Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal of Accused in Murder Case Due to Contradictory Evidence.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court dismissed the State’s appeal challenging the acquittal of Ravinder @ Kuku and Deepak @ Kala in a murder case under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The Trial Court had acquitted the accused after finding the testimony of the sole eye-witness, the mother of the deceased, unreliable, and highlighting multiple procedural lapses and contradictions in prosecution evidence. The High Court held that the acquittal was justified and that there was no manifest illegality or perversity in the Trial Court’s findings to warrant interference.

Background:

1. On 14.05.2006, the police received information that a person had been shot in front of Parshu Ram Dharamshala, Shiv Ram Park, Nangloi, Delhi. The victim, Sunil, was taken to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, where he later died.
2. PW-3 Ved Mati, mother of Sunil, claimed to be the sole eye-witness. She alleged that accused Ravinder @ Kuku and Deepak @ Kala, along with a third accused, shot her son.
3. Investigation included recovery of a pistol from Ravinder @ Kuku and seizure of a Maruti car used during the incident. The third accused, Bhura @ Sahid, was later arrested but found to be a juvenile.
4. The prosecution examined 32 witnesses, including Ved Mati (PW-3), neighbor Zahir Ahmed (PW-1), and deceased’s brother-in-law Amrish Kumar (PW-10). The defense denied all charges and highlighted discrepancies in witness statements.

Court’s Observations:

1. The Court emphasized that the outcome relied heavily on the credibility of PW-3 Ved Mati. Her testimony was inconsistent with other evidence, including timing of her statements, transportation of the injured, and discrepancies regarding the identities of the assailants.
2. The postmortem report and crime scene evidence were incomplete: no bullet or cartridge case was recovered, and photographs were of poor quality. Spot inspection reports were missing, and witnesses like the victim’s wife Sushma were not examined.
3. Testimonies of PW-1 and PW-10 were inconsistent with PW-3’s account, casting doubt on prosecution’s narrative.
4. Procedural lapses, including lack of PCR official testimony and incomplete site documentation, further weakened the case.
5. The High Court noted that appellate interference in acquittals is limited and can only be invoked in cases of manifest illegality or perversity, which was not present here.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

1. Sections 302/34, Indian Penal Code – Punishment for murder and common intention.
2. Section 25, Arms Act – Illegal possession of firearms.
3. Section 82/83, Criminal Procedure Code – Proceedings against absconding accused.
4. Principle of benefit of doubt in criminal trials.

Decision:

1. The High Court upheld the acquittal of Ravinder @ Kuku and Deepak @ Kala.
2. The State’s appeal was dismissed.

Citation: 2025:DEL:CRL.A.960/2015

Case: State v. Ravinder @ Kuku & Anr.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Chaudhary & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Jain

Date of Decision: 02 December 2025

Criminal Appeal No.: CRL.A. 960/2015