Supreme Court Directs Safeguards For Video-Linked Witnesses and Acquits Accused in 2008 Dwelling-House Murder

A two-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the appeal by Raj Kumar @ Bheema against his conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC arising out of an offence at Sukhdev Vihar in November 2008. The appeal challenged concurrent findings of the trial Court and the Delhi High Court that had convicted the appellant primarily on the basis of dock identification by an injured eye-witness and recoveries allegedly made at his instance.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the appellant’s immediate release if not otherwise detained. The Bench held that the identification evidence and the test identification proceedings were vitiated by material infirmities and that the recoveries could not be reliably connected to the crime or to the accused. The Court emphasised the quality required of eyewitness testimony, observing that "the evidence of an eye-witness must be of sterling quality and unimpeachable character. It should not only inspire the confidence of the Court but must also be of such a nature that is acceptable at its face value." The Court found that, in the present case, "it would be unsafe to place reliance on her evidence regarding the identification of the accused." The Court also recorded that "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."

The Court, in its reasoning, observed:

Background The prosecution case arose from a night-time intrusion on 2–3 November 2008 at house no. 81, Sukhdev Vihar, where elderly occupant Madan Mohan Gulati was found dead and his wife, Indra Prabha Gulati, was grievously injured. An FIR recorded robbery and murder charges. The injured witness (PW-18) alleged multiple assailants armed with a chheni (knife), screwdriver and rod; she was treated at AIIMS/Moolchand and later left India. The appellant was arrested in November 2008; police recorded disclosure memoranda and purportedly effected recoveries — a blood-stained pant, a chheni, and robbed articles — and a chargesheet followed. The trial Court convicted the appellant for murder relying chiefly on the injured witness’s identification made through video-conferencing in 2017 and on recoveries; co-accused were acquitted. The Delhi High Court affirmed those findings in September 2022.

On appeal the Supreme Court scrutinised the identification and identification parade materials, the long delay between the incident and dock identification, the infirm health and weak eyesight of the injured witness, material improvements between her earlier statement and later testimony, and lacunae in the TIP record. The Court found that no adequate procedure had been followed to confront the witness with her prior written statements while she was testifying by video-link, and that there was no reliable proof that the injured witness had participated in any TIP. The forensic report on the pant did not yield a blood-group match. The Bench observed procedural unfairness in recording video-linked evidence without electronically transmitting prior statements to witnesses, and it issued a binding clarification that Sections 147–148 of the Evidence Act (Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam equivalents) must be complied with when witnesses give evidence via video conferencing. The Court concluded that the identification and recoveries failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court and trial Court, acquitted the appellant, and directed his immediate release if not wanted in other matters.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 1322 Case Title: Raj Kumar @ Bheema v. State of NCT of Delhi Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Sh. S.M. Sallauddin (Advocate) (appearing for Raj Kumar @ Bheema) For the Respondent(s): Shri Vikramjeet Banerjee, Additional Solicitor General of India; Shri Sunil Dutt, Additional Public Prosecutor (as appearing in trial records)