Rashid @ Babban Vs State of Nc Tof Delhi — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Delhi HC (2026)

Rashid @ Babban Vs State of Nc Tof Delhi — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned orders dated 30.10.2023 and 21.03.2024 set aside; appellant acquitted of the charge; to be released from jail forthwith if not wanted in any other case; personal bond and surety discharged; pending application disposed of as infructuous.

Issue for consideration

Whether the prosecution proved the presence of the accused with the deceased at the time of, or immediately prior to, the incident. +5 more

Court's answer

PW-21/Chand Mohd.'s claim to have been at his shop at the time of the afternoon incident is not corroborated — per his brother PW-9/Salim he sold biryani on the rehri only in the morning and sat at the fish shop in the evening, and none of PW-1/Shamim, PW-2/Mukhtar or PW-34/ASI Sahdev, who reached the spot immediately after the incident, state that he was present.

Ratio / Principle

On the testimony of a sole witness, conviction can be sustained provided the witness is wholly reliable and his testimony is of stellar quality; the Court must carefully scrutinise such evidence and be satisfied that it is free from any suspicion and is intrinsically reliable.

Key takeaways

The testimony of PW-21/Chand Mohd. suffers from material contradictions concerning his very presence at the crime scene and his actions in the aftermath of the incident; the learned Trial Court erred in placing reliance on his testimony without adequately examining these material flaws.ratio¶94
PW-21/Chand Mohd.'s post-incident conduct was totally unnatural — instead of rushing his bleeding nephew to hospital he claimed to have run to inform PW-9/Salim — and his story of informing PW-9/Salim is not supported by PW-9/Salim, PW-12/Yamin or PW-10/Zuhaib, who stated it was PW-10/Zuhaib who gave the information.ratio¶90

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Navin Chawla & Ravinder Dudeja, JJ.), by judgment pronounced on 12.03.2026, allows CRL.A. 459/2024 and acquits Rashid@Babban of the S.302 IPC murder of Junaid (incident 24.03.2017; FIR No. 109/2017, PS Gandhi Nagar), setting aside the Trial Court's conviction order dated 30.10.2023 and Order on Sentence dated 21.03.2024 (rigorous imprisonment for life plus Rs.1,000/- fine). The conviction rested almost wholly on PW-21/Chand Mohd., uncle of the deceased and sole supporting eye-witness; the Court found his testimony afflicted by material contradictions: per PW-9/Salim he sold biryani on a rehri only in the morning and sat at the fish shop in the evening, so his claimed afternoon presence was doubtful; PW-1/Shamim, PW-2/Mukhtar and PW-34/ASI Sahdev, who reached the spot immediately after the incident, never saw him there; and instead of rushing his bleeding nephew to hospital he claimed to run and inform PW-9/Salim - conduct the Court called totally unnatural, and contradicted by PW-9/Salim, PW-12/Yamin and PW-10/Zuhaib, who said it was PW-10/Zuhaib who brought the news. PW-5/Nasim turned hostile; the last-scene witnesses PW-6/Amir and PW-7/Swalin retracted, stating the appellant and deceased were seen cracking jokes and not quarrelling; PW-1/Shamim turned hostile on the knife recovery. The first-information Form (Ex. PW-19/A) naming the appellant rested on hear-say through non-eye-witnesses and could not corroborate. CCTV footage was produced without a certificate under S.65-B IEA and was legally inadmissible. Recovery of the knife was held highly doubtful: arrest from the appellant's house at about 11:53 p.m. against an incident at 02:30 p.m., recovery the same day from the public shop of PW-1/Shamim, no fingerprints lifted, and no witness seeing the appellant pick up or throw back the knife. Relying on State of Rajasthan v. Bhola Singh, AIR 1994 SC 542 (a sole witness must be wholly reliable and of stellar quality), the Court held the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, set aside both impugned orders, acquitted the appellant, directed his release forthwith if not wanted in any other case, and discharged his personal bond and surety; the pending application was disposed of as infructuous.

Issues for consideration

6 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the prosecution proved the presence of the accused with the deceased at the time of, or immediately prior to, the incident.¶34
The court held
PW-21/Chand Mohd.'s claim to have been at his shop at the time of the afternoon incident is not corroborated — per his brother PW-9/Salim he sold biryani on the rehri only in the morning and sat at the fish shop in the evening, and none of PW-1/Shamim, PW-2/Mukhtar or PW-34/ASI Sahdev, who reached the spot immediately after the incident, state that he was present.ratio¶89
2.
Whether the accused was identified and the manner of commission proved, viz. the act of intentional stabbing of the deceased.¶35
The court held
PW-5/Nasim turned hostile, and the last-scene witnesses PW-6/Amir and PW-7/Swalin retracted their earlier stands, maintaining that they saw no quarrel and that the deceased and the appellant were cutting jokes and went towards their respective houses; they do not support the prosecution's case of a fight leading to the stabbing.ratio¶96
3.
Whether the prosecution proved use of the alleged weapon of offence, the knife (Ex.PW21/Article 01), by the accused.¶36
The court held
The CCTV footage allegedly showing the deceased and the appellant together was produced by the prosecution without a certificate under Section 65-B of the IEA and was therefore legally inadmissible.ratio¶102
4.
Whether the weapon of offence was recovered at the behest of the accused.¶37
The court held
The recovery of the knife at the instance of and on the disclosure of the appellant is highly doubtful: he was arrested from his own house at about 11:53 p.m. though the incident occurred at 02:30 p.m.; the recovery was shown the same day from the public shop of PW-1/Shamim; PW-1/Shamim did not support the prosecution; no fingerprints were lifted from the knife; and no witness, including PW-1/Shamim, saw the appellant picking up the knife from the rehri or throwing it back.ratio¶109
5.
Whether the cause of death was commensurate with the manner of the incident alleged by the prosecution.¶38
6.
Whether the testimony of PW-21/Chand Mohd., the sole supporting eye-witness, was wholly reliable and of sufficient quality to sustain the conviction, given the contradictions highlighted by the appellant's counsel.¶94
The court held
On the testimony of a sole witness, conviction can be sustained provided the witness is wholly reliable and his testimony is of stellar quality; the Court must carefully scrutinise such evidence and be satisfied that it is free from any suspicion and is intrinsically reliable.ratio¶83