Delhi High Court
Ishwar vs State on 26 May, 2026
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 12.03.2026
Pronounced on: 26.05.2026
+ CRL.A. 502/2003
ISHWAR .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Hemant Baisla, Mr.
Hemant Kumar Niranjan, Ms.
Shikha, Ms. Neha Yadav, Advs.
versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP with
Mr. Manvendra Yadav, Mr.
Atiq Ur Rehman, Advs. and
Insp. Kishore Kumar, PS
Vasant Kunj North.
+ CRL.A. 528/2004
KULDEEP @ KALLU .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Vinayak Bhandari, Panel
Counsel, DHCLSC with Ms.
Teesta Mishra and Mr. Sushant
Singh, Advs.
versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP with
Mr. Manvendra Yadav, Mr.
Atiq Ur Rehman, Advs. and
Insp. Kishore Kumar, PS
Vasant Kunj North.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. These two appeals have been filed by the appellants against the
judgment of conviction dated 05th April, 2003 and the order on
sentence dated 19th April, 2003 passed by the learned Additional
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 502/2003 & CRL.A. 528/2004 Page 1 of 29
PRUTHI
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:55
Sessions Judge, New Delhi [“trial court”], in Sessions Case No.
37/2000, arising out of FIR No. 154/1999 registered under sections
302/201/212/120A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC“] at Police
Station Vasant Kunj. Since both appeals emanate from the same FIR,
involve identical questions of fact and law, and assail the common
impugned judgment, they are being disposed of together by this
common judgment.
Factual Matrix
2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27th March, 1999 at about
6:50 AM, an information was received at Police Station, Vasant Kunj
that the body of a Police Constable was lying near Rajokri Pahari. The
information was recorded vide DD No. 9-A [Ex. PW-10/A4]. The DD
entry was entrusted to SI Prahlad Yadav (PW-8), who along with
Constable Jalvir Singh reached at the spot. Subsequently, Inspector
Mohd. Iqbal (PW-20), the then SHO, PS Vasant Kunj, also reached
there and found that the body of Constable Rambir, in police uniform,
was lying in a five feet deep pit with a heavy stone lying near the head
of the deceased. On inspection of the body, it was found that there
were two holes on the left side of the shirt worn by the deceased with
corresponding holes in the baniyan (vest) and two corresponding
holes on the body of the deceased Constable Rambir. The name plate
in the name of ‘Constable Rambir’ was found near the body, which
was stained with blood. The body and clothes were smeared with
blood. There was also a burn injury mark on the left elbow of the
deceased.
3. An Election ID Card [Ex. PW-6/A] in the name of Kuldeep
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 502/2003 & CRL.A. 528/2004 Page 2 of 29
PRUTHI
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:55
(appellant) was found lying at a distance of five feet from the body on
the northern side. Blood was found on the ground. One empty
cartridge was found at a distance of three feet from the blood. The left
shoe of make ‘Bata’ of the deceased was found at a distance of 300
feet on the northern side. Blood was also found at a distance of about
20 feet on the eastern side near the electric pole. The blood was also
seen on two bricks, which were lying at the spot.
4. Crime Team was called for inspection of the spot. The Crime
Team Photographer took the photographs of the scene of crime.
Exhibits were lifted from the spot and duly sealed. Inspector Mohd.
Iqbal (PW-20) prepared the Rukka [Ex. PW-20/A], on the basis of
which, FIR was registered at PS Vasant Kunj under Sections 302/201
IPC. Exhibits were then deposited in the Malkhana and body was sent
for post-mortem.
5. Next day, that is, 28th March, 1999, a secret information was
received at PS Vasant Kunj that Kuldeep @ Kallu was present at
Rajendra Park, Kachchi Colony, Gurgaon. The Investigating Officer
[“IO”] Inspector S.K. Patil (PW-16) along with police staff searched
for Kuldeep near the house of accused Ishwar Singh at Rajendra Park.
Accused Kuldeep and Ajay were overpowered, while their associate,
whose name was disclosed by accused Kuldeep as Darshan, managed
to escape. Upon interrogation, accused Kuldeep and Ajay confessed
their guilt. They were arrested. Their disclosure statements were
recorded. In his disclosure statement (Ex PW-4/A), accused Kuldeep
stated that he can get the incriminating articles recovered. Pursuant to
the said disclosure, he led the police to Ishwar’s house, and at his
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 502/2003 & CRL.A. 528/2004 Page 3 of 29
PRUTHI
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:55
instance, the weapon of offence, that is, country made pistol (Desi
Katta) (Ex. PW-4/G) was recovered from a brass Tokery lying on the
Taand of the house. He also got recovered a blue colour LML Vespa
Scooter, without number plate (Ex. PW-4/B), belonging to deceased
Constable Rambir, from the room of Ishwar’s house. He also got
recovered a blood stained white shirt (Ex. PW-4/E), which was
hanging on a wire in the courtyard of Ishwar’s house.
6. Accused Ajay got his blood stained shirt and jeans/pant (Ex.
PW-4/D) recovered from the Taand of Ishwar’s house. All the
recovered articles were sealed and seized by the IO in the presence of
accused Ishwar Singh.
7. Accused Ishwar Singh was also arrested for the commission of
offence under Section 212 IPC for knowingly harbouring the co-
accused persons and for allowing the accused to conceal the scooter of
the deceased and the weapon used in the commission of offence at his
house.
8. During further investigation, accused Gopal was apprehended
and arrested from Uttam Nagar Bus Stand on the pointing out by his
wife and brother-in-law. On interrogation, he gave disclosure
statement (Ex. PW-8/G) and got recovered his blood stained shirt and
pant (Ex. PW-4/E) from the Taand of Ishwar’s house.
9. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed
against the accused persons under Sections 302/201/120-
B/186/353/332 IPC and under Sections 25/27/54/59 Arms Act, 1959.
10. Charge under Section 302/34 IPC and under Section 201/34
IPC were framed against accused Kuldeep, Ajay and Gopal, while
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 502/2003 & CRL.A. 528/2004 Page 4 of 29
PRUTHI
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:55
separate charge under Section 212 IPC was framed against accused
Ishwar. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
11. In order to substantiate the charge, prosecution examined 22
witnesses. Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“Cr.P.C.”], wherein, they
denied all the incriminating evidence appearing on record against
them. They preferred not to lead any evidence in their defence.
12. Vide judgment dated 05th April, 2003, the learned Trial Court
convicted the accused Kuldeep for the offence punishable under
Section 302/201 IPC and accused Ishwar under Section 212 IPC.
Accused Ajay and Gopal were given the benefit of doubt and were
accordingly acquitted.
13. The learned Trial Court was of the view that the recovery of
scooter of the deceased and country made pistol is admissible against
Kuldeep under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the country made
pistol was further connected by the report of Ballistic Expert with the
empty cartridge recovered at the spot and with the bullet found in the
body of the deceased. According to the learned Trial Court, such
evidence of the prosecution cannot be discarded and there was nothing
which was in contradiction to the hypothesis of innocence of accused
Kuldeep, and therefore, held that the case of the prosecution against
accused Kuldeep stands fully proved.
14. With regard to accused Ishwar, the learned Trial Court found
that the recovery of country made pistol, the scooter of the deceased
and the blood stained clothes were made from his house. The scooter
of the deceased was without a number plate and was not such a small
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 502/2003 & CRL.A. 528/2004 Page 5 of 29
PRUTHI
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:55
thing which could have hidden anywhere unnoticed. Accused Ishwar
therefore cannot claim that he had no knowledge about these articles,
and thus, inferred that accused Ishwar had full knowledge about the
commission of offence and that he was concealing and shielding the
real culprits and the incriminating articles connected with the alleged
offence with intention to screen the actual offender from legal
punishment.
15. As far as co-accused Ajay and Gopal are concerned, the learned
Trial Court found that the only evidence against them was the
recovery of their blood stained clothes, which were not corroborated
by any other circumstances to connect them with the offences alleged
against them.
16. Vide order on sentence dated 19th April, 2003, accused Kuldeep
was sentenced with imprisonment for life for the offence punishable
under Section 302 with fine of Rs. 20,000/-, and in default, to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 years. He was sentenced to
imprisonment for 05 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 201
and in default, was directed to undergo 06 months Rigorous
Imprisonment. Convict Ishwar was sentenced with Rigorous
Imprisonment for 04 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 212
and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo 01 year
Rigorous Imprisonment.
17. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the present
appeals. The sentence awarded to the appellants Ishwar and Kuldeep
was suspended vide orders dated 21st January, 2004 and 14th February,
2006, respectively.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 502/2003 & CRL.A. 528/2004 Page 6 of 29
PRUTHI
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:55
Submissions on behalf of Appellant Kuldeep @ Kallu in CRL.A.
528/2004
18. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant Kuldeep @
Kallu submitted that the impugned judgment suffers from serious
inconsistencies and improbabilities, rendering the conviction of the
appellant unsustainable in law. It was contended that the prosecution
case, insofar as the present appellant is concerned, is based entirely on
circumstantial evidence, and no direct evidence whatsoever has been
brought on record to establish that it was the appellant who fired upon
or caused the death of Constable Rambir.
19. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution itself projected
a case of joint involvement of several accused persons and sought to
attribute motive and active participation to more than one accused.
However, despite this, the learned Trial Court proceeded to convict
the present appellant while acquitting the other accused persons
without properly recording a convincing distinction in respect of the
incriminating circumstances.
20. Learned counsel further submitted that the motive, as sought to
be projected by the prosecution, cannot be attributed to the present
appellant. It was argued that even if the prosecution version is taken at
face value, the alleged grievance or prior animosity was far stronger, if
at all, in the case of the co-accused persons than in the case of the
present appellant. It was stated that motive assumes greater
importance in cases of circumstantial evidence and in support of his
argument, the learned counsel relied upon Shankar Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2023) 19 SCC 553 and Vaibhav Vs. State of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 502/2003 & CRL.A. 528/2004 Page 7 of 29
PRUTHI
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:55
Maharashtra, (2025) 8 SCC 315.
21. Referring to the disclosure of accused Gopal, it is submitted that
prosecution itself attributed motive to the co-accused Gopal rather
than the appellant Kuldeep. Kuldeep had no independent motive, no
previous animosity against the deceased to commit his murder.
22. It was next submitted that the only incriminating circumstance
against the appellant Kuldeep is the alleged recovery of his election
identity card from a place approximately five feet away from the dead
body. Learned counsel argued that this circumstance has been given
undue weightage by the learned Trial Court.
23. Learned counsel contended that even assuming that the election
identity card was indeed recovered from the vicinity of the dead body,
such recovery could, at the highest, suggest possible presence of the
appellant at or around the area of incident. It was submitted that mere
presence of appellant by itself is not sufficient to establish the
commission of the crime by him.
24. According to learned counsel, despite the importance assigned
to this alleged recovery, no photograph of the identity card at the spot
has been produced, which materially weakens the reliability of this
circumstance. Learned counsel submitted that where the entire case
rests upon circumstantial evidence, each link must be proved with
utmost certainty, and an unsupported assertion regarding recovery of
an identity card cannot be elevated to the status of a conclusive
incriminating circumstance. It was argued that in cases of
circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must remain
unbroken and must only point towards the guilt of the accused. In
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 502/2003 & CRL.A. 528/2004 Page 8 of 29
PRUTHI
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:55
support, reliance is placed on Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2013)
4 SCC 668 and Raju Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2024) 14 SCC 444.
25. It was further submitted that the shirt of accused Kuldeep was
sent to FSL for forensic examination to determine the presence of
blood. The FSL Report, even though, indicates the presence of human
blood on the shirt, does not confirm the blood group, and therefore,
forensic report does not support the prosecution case.
26. The learned counsel further argued that the learned Trial Court
convicted the appellant only on the ground of recovery of weapon of
offence and the scooter of the deceased at his instance. It was argued
that the alleged recovery, may at best, attribute knowledge to the
accused but does not establish that the appellant actually used the gun
and committed the crime. There is no clinching evidence, like his
fingerprints on the said weapon to fully establish that the appellant
used the recovered weapon. In support, reliance was placed on
Rajendra Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Uttaranchal, 2025 SCC Online
SC 2148.
27. It was submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to properly
appreciate that the case against the appellant is essentially built on
circumstantial evidence and that in a case resting solely on
circumstantial evidence, the Court is required to ensure that the chain
is so complete that it excludes every possible hypothesis consistent
with innocence. According to learned counsel, in the present case,
such a complete chain is conspicuously absent. On these submissions,
learned counsel prayed that the CRL.A. 528/2004 be allowed and the
conviction and sentence of appellant Kuldeep @ Kallu be set aside
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 502/2003 & CRL.A. 528/2004 Page 9 of 29
PRUTHI
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:55
and he be acquitted of all charges.
Submissions on behalf of Appellant Ishwar in CRL.A. 502/2003
28. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant Ishwar
assailed the impugned judgment primarily on the ground that his
conviction under Section 212 IPC is founded on conjecture and
surmises.
29. It was submitted that the entire prosecution case against Ishwar
is that certain incriminating articles, namely the scooter of the
deceased, the weapon of offence (desi katta), and blood-stained
clothes, were recovered from his house. It was contended that even if
such recoveries are assumed for the sake of argument, the same do not
automatically establish the mens rea or conscious harbouring required
under Section 212 IPC.
30. It was further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove
that the appellant had knowledge or reason to believe that the persons
allegedly visiting or staying at his premises had committed the murder
of a police constable. Learned counsel submitted that this essential
mental element cannot be presumed merely because the prosecution
asserts recovery of certain articles from a premises allegedly
associated with the appellant Ishwar.
31. Learned counsel strongly contended that the recovery
proceedings are wholly doubtful as there was no public witness
associated at the time of the alleged recovery. It was further submitted
that even the local police station of the area where the alleged
recovery was made was not informed in advance that the investigating
team from Delhi had arrived there for apprehension and recovery
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 502/2003 & CRL.A. 528/2004 Page 10 of 29
PRUTHI
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:55
proceedings.
32. It was further argued that the appellant Ishwar was not arrested
from his house at all. According to the defence, the appellant was
apprehended approximately three kilometres away from his residence,
while he was returning from work. This, according to learned counsel,
undermines the prosecution theory that he was found in possession of
or had conscious control over the recovered articles.
33. It was submitted that the appellant had no occasion to know
whether any person had visited his residence in his absence, and that
the prosecution has not established that he was physically present at
the time the alleged concealment took place.
34. Learned counsel argued that Section 212 IPC requires a
conscious act of harbouring or concealment, coupled with knowledge
of the offence committed by the principal offender. It was urged that
even if it were assumed that some person had come to the appellant’s
house, the mere fact of their presence cannot establish criminal
liability unless it is shown that the appellant Ishwar knew that they
had committed the murder of a police officer or that he intentionally
provided shelter to them to screen them from punishment.
35. It was also submitted that the appellant Ishwar had no criminal
antecedents, no independent motive, and no personal grudge against
the deceased. Learned counsel argued that the prosecution has failed
to show why the appellant would voluntarily expose himself to grave
criminal liability by harbouring such offenders.
36. Learned counsel contended that the learned Trial Court erred in
convicting the appellant merely because the house was linked to him,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 502/2003 & CRL.A. 528/2004 Page 11 of 29
PRUTHI
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:55
without first establishing the essential legal ingredients of conscious
harbouring, guilty knowledge, and intention to protect the offenders. It
was therefore submitted that the appeal CRL.A. 502/2003 be allowed
and the conviction of Ishwar under Section 212 IPC to be set aside.
Submissions on behalf of State
37. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor [“APP”] for
the State supported the impugned judgment, passed by the learned
Trial Court, stating that conviction is based on a well-reasoned finding
upon due appreciation of evidence.
38. Learned APP submitted that the deceased Constable Rambir
was on official duty at the relevant time, and that the prosecution has
established that he was intercepted and murdered while discharging
his public duty. It was submitted that the body of the deceased was
found near Rajokri Pahari and the investigation at the scene led to the
recovery of certain articles including the election identity card of
accused Kuldeep, which was recovered from the vicinity of the dead
body. It was submitted that this was not an isolated recovery and that
once the election identity card of accused Kuldeep was found near the
body, the investigating agency naturally proceeded to verify his
whereabouts and movements.
39. Learned APP submitted that the police thereafter went to the
residence/location of Kuldeep and found that he had gone to Gurgaon
at the house of accused Ishwar, and thereafter the accused persons
were apprehended. This conduct, as per learned APP further
reinforced the prosecution case and connected the appellant Ishwar
with the subsequent recoveries.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 502/2003 & CRL.A. 528/2004 Page 12 of 29
PRUTHI
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:55
40. It was further submitted that the prosecution has also proved
recovery of the scooter of the deceased, which, though unnumbered,
bore clear identifying features including the logo/mark of Delhi Police
and the name of the constable written upon it, thereby leaving no
doubt as to its identity. It was argued that the recovery of scooter from
the house of accused Ishwar is a highly incriminating circumstance
and cannot be dismissed as accidental.
41. Learned APP also submitted that the prosecution recovered the
desi katta, and the ballistic report confirmed that the same as the
weapon of offence. The ballistic report corroborated the prosecution
version regarding use of that firearm in the commission of the offence.
Learned APP further submitted that the recovery of blood-stained
clothes from the same house is another important circumstance which
links the accused persons with the commission of the offence and the
subsequent attempt to screen themselves from punishment.
42. The cumulative effect of the circumstances, it was argued,
forms a complete chain pointing only towards the guilt of the accused.
In response to the appellant Kuldeep’s argument regarding motive,
learned APP submitted that in a case where the chain of circumstantial
evidence is complete, motive assumes a secondary role. It was argued
that even if the defence seeks to suggest that some co-accused may
have had a stronger motive, that by itself does not exonerate the
present appellants where independent incriminating circumstances
stand proved against them.
43. The learned APP argued that the absence of photograph of the
election identity card does not weaken the prosecution’s case, as
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 502/2003 & CRL.A. 528/2004 Page 13 of 29
PRUTHI
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:55
recovery has been duly established through police testimonies and the
seizure memo. Regarding the white shirt and the forensic report, it was
contended that the prosecution cannot be discredited merely because
blood group was not found on the same. The Court, it was
emphasized, should assess the evidence as a whole rather than
focusing on isolated aspects of the case.
44. In response to the submissions advanced on behalf of appellant
Ishwar, learned APP submitted that the offence under Section 212 IPC
is fully made out from the evidence on record. It was argued that the
concealment of the deceased’s scooter, weapon of offence, and blood-
stained clothes at the premises linked to Ishwar clearly demonstrates
knowledge, assistance, and intention to protect the offenders.
45. It was further argued that the absence of public witnesses is not
fatal where the police witnesses are otherwise reliable and the
recoveries are duly documented. It is thus submitted that the learned
Trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the
appellants, and therefore, the appeals are liable to be dismissed being
devoid of merit.
Analysis and Reasoning:
46. We have considered the rival submissions. There is no dispute
to the homicidal nature of the death. On receipt of DD no. 9A (Ex. PW
10/A4) regarding the information that a body of a police constable was
lying near Rajokri Pahari, SI Prahlad Yadav (PW-8) along with
Constable Jalvir Singh were the first ones to reach the spot. They were
followed by Inspector Mohd. Iqbal (PW-20), SHO, Police Station
Vasant Kunj along with SI Balram (PW-6), where they found the body
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 502/2003 & CRL.A. 528/2004 Page 14 of 29
PRUTHI
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:55
of the deceased Constable in uniform lying in the pit. They recovered
a name plate bearing the name of Constable Rambir Singh under the
body. The body was sent to Safdarjung Hospital for post mortem
through SI Subey Singh (PW-5). The body was later identified by
Mani Ram (PW-1), older brother of Rambir Singh.
47. Dr. Chanderkant (PW-10) who conducted the post mortem
examination on the body of Constable Rambir Singh found 18 ante
mortem injuries and according to him, the injuries number 5, 6 and 7
were caused by fire arm. He proved the post mortem report Ex.
PW10/A. As per his opinion, the cause of death was shock,
haemorrhage, head injury and fire arm injury. He deposed that injuries
number 5, 15, 16 and 17 each individually and collectively were
sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
48. PW-10 Dr. Chanderkant, who had conducted the post mortem,
was not cross-examined. The defence did not even suggest that the
injuries recorded in the post mortem report could be self-inflicted or
accidental. Even, the nature of injuries do not admit of such a
possibility. Hence, the medical evidence leaves no room for doubt that
the death of Constable Rambir Singh was homicidal in nature.
49. The entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial
evidence as there is no eye witness of the occurrence. The prosecution
relies upon the following circumstances to prove the guilt of accused
Kuldeep:
i. Recovery of Election ID Card (Ex. PW 6/A) belonging to
the accused Kuldeep from the place of occurrence.
ii. Recovery of the weapon of offence, that is, the countrySignature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 502/2003 & CRL.A. 528/2004 Page 15 of 29
PRUTHI
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:55
made pistol (Ex. PW 4/G), shirt of accused Kuldeep (Ex.
PW 4/C) having blood mark on it and scooter of
Constable Rambir Singh (Ex. PW 4/B) from the house of
accused Ishwar.
iii. The FSL result (Ex. PW 18/B) confirming the presence
of human blood on the shirt of accused Kuldeep.
iv. Ballistic report (Ex. PW 21/A) which proves that the
fired empty cartridge recovered from the spot was fired
from the country made pistol.
50. It is well settled law that where the case rests entirely on
circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence must be complete so
that every hypothesis of innocence is excluded but the one proposed to
be proved, and that such circumstance must show that the act has been
done by the appellants/accused. In the light of the said principle, we
shall now analyse as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove
the guilt of against the appellants.
51. In order to prove the circumstance of recovery of the election
ID card of Kuldeep, the prosecution relies upon the testimonies of
PW-6 SI Balram, PW-8 SI Prahlad Yadav, PW-16 Inspector SK Patil
and PW-20 Inspector Mohd. Iqbal. They all consistently deposed that
the election ID card in the name of Kuldeep Singh was lying about
five feet from the north side from the body. There is no cross-
examination worth the name challenging the recovery of the election
ID card from the spot.
52. PW-13 Babulal, LDC from the election office proved that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 502/2003 & CRL.A. 528/2004 Page 16 of 29
PRUTHI
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:55
election ID card Ex. P1 was issued by the Election Commission in the
name of Kuldeep son of Kishan Chand. The deposition of PW-13 thus
proves that the recovered election ID card belonged to accused
Kuldeep.
53. The only challenge raised before us is that the election ID card
is not visible in any of the photographs taken at the spot which,
according to the learned defense counsel, makes the recovery doubtful
and there is a possibility that ID card has been planted by the IO.
54. We are not impressed by the aforesaid argument of the defence.
Even though the election ID card is not visible in any of the
photographs of the spot, we find that rukka Ex. PW 20/A, which was
prepared at the spot itself by PW-20, records the factum of recovery of
election ID card bearing number DL/03/031/234248 in the name of
Kuldeep Singh son of Kishan Chand from the spot. The rukka was the
earliest document prepared by the Investigating Officer at the spot.
The mention of recovery of election ID card of Kuldeep in the rukka
and seizure memo prepared at the spot, much before the arrest of
accused Kuldeep, rules out the possibility of planting of election I
card.
55. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused
Kuldeep did not render any satisfactorily explanation of the recovery
of his election ID card from the spot. He simply denied that the
recovery of election ID and just stated that the same was planted. If
election ID card was not recovered from the spot, it was incumbent
upon the accused to explain how the police got possession of his ID
card. Simply saying that the ID card was planted is not sufficient.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 502/2003 & CRL.A. 528/2004 Page 17 of 29
PRUTHI
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:55
Hence, in our view prosecution has been able to successfully prove the
recovery of election ID card of accused Kuldeep from the place of
occurrence.
56. The second circumstance relates to the recovery affected at the
instance of appellant Kuldeep. The evidence reveals that pursuant to
his disclosure statement Ex. PW-4/A, the investigating agency
recovered the country made pistol (Desi Katta), the scooter belonging
to the deceased, and blood stained clothes of Kuldeep.
57. PW-19 HC Ram Kumar deposed that on the night intervening
26th/27th March, 1999, he along with Constable Rambir (deceased) and
Constable Himmat Singh were on picket duty near Rajokri Oil Mill
from 12.00 midnight to 4.00 am. He further deposed that on the
instructions of the SHO, Constable Rambir went to take round on his
scooter towards Pahari, but did not return. Thereafter, the body of
Constable Rambir was recovered from the pit of old crusher, but his
scooter was not found there.
58. PW-16 Inspector SK Patil, the then Additional SHO, Police
Station, Vasant Kunj, deposed that on 28.03.1999, while he along with
SI Prahlad Singh, ASI VP Singh, HC Vijay Pal and other staff
members had gone to Rajokri Pahadi area in connection with the
investigation of this case, they received a secret information that
Kuldeep, who was absconding from his house, had gone to Rajindera
Park, Gurgaon at the house of Ishwar Singh with his luggage. Upon
receipt of this information, they reached at Gurgaon and tried to
ascertain the house of the Ishwar in Rajindera Park. However, the
house of Ishwar in kachi colony was found locked. He deposed that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 502/2003 & CRL.A. 528/2004 Page 18 of 29
PRUTHI
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:55
they kept a watch and at about 3/3:15 PM, they spotted three boys
coming towards the house of Ishwar. When they gave signals to them
for stopping, they tried to escape. They managed to apprehend
Kuldeep and Ajay but the third boy named Darshan managed to
escape. He further deposed that both the apprehended accused were
separately interrogated. Accused Kuldeep initially denied his
involvement but upon being shown his photo ID card, he admitted his
guilt. Both accused were arrested and were brought to Police Station
Vasant Kunj. Upon interrogation they gave separate disclosure
statements Ex. PW 4/A and Ex. PW 8/C. He further deposed that
pursuant to the disclosure statements of the accused, they again
reached at Rajindera Park, Gurgaon at the house of Ishwar and at that
time, Ishwar and his wife were present at the house. He deposed that
accused Kuldeep led the police party in a room of the house and got
recovered a country made pistol which was lying in a brass tokari
placed on the tand. He prepared the sketch of the pistol which is Ex.
PW 4/F, whereafter the pistol was sealed in a parcel with the seal of
MI and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW 4/G. PW-16 further
deposed that accused Kuldeep had also got recovered a scooter
without number plate belonging to deceased Rambir Singh. On the
front portion of the scooter ‘DP’ and ‘R.Sharma’ were written with
red paint. The scooter Ex. P7 was taken into possession vide memo
Ex. PW4/B.
59. PW-16 further deposed that accused Kuldeep had also got
recovered a white coloured shirt which was hanging with a wire in the
courtyard after wash. They spotted some washed blood stains on the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 502/2003 & CRL.A. 528/2004 Page 19 of 29
PRUTHI
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:55
shirt. The shirt was sealed in a parcel and taken into possession vide
memo Ex. PW 4/C.
60. PW-4 SI V.P. Singh and PW-8 SI Prahlad Yadav, who were
also the witnesses of recovery, supported the testimony of PW-16 and
their testimonies are more or less the same, as deposed by PW-16.
61. In cross-examination PW-16 stated that at the time of arrest of
accused persons, the Gurgaon Police was not informed. He denied the
suggestion that accused Kuldeep made no disclosure statement or that
no recovery was effected at his instance. PW-8 SI Prahlad Yadav in
his cross-examination stated that the disclosure statement of the
accused Kuldeep was recorded first followed by that of accused Ajay.
According to him, the disclosure statement of accused Ajay was
recorded half an hour after recording the disclosure statement of
accused Kuldeep. He admitted that the house of Ishwar was in
Haryana which is outside the jurisdiction of Delhi. He admitted that
they did not obtain any warrant to enter into or to make search from
the house. He stated that when they reached the house of accused
Ishwar, the house was lying open. He further stated that they had
requested some passersby, but none of them joined the investigation.
He confirms that Ishwar and his wife were present in the house. In
further cross-examination, PW-8 stated the accused Kuldeep in the
custody of the police, entered into the house of Ishwar. First of all, the
country made pistol was recovered from the house on the pointing out
of Kuldeep. Thereafter, accused Kuldeep got recovered the scooter
and his shirt hanging on a wire in the courtyard. Thereafter, accused
Ajay got recovered his clothes from the room of the house. He further
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 502/2003 & CRL.A. 528/2004 Page 20 of 29
PRUTHI
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:55
stated that 2-3 persons from the neighbourhood of the house were also
requested to join the investigation but they declined. He could not tell
their names. He stated that no notice was give to them upon their
refusal. In further cross-examination, he stated that scooter was parked
inside the room from which the country made pistol was recovered.
He denied the suggestion that the accused did not make any disclosure
statement or that no recovery was effected at his instance.
62. On perusal of the testimonies of the recovery witnesses, it is
evident that such testimonies are cogent and straightforward. Nothing
material has been pointed out from the cross-examination which may
affect their credibility.
63. Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872 stipulates that
confession made to police officer is inadmissible in evidence. Further,
Section 27 is an exception to Sections 25 and 26 and serves as a
proviso to both these sections. Section 27 of the Evidence Act
partially lifts the ban to the admissibility of the confession inasmuch
as the statement, whether confession or not, is allowed to be given in
evidence but the portion, only which distinctly relates to a discovery
of fact, is admissible. The discovery of the fact includes the object
found, the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the
accused as to its existence.
64. The evidence clearly proves that the recovery of the scooter
without number plate on which Delhi Police and R. Sharma was
written with red paint, the recovery of country-made pistol and the
shirt of Kuldeep was a direct consequence of information supplied by
the accused Kuldeep. When the accused himself leads the police to get
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 502/2003 & CRL.A. 528/2004 Page 21 of 29
PRUTHI
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:55
the scooter, country made pistol and the shirt recovered, requirement
of discovery stands satisfied. Absence of corroboration from
independent public witnesses is not fatal. In Appabhai And Anr. Vs.
State of Gujrat, AIR 1988 SC 696, the Supreme Court recognised the
practical difficulties in securing public witnesses and held that the
trustworthy official testimony is sufficient. In the present case, we find
that the testimonies of police witnesses with regard to recovery to be
consistent and straight forward. The prosecution has therefore, been
able to prove the aforesaid recovery at the instance of accused
Kuldeep.
65. The recovery of missing scooter of the deceased at the instance
of appellant Kuldeep is a significant circumstance. It establishes that
he not only participated in the crime, but also dealt with the property
of the deceased after the commission of the offence. The fact that the
scooter was removed from the scene of crime and later recovered at
the instance of appellant Kuldeep, clearly indicates his involvement
and an attempt to screen the offence.
66. The recovery of weapon of offence, that is, country made pistol
(Desi Katta) further strengthens the prosecution case. The same was
sent to FSL. The FSL Report Ex. PW-21/A proves that the country
made pistol was in working order and the empty cartridge (EC-1),
recovered from the spot, was fired through the country made pistol.
The recovery of the empty cartridge from the scene of crime and the
subsequent linkage with the recovered weapon thus establishes a
direct connection with the appellant and points out the manner in
which the offence was committed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 502/2003 & CRL.A. 528/2004 Page 22 of 29
PRUTHI
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:55
67. The shirt recovered at the instance of appellant Kuldeep was
sent to FSL. The FSL Result Ex. PW-18/B confirms the presence of
human blood on the shirt. However, it does not confirm the blood
group. The argument, that ‘No reaction’ or inclusive result with regard
to the blood group may weaken the prosecution case, cannot be
accepted. Rather, it was for the accused to explain the presence of
blood on the shirt recovered at his instance. Moreover, this is not the
sole circumstance against appellant Kuldeep, which may be regarded
as insufficient.
68. As per prosecution narrative, the motive for commission of
murder was that Constable Rambir was keeping surveillance on the
activities of the accused persons, which led to hostility and provided
reason for his murder. However, no evidence was led to prove the
same. The motive remained embedded only in the disclosure
statement of the accused, which is inadmissible in evidence. Motive is
an emotion which impels a person to commit the crime. It is an
important link in a case based on circumstantial evidence for proving
the guilt of the accused, and therefore, the absence of motive in certain
circumstances may weigh in favour of the accused. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Subhash Aggarwal Vs. State of NCT of
Delhi, 2025 INSC 499, after considering various decisions, observed
as under:-
“20. The declaration in the cited decisions
and the decisions relied on therein, is to the
effect that if the case is built solely upon
circumstantial evidence, absence of motive
will be a factor that weighs in favour of the
accused. Just as a strong motive does not bySignature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 502/2003 & CRL.A. 528/2004 Page 23 of 29
PRUTHI
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:55
itself result in a conviction, the absence of
motive on that sole ground cannot result in an
acquittal. When the eyewitnesses are not
convincing, a strong motive cannot by itself
result in conviction, likewise when the
circumstances are very convincing and
provide an unbroken chain leading only to the
conclusion of guilt of the accused and not to
any other hypothesis; the total absence of a
motive will be of no consequence.”
69. The argument that the alleged motive emerging from the
disclosure statements point more towards Gopal then Kuldeep is, in
any event, not decisive. The disclosure statements are not substantive
evidence of motive. The learned Trial Court did not convict Kuldeep
solely on motive but on the basis of cumulative effect of the other
circumstances proved on record against him. Motive though relevant,
is not a sine qua none in every case. Even if, the other accused may
have had a stronger motive against the deceased, that by itself does not
exonerate Kuldeep, particularly, in the light of other circumstances
proved against him.
70. The contention of the defence that the other co-accused persons
have been acquitted, does not weaken the case against the appellant
Kuldeep. The evidence against him is specific and distinct. The
recovery of his identity card at the spot and the recoveries affected at
his instance are circumstances which directly implicate him and
distinguish his case from that of the acquitted accused.
71. Upon joining the circumstances proved, we find that the
recovery of election ID card from the spot gave clue to the
investigating agency that accused Kuldeep was involved in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 502/2003 & CRL.A. 528/2004 Page 24 of 29
PRUTHI
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:55
commission of crime. Following the same, accused Kuldeep was
apprehended on the basis of secret information near the house of
accused Ishwar. He later, made a disclosure statement, which led to
the recovery of country made pistol, scooter of the deceased and his
shirt from the house of accused Ishwar. The country made pistol has
been connected with empty cartridge recovered from the spot soon
after the occurrence.
72. In our view, the aforesaid circumstances, particularly the
recovery of election ID card of Kuldeep from the scene from crime,
subsequent apprehension of the accused, recovery of the deceased’s
scooter, recovery of weapon of offence and the recovery of blood
stained shirt, when considered cumulatively, they form a complete and
consistent chain pointing only towards the guilt of accused Kuldeep.
There is no other reasonable hypothesis emerging from the record
consistent with his innocence.
73. Insofar as appellant Ishwar is concerned, his case stands on a
different footing. He was not convicted as a principal assailant but
under Section 212 IPC for harbouring the offenders. The charge
framed against him states that he harboured the co-accused after
having knowledge or reason to believe that they had committed the
murder of a police constable and kept in his house the scooter of the
deceased and blood stained clothes with an intention to screen them
from legal punishment.
74. The evidence, certainly, shows that these incriminating articles,
that is, scooter of the deceased, weapon of offence and blood stained
clothes were recovered from the house of accused Ishwar in his
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 502/2003 & CRL.A. 528/2004 Page 25 of 29
PRUTHI
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:55
presence. The recovery of such articles cannot be regarded as
accidental or innocent.
75. The deceased’s scooter is not an ordinary article of a neutral
character. Even though, the scooter was not bearing the number plate,
it bore identifying features including the Delhi Police logo and the
name of the deceased Constable. Such article could not have
innocently or accidently found their way into the appellant’s premises
without raising suspicion. The concealment of the scooter of the
victim and the recovery of blood stained clothes and the weapon of
offence in the house of accused Ishwar is a strong circumstance that
accused Ishwar intended the evidence of commission of offence to
disappear with a view to screen the offender from legal punishment.
Section 212 IPC reads as under:-
“212. Harbouring offender- Whenever an
offence has been committed, whoever harbours
or conceals a person whom he knows or has
reason to believe to be the offender, with the
intention of screening him from legal
punishment,
if a capital offence-shall, if the offence is
punishable with death, be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to five years, and shall also
be liable to fine;
if punishable with imprisonment for life, or
with imprisonment-and if the offence is
punishable with [imprisonment for life], or
with imprisonment which may extend to ten
years, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend
to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;
and if the offence is punishable with
imprisonment which may extend to one year,
and not to ten years, shall be punished with
imprisonment of the description provided forSignature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 502/2003 & CRL.A. 528/2004 Page 26 of 29
PRUTHI
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:55
the offence for a term which may extend to
one-fourth part of the longest term of
imprisonment provided for the offence, or with
fine, or with both.
[“Offence” in this section includes any act
committed at any place out of [India], which,
if committed in [India], would be punishable
under any of the following sections, namely,
302, 304, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397,
398, 399, 402, 435, 436, 449, 450, 457, 458,
459 and 460; and every such act shall, for the
purposes of this section, be deemed to be
punishable as if the accused person had been
guilty of it in [India].]
Exception.–This provision shall not extend to
any case in which the harbour or concealment
is by the husband or wife of the offender.”
76. Upon a plain reading of the Section, it is apparent that Section
212 of IPC applies to harbouring of a person who has actually
committed the offence. In order to bring home Section 212 IPC, the
prosecution must prove:-
(i) that the offence has been committed by the person
harboured,
(ii) that such offence is punishable with
a) death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment not
exceeding 10 years or imprisonment from 01 to 10 years,
(iii) that the accused has harboured or concealed the offender,
(iv) that the accused then knew him to be the offender or had
reason to believe him to be so, and
(v) that the accused thereby intended to screen such offender
from legal punishment.
77. There is no evidence in the present case to prove that accused
Ishwar had harboured accused Kuldeep. Accused persons were
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 502/2003 & CRL.A. 528/2004 Page 27 of 29
PRUTHI
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:55
admittedly not arrested from the house of accused Ishwar. No witness
from the neighbourhood or from the vicinity have been examined to
prove that accused Ishwar gave shelter to the accused persons in his
house on the fateful day. Thus, there is no evidence that accused
Ishwar had harboured the offenders in his house except in the referred
disclosure statement, which is inadmissible in evidence. The
ingredients of Section 212 IPC are, therefore, not attracted. However,
it is evident that accused Ishwar had facilitated the co-accused persons
to conceal the scooter of the victim, the blood stained clothes and the
weapon of offence in his house, which may attract Section 201 IPC
which provides punishment for causing disappearance of evidence of
offence to screen the offender. But, no such charge under Section 201
IPC was framed against accused Ishwar, and therefore, he cannot be
convicted for the offence under Section 201 IPC, which provides for
higher punishment than the one prescribed in Section 212 IPC.
Conclusion:
78. The chain of circumstances proved on record, leads to an
irresistible conclusion that appellant/accused Kuldeep alone
committed the murder of Constable Rambir Singh. We find no
infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction of appellant
Kuldeep @ Kallu under Sections 302/201 IPC. The sentence imposed
is proportionate and commensurate with the offences committed. We,
therefore, find no ground to interfere with the Trial Court judgment
insofar as appellant Kuldeep @ Kallu is concerned, and hence, Crl. A.
528/2004 is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence
awarded by the Trial Court against appellant Kuldeep @ Kallu is
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 502/2003 & CRL.A. 528/2004 Page 28 of 29
PRUTHI
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:55
hereby affirmed.
79. So far as accused Ishwar is concerned, Crl. A. 502/2003 is
allowed and the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 05th
April 2003, thereby, convicting him under Section 212 IPC and the
Order on Sentence dated 19th April, 2003 is set aside.
80. Appellant Kuldeep @ Kallu is directed to surrender before the
Jail Superintendent within a week from today to serve the remaining
sentence. In the event of failure to surrender, appropriate steps shall be
taken by the State/Trial Court to ensure that the appellant Kuldeep @
Kallu is taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence.
81. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court and the
concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary action.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
May 26th, 2026/RM/AK
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 502/2003 & CRL.A. 528/2004 Page 29 of 29
PRUTHI
Signing Date:26.05.2026
16:55
[ad_1]
Source link
