati (PW-18), who was admittedly suffering from weak

16 Crl.A. 218/2021.
230 [2025] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

eyesight. Accordingly, her testimony is riddled with inconsistencies
and is far too unconvincing so as to form the sole basis for upholding
a conviction for an offence punishable with capital punishment.
20. It was further contended that Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18)
identified the appellant in Court through video conferencing on 8th
May, 2017, after an inordinate delay of nearly eight and a half years
from the incident dated 2nd November, 2008, while notably failing to
identify any of the other accused. It was urged that in his statement
under Section 313 CrPC, the accused-appellant specifically alleged
that PW-18 had been tutored, as his photographs had already been
shown to the witness prior to her deposition.
21. It was averred that there were material contradictions and
improvements in the testimony of PW-18. In her initial statement
under Section 161 CrPC, she mentioned that the assailants were
armed with “knives, screwdriver, and rods,” but made no reference to
a “chheni.” The introduction of the “chheni” for the first time during her
sworn testimony recorded after a lapse of more than eight years was
a material improvement, evidently tailored to align with the alleged
recovery. Moreover, she failed to identify any of the co-accused, all
of whom were acquitted, rendering her solitary identification of the
appellant highly doubtful.
22. Learned counsel urged that the prosecution placed reliance upon the
alleged recoveries of a blood-stained pant, a “chheni,” and articles
such as a Ganesh idol/CD player at the instance of the accused-
appellant. The first recovery attributed to the accused-appellant was
allegedly made pursuant to his disclosure statement from an open
area near bushes at Pul Prahladpur, wherefrom a blood-stained pant
was recovered. The prosecution alleged that the said pant had been
worn by the appellant at the time of the incident. However, the blood-
stains detected on the garment did not test positive for the blood
group lifted from the scene of occurrence. It was thus contended
that the said article could not be connected with the present case,
even after forensic examination17.
23. It was further urged that the said recovery cannot be read in evidence
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 inasmuch as in his

17 Ex. PW-24/B read with Ex. PW-24/A.
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 231

Raj Kumar @ Bheema v. State of NCT of Delhi

disclosure statement18 dated 21st November, 2008, the accused-
appellant did not state that he could get the article recovered from an
open place near Pul Prahladpur, which, in any event, was accessible
to all and sundry. The learned counsel urged that all the recoveries
were made without any independent witness being associated to
corroborate the same. It was further averred that the alleged weapon
of offence, namely the “chheni,” was shown to have been recovered
after a lapse of 22 days from bushes near a railway track. The said
article was never shown to Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18) for
identification, no photographs were taken at the time of recovery,
and no independent witness was associated in the process.
24. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Koppula Jagdish v.
State of Andhra Pradesh19, learned counsel further urged that
the High Court failed to appreciate that the appellant was wrongly
convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC simpliciter, inasmuch
as no separate charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against
him. It was pointed out that in the present case, all the accused were
charged under Sections 394, 397, 302, 307, read with 34 IPC, and
except for the appellant, all other co-accused have been acquitted.
25. It was also urged that Shri Vivek Gulati, son of the deceased, who
had identified the robbed articles during the TIP, did not appear in
the witness box during the trial to prove and identify the articles
allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant, and
hence, no adverse inference ought to be drawn against the appellant
on this count.
26. He, thus, implored the Court to accept the appeal and set aside the
impugned judgment(s).

Submissions on behalf of respondent-State
27. Per contra, Shri Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor
General, supported the impugned judgment and urged that the
appellant Raj Kumar @ Bheema was correctly identified by the injured
eye-witness, Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18), in her examination-
in-chief as well as in her cross-examination, as the person armed

18 Exhibit PW 14/A.
19 (2005) 12 SCC 425.
232 [2025] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

with a “chheni” and a rod, who inflicted blows upon her and her
husband, resulting in the death of the latter. It was further submitted
that the said weapons were recovered from the appellant pursuant
to his disclosure statement, thereby corroborating the version of the
injured witness Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18).
28. It was further contended that, as per the opinion rendered by Dr.
Arvind Kumar (PW-1) with regard to the weapon of offence, Exhibit V,
i.e., the recovered “chheni,” could be one of the weapons used in
the offence and that injuries marked B, C, and D on the person of
injured Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18) were possible by the said
weapon.
29. The conduct and antecedents of the appellant, including his status
as a history-sheeter, repeated involvement in criminal cases, and
acts of misconduct during incarceration, clearly reflect a persistent
pattern of unlawful behaviour. Considering the heinous nature of the
offence, being the murder (for gain) of a senior citizen, the accused-
appellant does not deserve any indulgence, and the gravity of the
crime and the attendant circumstances warrant dismissal of the
appeal filed on his behalf.
30. He thus implored the Court to dismiss the appeal, urging that the High
Court had rightly affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant
and the sentence awarded to him by the trial Court. It was further
urged that upon an independent and comprehensive appraisal of
the evidence on record, including the consistent testimonies of
Investigating Officer Shri S.K. Sharma (PW-15) and Smt. Indra
Prabha Gulati (PW-18), both the trial Court and the High Court had
recorded concurrent findings that the prosecution had proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt, and hence no interference is warranted
in the impugned judgment.

Discussion and Analysis
31. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced at bar and have carefully gone through the impugned
judgments, the material available on record, as well as the written
submissions filed on behalf of both sides.
32. Since the appellant seeks reversal of concurrent findings of fact
recorded by the trial Court as well as the High Court, this Court is
required to tread with circumspection. It has been consistently held
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 233

Raj Kumar @ Bheema v. State of NCT of Delhi

by this Court in a catena of decisions that unless the findings are
shown to be perverse or rendered in disregard of material evidence,
this Court would be slow in interfering with concurrent conclusions
of the Courts below. Reference in this regard may be made to the
decision of this Court in the case of Mekala Sivaiah v. State of
Andhra Pradesh20, the relevant para of which is quoted hereinbelow:
“15. It is well settled by judicial pronouncements that Article
136 is worded in wide terms and powers conferred under
the said Article are not hedged by any technical hurdles.
This overriding and exceptional power is, however, to be
exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of cause of
justice. Thus, 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.”
(Emphasis is supplied)

33. Keeping the aforesaid principle in mind, this Court would proceed
to consider the appeal at hand to examine whether there is some
manifest error or illegality in the impugned judgment, and if any grave
and serious miscarriage of justice has been occasioned on account
of misreading or ignoring of material evidence in the present case.
34. Evidently, on a perusal of the judgments under challenge and upon
considering the submissions advanced by learned Standing Counsel
for the State, it emerges that 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 Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (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.

20 (2022) 8 SCC 253.
234 [2025] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

A. Identification by the Sole Eye-Witness
35. It is undisputed that the fulcrum of the prosecution case is based
on the testimony of Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18). Thus, for the
sake of ready reference, we quote the entire deposition of the said
witness below: -
“ON S.A.
On 03.11.2008 I was present in my house at 81 Sukhdev
Vihar, New Delhi. It was the intervening night of 2nd and
3rd November, 2008 and time was 11.30/11.45pm. I and my
husband heard the noise of falling of utensils. My husband
went to see the same. I also followed him and we saw
five persons had entered into our house from the door
of drawing room. Out of those, one/two persons were
in the kitchen and four persons came through door of
drawing room. They were having chheni, screwdriver
and knives in their hands. They asked for keys from
my husband. We told them to wait and the one boy who
came from drawing room and was having iron rod
and chheni in his hands, gave the blow from the iron
blow on the head of my husband. He fell down. I was
also given blow and became unconscious. I do not
remember now by whom the blow was given. I remained
in the hospital for about two months. Someone called
the police and I was taken by the police to the hospital.
I am having an 8 inch cut on my stomach. I remained in
Trauma Center. I was also having bandage on my head
and it might be possible that blow was given on the head
also. I made statement to the police in the hospital itself.
It was given orally whatever was in my memory as I was
on hospital bed.
I remained in Moolchand Hospital for one month and
10 days. I never met with the police for this case after
my discharge from the hospital. I have never seen
those boys who came into my house thereafter.
At this stage, scanned image of signatures on statement is
shown to the witness through video-link and after seeing
it the witness states that the same pertains to her which
are at point A.
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 235

Raj Kumar @ Bheema v. State of NCT of Delhi

I can identify the accused if shown to me.
At this stage, accused persons who are facing charges
in this case, are shown through audio-video link one
by one and after seeing accused the witness states
that he is the same boy who was having chheni and
rod and was giving blows to my husband. (The name
of accused is Raj Kumar).
Next accused is shown and after seeing him the witness
states that she is not remembering complete and she is
remembering face of only one as she became unconscious.
(The name of accused is Ranbir).
Next accused is shown and after seeing him the witness
states that she does not know anything about him. (The
name of accused is Jawahar).
Next accused is shown and after seeing him the witness
states that she is remembering somehow and it was
12.00midnight and 8 years have passed she is not
remembering further. She further states that she cannot
say whether he was among those persons or not. (The
name of accused is Naeem)
Next accused is shown and after seeing him the witness
states that the boy shown first be stand with him so that
she may identify again. The accused Raj Kumar is shown
with this accused to the witness. After seeing the accused
Raj Kumar, the witness states that he is one among those
boys but she is not sure about second boy. (The name of
second boy is Ramesh Kumar).

XXN by Sh. Sunil Dutt, Ld. Addl. P.P for the State.
It is correct that when my husband fell down after blows
given to him, I was also given rod blows and knife blows.
I do not remember that I fell down in Angan as I was
unconscious. I was told by the police officials that I was
taken to the room by the boys dragging me. I do not
know that they after breaking open the almirah in the
room took away Rs.20000/- and the jewellery articles. I
do not remember whether I raised noise or not or that I
236 [2025] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

remained lied on the floor of the room. (Vol. I regained
my consciousness in the Trauma Center). It is wrong to
suggest that the number of boys who entered into the
house was 3-4. (Vol. They were five in number).
I did not go to Patiala House Court on 26.12.2008. (Vol.
My son went to Patiala House court as I was ill). It is
wrong to suggest that in the Patiala House Court I
identified four boys as Raj Kumar @ Bheema, Ranbir
@ Shintu, Jawahar and Naeem @ Mota and stated to
the police that they were the boys who gave blows
to my husband and me in my house and took away
cash and jewellary from my house. (Vol. I did not go
to PHC only my son went there).

XXN by Sh. Mihi Lal Chaudhary, counsel for accused
Jawahar.
As far as I remember I regained consciousness after
three/four days in the Trauma Center and at that time I
was on ventilator.

XXN by Sh. S.M. Sallauddin, counsel for accused Raj
Kumar and Naeem, XXN by Sh. V.P Kaushik, counsel
for Ramesh Kumar, and XXN by Sh. Sallauddin Khan,
counsel for accused Ranbir.
I do not remember the date when police met me for the
first time and the last time.
I cannot tell the name of the police official by whom my
statement was recorded. It was recorded in the hospital.
The signatures were taken in the hospital and I do not
remember now whether it was in Trauma Center or
Moolchand. At that time police officials were present and
my son was also present. My son and daughter met me in
the Trauma Center. I do not remember the date when they
came to me in the Trauma Center. It may be 4th or 5th.
As far as I remember I left India on 27.12.2008. I do not
remember whether my statement was written as I told or
not. (Vol. Due to the incident I was unconscious and was
not fit completely). I do not remember how many pages
were got signed by me from the police. I do not remember
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 237

Raj Kumar @ Bheema v. State of NCT of Delhi

whether I signed any blank paper or not. If my signatures
were taken it might be that something was written on the
papers then my signatures were taken. I do not remember
whether the writing were in hindi or english language. The
witness is confronted with the statement Ex.PW17/A
and is asked that in the same ‘Chheni’ word is not
mentioned in the same. I do not remember about the
colour of the screwdriver. I do not remember what was
the length of the iron rod. The accused Raj Kumar was
worn black shirt. I do not remember about the clothes
of remaining boys.
I do not remember the name of tenant of that time. He was
from Hyderabad. He was in the premises for about 2/2 1/2
years prior to incident. They vacated the premises after
the incident as they were also afraid. I do not remember
whether the verification of the tenant was got conducted
from police or not. We were not having permanent servant
or chowkidar at that time but however, Kamla was part-time
domestic helper. She was working for the last 15 years.
She was residing in a room taken on rent in the Sukhdev
Vihar. Her husband was residing with her occasionally. I
do not know name of her village. (Vol. She had told me
but due to my age I have forgotten the same).
I retired on 28.02.1997. It is correct that Kamla was
residing in the jhuggi of Sukhdev Vihar. It is correct that in
my presence no inquiries were made from Kamla and her
husband not their statement was recorded in my presence.
The tenant has vacated my premises before I discharge
from hospital. I do not know whether inquiries were made by
the police from my tenant in my presence. At the time of
incident, I was using spectacles occasionally as I was
having long sight (dur ki nazar kamzor thi). At present
I use the spectacles whenever I have to do some work
of near distant. At present I am not wearing contact
lenses. It is correct that I did not receive injury on my head
and I received injury on my right side of forehead. I cannot
say whether there was any stitching on the forehead or not
but there was a bandage. I do not remember the number
of lenses which I was using at that time.
238 [2025] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

The Counsel wants to contradict the witness with
her statement Ex.PW17/A that in the same there is
no description about the clothes and physique of
the boys. (it will be looked by the court during the
arguments as the witness is being recorded through
video-conferencing). It is wrong to suggest that police did
not take any statement from me and my signatures were
taken on a blank paper. I never visited police station in
respect of this case. I was shifted from Trauma Center
to Moolchand after 20 days. I was discharged from
Moolchand hospital on 24 оr 25.12.2008. I did not go
to police after 25.12.2008. Police have not met me after
25.12.2008 till I left India. I do not remember how many
times police met me while I was in Trauma Center. Perhaps,
once or twice they met me. During those visits inquiries were
made from me about the manner of the incident and the
assailants. I do not remember the date when I regained
my consciousness. As far as I remember police did
not come to me while I was in Moolchand Hospital.
I do not know the name of chowkidar as it was kept by my
son after the incident. It is wrong to suggest that the boy
who has been identified by me today i.e. Raj Kumar was
not involved in the incident or that I have been shown the
photographs by the police.
The co-assailants were calling him “Bhima aur maar, bhima
aur maar to him”. It is wrong to suggest that my counsel
has sent photograph of Bhima to me and after seeing him
I am identifying him today. It is wrong to suggest that my
counsel has tutored me on telephone and upon tutoring
I am deposing today or that copy of the statements has
been sent to me and after going through the same I have
deposed today. It is wrong to suggest that the dosier of
Bhima with the police has been sent to me by the counsel.
It is wrong to suggest that Bhima was not involved in the
incident occurred in the intervening night of 2nd and 3rd
November, 2008 or that I am naming him at the instance
of police.
Dated: 8th May, 2017.”
(Emphasis supplied)
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 239

Raj Kumar @ Bheema v. State of NCT of Delhi

36. Based upon the testimony, it is clear that the witness Smt. Indra
Prabha Gulati (PW-18) had shifted to the United States of America
immediately after the incident, and her statement came to be recorded
through video conferencing on 8th May, 2017, i.e., after a gap of eight
and a half years from the occurrence. She stated that out of the five
assailants who had entered the house, one or two went towards the
kitchen, while four entered through the drawing room door. They
were armed with a chheni, screwdriver, and knife, and demanded the
keys from her husband. Upon his request for some time, one of the
assailants, who was carrying an iron rod and a chheni, inflicted a blow
on the head of her husband, who collapsed. She too was given a blow,
though she could not recollect as to who had inflicted the injury. She
further stated that she remained admitted in Moolchand Hospital for
about one month and ten days. She categorically asserted that she
never saw the assailants thereafter and that she neither met the police
nor did she go to the Patiala House Courts after being discharged.
37. The Public Prosecutor requested the witness to identify the accused
on the video display and from amongst the accused present in the
dock, who were shown to the witness, she identified the accused-
appellant as the assailant who was armed with a chheni and a rod
and who had inflicted blows upon her husband.
38. The witness further stated that she could remember the face of only
one accused, as she had become unconscious, and thus she was
unable to identify any of the other assailants who were presented
for identification. The learned Public Prosecutor sought permission
of the Court to cross-examine the witness on the ground that she
was not narrating complete facts disclosed during investigation.
However, in response to the suggestions of the Public Prosecutor,
she gave discrepant answers.
39. To a material suggestion, the witness replied: “I did not go to Patiala
House Court on 26.12.2008” and volunteered that her son had gone
to the Court as she was unwell. She denied the suggestion that she
had identified four boys, namely Raj Kumar, Ranbir, Jawahar, and
Naeem @ Mota, in the Patiala House Court and affirmed to the police
that they were the assailants who inflicted blows on her husband
and looted cash and jewellery from the house.
40. In her cross-examination, the witness stated that she had left India
on 27th December, 2008. She admitted that she could not recollect
whether her statement had been recorded in the manner she had
240 [2025] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

spoken. She volunteered that owing to the assault, she became
unconscious and was not fully fit. She further stated that the accused-
appellant Raj Kumar was wearing a black shirt, but she could not
recollect the clothes of the other assailants.
41. Learned defense counsel sought to confront and contradict the
witness with reference to her previous statement21 under Section
161 CrPC on the aspect that there was no description of the clothes
or physique of the assailants in such statement. The trial Court
observed that the effect of such omission/improvement would be
considered at the stage of final arguments, since the witness was
being examined through video conferencing. The witness further
stated that she was discharged from Moolchand Hospital on 24th/25th
December, 2008, and that she did not go to the police after 25th
December, 2008. She was confronted with a pertinent suggestion
that the police had shown her the photographs of Raj Kumar and
that her counsel had also seen the photograph and tutored her for
identifying the appellant, which she denied.
42. We must take note of and resolve a very important feature being a
procedural irregularity which has arisen in this case. As would be
evident from the discussion made hereinabove, the evidence of the
star prosecution witness Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18) was recorded
through video conferencing because she had in the intervening
period shifted to U.S.A.‡
43. During the course of cross-examination, the defence tried to confront
the witness (PW-18) with her previous statement so as to elicit a
contradiction/highlight an omission. However, the trial Court observed
that this objection would be considered at the time of final adjudication
because the witness (PW-18) was not present before the Court and
the document being the previous statement in writing could not be
shown to her (supra).
44. However, on going through the trial Court’s judgment, we do not find
any discussion made regarding this pertinent objection by the defence.
45. The Evidence Act/ Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provide
the procedure for evidence as to the matters in writing and cross-

21 Exh PW-17/A.
‡ Ed. Note: “U.S.A” instead of “Canada” in terms of subsequent corrigendum.
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 241

Raj Kumar @ Bheema v. State of NCT of Delhi

examination as to previous statements in writing. Section 147 of the
BSA (144 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 148 of the BSA
(Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act) are reproduced hereinbelow
for the sake of convenience: -
“147. Evidence as to matters in writing.—Any witness
may be asked, while under examination, whether any
contract, grant or other disposition of property, as to which
he is giving evidence, was not contained in a document,
and if he says that it was, or if he is about to make any
statement as to the contents of any document, which, in
the opinion of the Court, ought to be produced, the adverse
party may object to such evidence being given until such
document is produced, or until facts have been proved
which entitle the party who called the witness to give
secondary evidence of it. Explanation.— A witness may
give oral evidence of statements made by other persons
about the contents of documents if such statements are
in themselves relevant fact.
148. Cross-examination as to previous statements in
writing.—A witness may be cross-examined as to previous
statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing,
and relevant to matters in question, without such writing
being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended
to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before
the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it
which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.”
46. A plain reading of the above provisions would make it clear that
wherever questions are required to be put as to the matters in writing/
previous statements in writing, the attention of the witness must be
drawn to the document/statement itself. Thus, a question would
arise as to how this procedure would be followed in cases where the
evidence of the witness is being recorded over video conferencing.
47. In this age of advancement of technology, instances are galore
where, the evidence of witnesses are being recorded over video
conferencing. In such circumstances, none of the parties should
be put to a dis-advantage merely because the witness is not in
attendance before the Court, and the document/previous statement
242 [2025] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

in writing with which such witness is sought to be confronted, cannot
be shown/put to him.
48. Therefore, we hereby clarify and direct that 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.
49. 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.
50. From the statement of the witness, the following material facts emerge:
(a) She identified the accused-appellant in Court while being
examined through video conferencing, nearly eight and a half
years after the incident.
(b) She admitted that she had been discharged from Moolchand
Hospital on 24th or 25th December, 2008.
(c) She used to wear spectacles as her distance vision was weak.
At the time of dock identification, the witness was not wearing
spectacles.
(d) 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. Most material is the fact that the witness
emphatically denied the suggestion of the Public Prosecutor
that she had gone to the Court on 26th December, 2008, and
identified the assailants.

Identification in Court after delay – Unsafe and Improbable
51. It is trite that the evidence of an eye-witness must be of sterling
quality and unimpeachable character. It should not only inspire the
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 243

Raj Kumar @ Bheema v. State of NCT of Delhi

confidence of the Court but must also be of such a nature that is
acceptable at its face value.
52. 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. In her testimony, the witness candidly admitted that her
distance vision was weak and that she could not see objects at a
distance without spectacles. 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. 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.
53. Furthermore, when a suggestion was put to the witness by the Public
Prosecutor in cross-examination as to whether she had gone to the
Patiala House Courts for identifying the four assailants, the witness
emphatically denied the same.
54. In her cross-examination, the witness Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati
(PW-18) stated that the accused-appellant Raj Kumar @ Bheema
was wearing a black-coloured shirt, which is an improvement
introduced for the first time after nearly eight and a half years. This
appears to be one of the probable reasons for her identification of
the accused-appellant. No identifying feature of the assailants was
disclosed in her previous statement22 recorded under Section 161
CrPC, wherein no physical description of the accused persons or
clothes worn by them at the time of the incident was mentioned.
Such an embellishment casts a serious doubt on the reliability of her
dock identification and is suggestive of a clear attempt to fill critical
lacunae in the prosecution case.
55. In assessing the credibility of a witness, the testimony must inspire
confidence in the judicial mind, and omissions, improvements, or
contradictions touching the core of the prosecution version inevitably
undermine such assurance. This Court has consistently held that
minor discrepancies are not fatal, but material improvements that go
to the root of the matter essentially erode the credibility of the witness.

22 Exh. PW-17/A.
244 [2025] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

56. In view of the aforesaid glaring facts emerging from the testimony
of Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18), it would be unsafe to place
reliance on her evidence regarding the identification of the accused.
Once her identification of the accused-appellant in Court is discarded,
no substantive evidence remains on record to connect the accused
with the crime.

B. Glaring Infirmities in the Test Identification Proceedings
57. The trial Court, as well as the High Court, drew an adverse inference
against the accused-appellant on the ground that he declined to
participate in the TIP. However, the fact remains that the very sanctity
of the TIP stands under a serious cloud of doubt when it is manifest
that Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18) did not go for participating in
any such identification parade.
58. In this context, it would be essential to advert to the prosecution
case regarding the effort made by the Investigating Officer to get
the appellant subjected to the TIP.
59. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was arrested on 21st
November, 2008. On perusal of the arrest memo23, it is apparent that
there is no mention in the document that the face of the accused was
kept baparda (muffled) after his arrest. A doubt on the prosecution
case on identification thus arises from this very stage.
60. The evidence of the first Investigating Officer Shri S.K. Sharma
(PW-15), who effected the arrest of the accused-appellant on 21st
November, 2008, has been carefully examined. The Investigating
Officer (PW-15), though, stated in his deposition that at the time of
the arrest of the accused-appellant Raj Kumar @ Bheema, his face
was kept muffled. However, this assertion stands contradicted by
the arrest memo, which contains no such recital.
61. The Investigating Officer further stated that the accused-appellant
was interrogated and, in furtherance thereof, recoveries were affected
vide memoranda Exh. PW-14/D, Exh. PW-14/O, Exh. PW-14/P, and
Exh. PW-15/H. A careful scrutiny of these memoranda would show
that there is no reference therein that the face of the accused was
muffled at the time of the recovery proceedings. This significant

23 Exh. PW- 14/B.
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 245

Raj Kumar @ Bheema v. State of NCT of Delhi

omission lends support to the plea taken by the accused-appellant
during the TIP and in his statement under Section 313 CrPC that
he had already been shown to the witness, and his photographs
had been taken by the Investigating Officer, which were later used
for dock identification.
62. It is trite that 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 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.
63. Another material infirmity in the prosecution case relates to the
procedural aspects of the TIP. From the evidence of Smt. Indra
Prabha Gulati (PW-18), it is evident that she categorically stated
that she was discharged from Moolchand Hospital on 24 th/25th
December, 2008. She did not utter even a single word to suggest
that she had been taken to prison or any Court for participating in any
such proceedings. Further, the witness was emphatic in stating that
neither did she meet the police nor did she visit the Patiala House
Courts after being discharged from the hospital. It is also pertinent
to note that no document pertaining to the treatment or discharge
of Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18) was proved on record by the
prosecution. Consequently, a grave doubt arises regarding the very
possibility of any TIP proceedings having been conducted in the
presence of the witness Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18) on 24th
December, 2008.
64. This conclusion gets support from the evidence of the ACMM, Smt.
Surya Malik Grover (PW-12), who, in her deposition, only stated that
the Investigating Officer informed her that the identifying witness was
standing outside. Significantly, there is no signature of the identifying
witness Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18) on any of the documents
prepared in connection with the TIP.
65. In this view of the matter, the prosecution version that efforts made
to subject the accused to TIP failed on account of their refusal,
246 [2025] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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. 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.
66. Furthermore, in such circumstances and considering the significant
improvements made by Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18) from her previous
police statement on the aspect of identifying features (black shirt),
the dock identification of the accused-appellant made by the injured
witness, Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18), during the course of her
evidence through video-link, recorded nearly eight and a half years
after the incident would be unsafe to rely upon.

C. Recoveries and Non-identification of Articles
67. In addition to the above, the prosecution placed reliance on the alleged
recoveries of looted articles at the instance of the accused. However,
it is pertinent to note that Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18) was not
made to identify the said articles during her testimony. Furthermore,
Vivek Gulati, son of Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18), who is stated
to have identified the articles in the TIP, was not examined during
the trial. Consequently, the alleged recoveries lose their evidentiary
worth and cannot be relied upon, as there is no credible proof that
they are the looted articles.
68. The prosecution has tried to claim that the accused-appellant could
not offer any explanation for the presence of human blood on the
pant recovered at his instance,24 which he had allegedly worn at the
time of the incident, which circumstance is incriminating. However,
indisputably, 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, as the Serology
report25 recorded “no reaction” in respect of blood grouping for

24 Exh. PW-14/D.
25 Exh. 24/B.
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 247

Raj Kumar @ Bheema v. State of NCT of Delhi

Exh. 20 (Pant). 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. The mere availability of human blood
on an article is not sufficient unless it is further corroborated by a
matching blood group with that of the deceased.
69. Once the identification of the accused by Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati
(PW-18) is discarded, and the recovery of articles cannot be connected
either with the crime or with the accused, no substantive or credible
evidence remains on record to link the accused with the offence.

CONCLUSION
70. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the impugned judgments
do not stand to scrutiny. The appeal is, thus, allowed.
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan