RAJ KUMAR @ BHEEMA VERSUS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI, 2025

The accused, Raj Kumar @ Bheema, faced allegations of having murdered an elderly man during a robbery.

The prosecution’s case hinged on a sole eyewitness – Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18), an elderly witness who was injured during the robbery.

The dock identification of the accused occurred about eight and a half years after the crime.

The eyewitness admitted weak distance vision and was not wearing spectacles during her video conference deposition.

At TIP, credibility was undermined because witness had already seen accused’s photographs prior to identification parade.

Substantial improvements and material contradictions were visible in the witness’s later testimony.

Whether a sole eyewitness’s delayed and contradictory identification can sustain a conviction for murder.

Whether a refusal to participate in TIP draws an adverse inference when the TIP itself is fundamentally flawed.

Whether it is safe to convict where there are material improvements and contradictions in testimony and no physical evidence links the accused.

The ruling reinforces the principle that conviction must rest on sterling quality testimony, especially in capital offences.

It clarifies that identification evidence is critical, and procedural lapses or tainted TIPs fatally undermine prosecution.

The judgment underscores the right to fair trial and fair confrontation — courts must ensure identification processes are protected and free from contamination.

The bench directed that when witnesses are examined virtually, their prior statements must be electronically transmitted for fairness under Section 145 Evidence Act.