Crl. A. 525/2002 Page 1 of 16

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 02.04.2026

Pronounced on: 18.05.2026

+ CRL.A. 525/2002

PARAS NATH & ORS. .....Appellants

Through: Mr. M.L. Yadav, Advocate

(DHCLSC) with Mr. Prashant

and Mr. Piyush Saini,

Advocates.

versus

STATE OF DELHI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP for the

State with Mr. Manvendra

Yadav, Advocate and Insp.

Yunus Javed, PS Keshav

Puram.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

J U D G M E N T

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1.The present appeal is filed by the appellants against the

judgment of conviction dated 27

th

May, 2002 and the order on

sentence dated 28

th

May, 2002 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, New Delhi [“trial court”], in Sessions Case No.

83/1999, arising out of FIR No. 167/1999 registered under Sections

302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code [“IPC”] and Sections 25/27 of

the Arms Act, 1959at Police Station Keshav Puram.

2. At the outset, it is noted that appellant Paras Nath passed away

during the pendency of the appeal, and accordingly, the appeal qua

appellant Paras Nath stands abated.

Crl. A. 525/2002 Page 2 of 16

Factual Matrix

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21

st

May, 1999, at

about 10:07 PM, an information was received at Police Station

Keshav Puram that one person has been stabbed near Rasika Picket,

Railway Staff Quarters, near railway line, Industrial Area, Lawrence

Road, which was recorded vide DD No. 29-A (Ex. PW-4/A). SI Raj

Singh along with Constable Dharambir proceeded to the spot, where

they learnt that the injured persons had already been removed to

Hindu Rao Hospital by a PCR van. Upon reaching the hospital, it was

found that two persons namely Narinder and Simran were lying

admitted in an injured condition. Their MLCs (Ex. PW13/A) and (Ex.

PW9/A) were collected.

4. PW-2 Simran was declared fit for statement and his statement

(Ex. PW2/A) was recorded, wherein, he stated that on 21

st

May, 1999,

at about 10:00 PM, while he was sitting outside his quarter, he heard

some noise of quarrel from some distance. He ran towards that place

and saw that Narinder, who was earlier his neighbour, was caught hold

of by Paras and his brother Ramu. Paras had an open knife in his hand.

They both were threatening in a loud voice that they would not spare

Narinder alive. When he tried to intervene, Paras gave knife blow on

his face below the left eye. Then hurling abuses, Paras gave two knife

blows in the abdomen of Narender, while Ramu continued holding

him. Thereafter, Paras and Ramu ran towards railway track. He and

Narender were rushed to the hospital by the police van. He further

stated that in the past, altercations had taken place between Narender,

Paras and Ramu, due to which Paras and Narender had become

Crl. A. 525/2002 Page 3 of 16

inimical towards Narender.

5. On such statement of Simran, FIR was registered under Section

307/34 IPC.

6. On 22

nd

May, 1999, Narender died at the hospital. The post-

mortem on his body was conducted. Both the accused were arrested,

and on their pointing out, weapon of offence, that is, knife

(daggernuma) was recovered from the bushes near railway crossing

Industrial Area, Lawrence Road.

7. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in

court under Section 302/307/34 IPC.

8. Charge under Section 302/307/34 PC was framed against the

accused Ramu on 15

th

October, 1999. Both accused pleaded not guilty

and claimed trial.

9. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 19 witnesses.

Statements of both the accused were recorded under Section 313

Cr.P.C, wherein, they had denied all the incriminating evidence put to

them. Accused Paras Nath stated that he was picked up from his house

and falsely implicated, while accused Ramu claimed that he was

falsely implicated on account of suspicion. They refused to lead any

evidence in their defence.

10. Upon appreciation of evidence, the learned Trial Court found

the recovery of knife to be doubtful, but still found that the statement

of PW-2 was sufficient to come to the conclusion that both the

accused persons, who were brothers, in furtherance of their common

intention, caused hurt to Simran (PW2) and committed the murder of

Narender by a sharp-edged weapon. In the opinion of the learned Trial

Crl. A. 525/2002 Page 4 of 16

Court, neither of the accused could be convicted for the offence under

Section 307/34 IPC, because the circumstances and the record of the

case does not indicate that the accused persons wanted to commit

murder of Simran also. Consequently, both the accused were held

guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 as far as

murder of Narender is concerned, and Section 324/34 IPC for the

injury caused to Simran, and were convicted accordingly.

11. Vide order on sentence dated 28th May, 2002, they were

sentenced with life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to

undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months each, under Section

302/34 IPC. They were further sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for six months each, under Section 324/34 IPC.

As noted above, Appellant Paras Nath expired during the pendency of

the appeal, and accordingly, the appeal qua respondent No. 1 Paras

Nath stands abated.

Submissions on behalf of the Counsel for Appellant Ramu

12. The learned counsel, who appeared for the appellant Ramu,

submitted that even though PW-2 Simran is the injured eye witness,

he gave varying versions regarding the sequence of occurrence, the

exact role of appellant Ramu, the arrest of the appellants, and the

recovery of the weapon. It was asserted that in cross examination,

PW-2 denied or disowned substantial portion of the statement

attributed to him by the investigating agency. It was also argued that

even though PW-3 was cited as a witness, he was declared hostile and

did not support the prosecution case.

13. The learned counsel contended that PW-2 Simran did not

Crl. A. 525/2002 Page 5 of 16

support the recovery of weapon. Moreover, the recovery shown is

pursuant to the joint disclosure statement of the two accused persons,

and therefore, such recovery is inadmissible in evidence.

14. It was next argued that the role attributed to appellant Ramu is

vague, uncorroborated and insufficient to establish common intention

under Section 34 IPC. His mere presence at the scene, assuming to be

true, cannot justify conviction under Section 302/34 IPC unless

meeting of mind or participation in furtherance of common intention

is clearly proved. It was urged that even as per the prosecution

narrative, the actual knife blows were attributed only to appellant

Paras Nath and there is no credible evidence of exhortation, pre-

planning or shared intention on the part of appellant Ramu. The

allegation that Ramu caught hold of Narender is itself shaky and not

consistently proved.

15. It is argued that suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot take place

of proof, and if two views are possible, the one favouring the accused,

must prevail. It was therefore prayed that the conviction and sentence

be set aside and the appellant Ramu be acquitted.

Submissions on behalf of State

16. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the

State submitted that the learned Trial Court has given detailed and

well-reasoned findings and convicted the appellants after a fair trial

and upon proper appreciation of evidence.

17. While supporting the impugned judgment, the learned APP has

submitted that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case

beyond reasonable doubt. He contended that PW-2 Simran is an

Crl. A. 525/2002 Page 6 of 16

injured witness and the testimony of an injured witness carries high

degree of reliability and weight. According to him, PW-2 has

substantially supported the prosecution case and his testimony cannot

be discarded only on account of certain minor contradictions or

omissions. He submitted that the broad spectrum of the prosecution

case has remained intact, namely that the appellants came together,

quarrelled with the deceased and appellant Paras Nath inflicted fatal

knife blows on the stomach of the deceased.

18. It was further contended that the ocular testimony of PW-2

finds corroboration from the medical evidence, which proves that the

death of Narender was homicidal and was caused by a sharp-edged

weapon, which is consistent with the prosecution version.

19. Learned APP further argued that the recovery of knife at the

instance of both the appellants, coupled with the FSL result, furnish

additional corroboration to the prosecution case. He argued that

merely because PW-2 was declared hostile in part or did not support

every minute detail of the incident, his testimony does not become

wholly untrustworthy and can be relied upon to the extent it supports

the prosecution version.

20. Learned APP, lastly submitted that the conduct of the accused

persons of fleeing from the spot and being apprehended thereafter,

also constitutes incriminating circumstance, which goes against them.

It was thus prayed that the appeal be dismissed being devoid of merit.

Reasoning and Analysis

21. The prosecution case was built around the statements of PW-2

Simran and PW-3 Arjun, Simran being the injured witness and Arjun

Crl. A. 525/2002 Page 7 of 16

being the eye witness of the occurrence. Admittedly, PW-3 Arjun did

not support the prosecution version at all. He categorically stated that

he did not see the incident nor did he see anybody assaulting anybody.

According to him, accused did not assault the injured in his presence

and he only saw them after their arrest. He was declared hostile and

was cross examined by the learned APP at some length, but his cross

examination by the learned APP has not yielded anything fruitful in

favour of the prosecution. His testimony, is therefore, of no help in

establishing the guilt of the accused.

22. PW-2 Simran, thus, remains the only eye witness of the

occurrence. He deposed that on 21

st

May, 1999, at 01.15 in the night,

he was sitting at a stone lying outside his room with the deceased. In

later part of his testimony, he clarified that the incident took place at

9.15 PM and not 1.15 in the night. He further deposed that Ramu, who

was going from there, on seeing them, moved back to bring his

brother Paras. Later on, both the accused came there and entered into

an argument with Narender. He himself was near the place where the

arguments were going on. Paras assaulted him on his left eye. Then,

Ramu caught hold of Narender and Paras retorted that he would

remove heat from his body (Narender). When he tried to save

Narender, Paras assaulted him. Narender was then assaulted by Paras

in the abdomen near private parts twice. Thereafter, both accused

escaped from the spot.

23. During cross examination by the defence counsel, PW-2 was

confronted with statement Ex. PW-2/A, where the fact that he was

sitting on a stone outside the room with the deceased, is not recorded.

Crl. A. 525/2002 Page 8 of 16

The statement Ex. PW-2/A does not record that Ramu was going, and

on seeing them, he moved back and went away to take his brother. It

also does not contain the fact that later on both accused came there

and entered into arguments. Ex. PW-2/A also does not record that

accused Paras was saying that he will remove heat from his body. It

also does not record that Narender was assaulted by Paras on private

parts.

24. From the aforesaid, it is evident that the testimony of PW-2

before the court bristles with serious inconsistencies, contradictions

and improvements. The manner and sequence of occurrence, as

deposed before the court, is different from the one narrated by PW-2

in his statement Ex. PW-2/A to the police. No doubt, the testimony of

an injured witness carries great evidentiary value and stands on a

higher pedestal than any other witness, the reason being obvious that

an injured witness is generally presumed to be a natural witness who

himself suffered in the incident and is therefore less likely to falsely

implicate another and deserves acceptance unless strong reasons exist

for its rejection. [Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010)

10 SCC 259]. It is equally well settled that an accused can be

convicted on the basis of testimony of the sole eye witness, but then

such testimony should be straight forward, cogent and reliable. If the

testimony of such witness is found to be wavering, inconsistent or

materially contradicted by the surrounding circumstances, it would be

wholly unsafe to sustain a conviction for an offence carrying the

sentence of life imprisonment. The Supreme Court in Rai Sandeep Vs.

State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21, observed as under:-

Crl. A. 525/2002 Page 9 of 16

“22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling

witness” should be of a very high quality and

calibre whose version should, therefore, be

unassailable. The court considering the

version of such witness should be in a position

to accept it for its face value without any

hesitation. To test the quality of such a

witness, the status of the witness would be

immaterial and what would be relevant is the

truthfulness of the statement made by such a

witness. What would be more relevant would

be the consistency of the statement right from

the starting point till the end, namely, at the

time when the witness makes the initial

statement and ultimately before the court. It

should be natural and consistent with the case

of the prosecution qua the accused. There

should not be any prevarication in the version

of such a witness. The witness should be in a

position to withstand the cross-examination of

any length and howsoever strenuous it may be

and under no circumstance should give room

for any doubt as to the factum of the

occurrence, the persons involved, as well as

the sequence of it. Such a version should have

co-relation with each and every one of other

supporting material such as the recoveries

made, the weapons used, the manner of

offence committed, the scientific evidence and

the expert opinion. The said version should

consistently match with the version of every

other witness. It can even be stated that it

should be akin to the test applied in the case of

circumstantial evidence where there should

not be any missing link in the chain of

circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the

offence alleged against him. Only if the

version of such a witness qualifies the above

test as well as all other such similar tests to be

applied, can it be held that such a witness can

be called as a “sterling witness” whose

version can be accepted by the court without

any corroboration and based on which the

guilty can be punished. To be more precise,

Crl. A. 525/2002 Page 10 of 16

the version of the said witness on the core

spectrum of the crime should remain intact

while all other attendant materials, namely,

oral, documentary and material objects should

match the said version in material particulars

in order to enable the court trying the offence

to rely on the core version to sieve the other

supporting materials for holding the offender

guilty of the charge alleged.”

25. Appreciating the testimony of PW-2 Simran on the aforesaid

principles, we find that his testimony is not consistent, straight

forward and cogent. The prosecution itself declared him partly hostile.

He was cross examined by the learned APP. In such cross

examination, he stated that he did not make any statement before the

police that photographs were taken on his arrival from the hospital. He

further stated that the blood was not lifted by the IO in his presence

nor sealed. He denied having given any statement that seal after use

was handed over to the Head Constable or that the site plan was

prepared in his presence.

26. PW-2 Simran was also hostile with regard to the manner of

arrest of the accused and the recovery of weapon in his presence. If

the prosecution version, as stated by Inspector Radha Raman (PW-19),

is to be believed, PW-2 Simran was also present at the time of arrest

of the accused. According to him, both accused had tried to hide

themselves behind a tree after seeing Simran, and they both were

apprehended on the pointing out of Simran. However, PW-2 deposed

that accused were arrested from their room and the door of the room

was lying closed. When cross examined by the learned APP on the

aspect of manner of arrest of the accused, he denied having given any

Crl. A. 525/2002 Page 11 of 16

statement to the police that both accused had taken shelter under a tree

and were waiting for their family members. He denied having stated

before the police that he along with HC Umed Singh and Constable

Surender, reached the place at the gate of Modern Bread Factory,

Industrial area, Lawrence Road and found both the accused sitting

behind a tree, and that on seeing the police, they became nervous and

then on his pointing out, they were arrested.

27. PW-19 Inspector Radha Raman deposed that upon arrest,

accused disclosed that they had concealed the knife (dagger) in the

bushes near railway line and can get the same recovered, and

thereafter, they both took them to the place where the weapon of

offence was concealed and got recovered the dagger type knife from

the bushes near the railway line. The recovery was allegedly made in

the presence of PW-2 Simran, but PW-2 deposed that accused did not

tell anything at the time of their arrest. According to him, accused did

not tell anything about the knife and no weapon was got recovered by

the accused. During cross examination by the learned APP, he denied

that accused were interrogated in his presence. He reiterated that

accused did not make any statement before him regarding throwing

the knife in the bushes. He denied that accused made any statement in

his presence that they can get the knife recovered from the bushes. He

denied having given any statement that both accused while in police

custody, took them to railway line near quarters and got recovered

blood stained knife from the bushes. He denied having stated in his

previous statement that blood was on the knife or that the sketch of the

knife was prepared. He denied that the knife was sealed in a pullanda

Crl. A. 525/2002 Page 12 of 16

in his presence. He denied having stated before the police that IO

prepared the site plan of place of recovery of knife in his presence. He

denied having given the statement that draftsman prepared scaled site

plan on his pointing out.

28. It is manifest from the testimony of PW-2 that he has not only

made material improvements from his previous statements made to the

police, but also contradicted the prosecution narrative of the mode of

arrest of accused and recovery of the knife (dagger) at their instance.

29. The incident had taken place on 21

st

May, 1999 and the

statement of PW-2 was recorded before the Court on 22

nd

November,

1999, that is, within a period of almost six months. It is not one of

such cases where the testimony of the witness was recorded after a

long delay, which may result in contradictions/inconsistencies due to

lapse of memory on account of long passage of time. As is evident,

PW-2 has not supported the recovery of knife (dagger) at the instance

of the accused. He is the only independent public witness of recovery,

the other witnesses being police officials. The case would have been

different if no public witness was available or was not part of the

recovery proceedings. Since recovery of knife (dagger) pursuant to the

joint disclosure statement of the accused persons is without any

independent corroboration, the same is rendered doubtful.

30. PW-2 deposed that accused Paras assaulted him on his left eye

and assaulted Narender in the abdomen near private parts twice.

Nowhere in his examination in chief, PW-2 deposed that Narender

was armed with knife (dagger) or that he and Narender were inflicted

knife blows. Not only this, the testimony of PW-2 that Narender was

Crl. A. 525/2002 Page 13 of 16

assaulted twice on his abdomen near private parts, is not corroborated

by the medical evidence, inasmuch as, post-mortem report Ex. PW-

5/A records the following four external injuries on the person of

Narender:-

“External Injuries:

1. Scratch abrasion 2.5 X 0.2 cms over right

side front of neck, reaching upto midline

2. Superficial incised wound 2.5 X 0.2 cms on

back of right wrist on ulner side,

3. Incised wound 3.5 X 1.5 X 3 cm. deep under

the skin, situated on left side of chest in lower

part over costal margins. Outer angle is round

and inner angle is acute. 101 cm. about left

heel.

4. One stab wound 3.5 X 2 cms over left

abdomen on front part 2.5 cm. outer to midline

and 6 cm. above and inner to left superior

anterior iliac spine. 88 cm. about left heel. In

loop of bowle is protruding out of wound. The

margins were clean cut, inner angle is acute

and outer angle is round.

Internal Examination:

Injury no.4 has penetrated into abdominal

cavity and then cut thorough peritoneum,

omentum, intenstinal misentry and made cuts

in loops of small intestine and then severed the

common iliac vessels on right side at level of

L4 vertebre and ended here. Total Depth of

injury is 14 cm and direction being from left

to right obliquely and backwards.

xxxx

Opinion:

Death in this case was due to haemorrhage

and shock consequent to injuries. Injury no.4

was sufficient to cause death in ordinary

course of nature. All the injuries have been

caused by sharp edged weapon and are

antemortem and recent.”

Crl. A. 525/2002 Page 14 of 16

31. The post-mortem report does not indicate any injury on the

private parts of Narender.

32. The FSL Result Ex. PW-19/E confirms the presence of blood

on the knife (dagger), but the same was not shown to the doctor who

conducted post-mortem, to confirm whether the injuries on the person

of the victim were possible from the said knife (dagger). Thus, not

only the recovery of knife (dagger) is doubtful, but there is no

confirmation that it is the same weapon which was used in the

commission of offence.

33. In cross examination, PW-2 stated that prior to this incident,

accused had earlier injured the deceased on his head, and on the day of

incident, there was some altercation initiated by Ramu and Paras with

regard to the previous incident. He further stated that prior to the

incident in question, there was also some quarrel between him and

Paras also and Paras had tried to beat him near the phatak prior to the

incident. It is thus apparent that both sides were not on cordial terms

and were often involved in altercations. In such a situation, while prior

enmity/ill-will may furnish motive for commission of offence, it

equally also furnishes the motive for false implication. Therefore, the

testimony of an inimical witness has to be scrutinized with greater

caution and circumspection and the Court must, in such

circumstances, seek dependable corroboration before basing a

conviction for murder solely on such evidence. In the present case, we

do not find any dependable corroboration on record. The only other

cited eye witness PW-3 Arjun has not supported the prosecution case.

34. The learned Trial Court, in our considered view, did not

Crl. A. 525/2002 Page 15 of 16

adequately appreciate the effect of the improvements, contradictions

and omissions in testimony of PW-2 Simran. The learned Trial Court

appears to have placed substantial reliance upon the broad inculpatory

portions of the testimony of PW-2 Simran, without subjecting the

same to the strict scrutiny required in a case resting on a solitary

witness with admitted prior enmity and with material inconsistencies.

35. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that

prosecution must prove its case against the accused beyond an iota of

doubt and such burden never shifts. If on an overall appreciation of

evidence two views are possible, the one favouring the accused needs

to be accepted. We find that the evidence brought on record by the

prosecution falls short of the standard required to sustain the

conviction. The testimony of PW-2 Simran cannot be regarded to be

of sterling quality and does not inspire the degree of confidence

necessary for affirming the conviction.

36. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the prosecution

has failed to prove its case against the appellant Ramu beyond

reasonable doubt. The conviction under Section 302/34 IPC and under

Section 324/34 IPC, and the consequent sentence imposed vide order

dated 28

th

May, 2002, is set aside.

37. We again note that unfortunately, due to the passing away of

appellant Paras Nath, the appeal qua him has abated.

38. The appeal qua appellant Ramu is accordingly allowed and

disposed of.

39. The Bail Bond and Surety Bond furnished by appellant Ramu

are cancelled and his surety stands discharged.

Crl. A. 525/2002 Page 16 of 16

40. A copy of this Judgment be communicated to the learned Trial

Court and concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary information

and compliance.

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

MAY 18, 2026/AK