Disposed¶38

Satnam Kaur v. the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC8 Apr 2026CRL.A./491/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.A. 491/2018 (Delhi HC, 08.04.2026, Prathiba M. Singh & Madhu Jain JJ.): appeal by mother of deceased against 26.12.2016 acquittal (ASJ, Central District, Tis Hazari) of Gurnam Singh & Harpreet Singh under S. 302/34 IPC for murder of Malvinder Singh @ Kaka (FIR 208/2011, PS Subzi Mandi; incident 22/23.10.2011, Roshnara Road; 25 prosecution witnesses; prints not lifted from pistol/knife). Appeal abated — appellant Satnam Kaur died, accused Gurnam Singh died, sister of deceased declined to press, State filed no appeal despite 20.07.2017 direction; appeal and pending applications disposed; acquittal untouched.

What did the court decide?

Since no one on behalf of the deceased person is available to press the present appeal and the State has not preferred an appeal, the present appeal stands abated. ¶34

Satnam Kaur Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~49

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.A. 491/2018

¶4

SATNAM KAUR .....Appellant

¶5

Through: None. versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ashneet Singh, APP. Mr. Mukesh Kalia, Mr. Shivam Sharma & Mr. Gaurav Bishnoi, Advs. for R-3.

¶6

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

% 08.04.2026

¶9

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶10

The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant seeking setting aside of the impugned judgment dated 26th December, 2016, passed by the ld. ASJ, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. Vide this appeal, the Appellant seeks for the conviction of Respondent No. 2 & 3 u/s 302/34, IPC, in FIR No. 208/2011, registered at PS Subzi Mandi.

¶11

This appeal arises out of an incident that occurred on the intervening night of 22^nd / 23^rd October, 2011 on the First Floor of 3979/80, Roshnara Road, Delhi.

¶12

The allegation in the case was that Respondent No. 2– Mr. Gurnam Singh and Respondent No. 3– his son, with a common intention, had committed the murder of one Mr. Malvinder Singh @ Kaka who was the brother-in-law (sister’s husband) of Respondent No. 3– Harpreet Singh and the son-in-law of Respondent No. 2– Mr. Gurnam Singh.

¶13

The deceased – Mr. Malvinder Singh was married to Ms. Ravinder

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

CRL.A. 491/2018

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 11:53:36

¶17

Kaur, the daughter of Mr. Gurnam Singh on 1^st June, 2008.

¶18

Upon the incident having been recorded, FIR No. 208/2011 was registered at PS Subzi Mandi. and thereafter, the case was investigated and a charge-sheet was filed before the ld. Trial Court. 7. There were certain recoveries, including that of a pistol and a knife. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, and charges were framed against Respondent No. 2 & 3 vide order on charge dated 4th April, 2012, under Section 302/34 IPC. Both the accused had pleaded not guilty.

¶19

The Court then proceeded with the trial of the case and the prosecution had examined 25 witnesses. The statement of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. 9. The ld. Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to lead sufficient evidence to show that the accused persons were guilty. In fact, fingerprints were not lifted from the pistol or the knife and the ld. Trial Court gave benefit of doubt to both the accused persons.

¶20

Accordingly, on 26th December, 2016, the acquittal order was passed. The relevant portions of the same are set out below:

¶21

“ Conclusion

¶22

14. In view of the above discussion, court finds that prosecution has not been able to bring home guilt to any of the two accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Extending benefit of doubt, this court hereby orders for acquittal of each accused in this case. Case property be disposed of in accordance with law on expiry of period of Appeal/Revision, if none is preferred or subject to decision thereof. File be consigned to Record Room.”

Page 2 of 4

CRL.A. 491/2018

The present appeal was then preferred against the acquittal by Mrs. Satnam Kaur, the mother of the deceased.

¶27

On 20^th July, 2017, the Court ordered that the ld. APP would obtain instructions as to whether the State is preferring any appeal in this matter or not.

¶28

On 31^st August, 2017, notice was issued in this appeal and the delay was also condoned. The matter has remained pending since then.

¶29

The appeal was admitted on 26^th April, 2018 and both, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were admitted to bail on the said date.

¶30

In the meantime, the Appellant had passed away and the verification of the death of the Appellant was to be conducted. The same now stands verified. The father of the deceased had also passed away prior to the filing of the appeal itself.

¶31

In addition, Respondent No. 2– Mr. Gurnam Singh, i.e., one of the accused persons has also passed away.

¶32

Thus, both the parents of the deceased persons, as also one of the accused persons have passed away. 18. The daughter of the Appellant i.e., the sister of the deceased is alive and she has verified the demise of both her parents. However, she has not come forward to press the present appeal.

¶33

It is also stated that the State has not preferred an appeal against the impugned judgment dated 26th December, 2016, despite the Court having directed on 20^th July 2017, for specific instructions to be obtained.

¶34

Since no one on behalf of the deceased person is now available to press the present appeal and the State has not preferred an appeal, in the opinion of this Court, the present appeal stands abated.

Page 3 of 4

CRL.A. 491/2018

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

¶39

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

¶40

MADHU JAIN, J.

¶41

APRIL 8, 2026 Rahul/ss

¶42

Page 4 of 4

¶43

CRL.A. 491/2018

¶44

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Acquittal of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (accused) by the learned ASJ, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, extending benefit of doubt after finding the prosecution had failed to lead sufficient evidence, on charges under Section 302/34 IPC.¶10
ld. ASJ, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi · 26th December, 2016
Prior proceeding
Incident occurred on the intervening night of 22nd/23rd October, 2011 on the First Floor of 3979/80, Roshnara Road, Delhi.¶11
Prior proceeding
FIR No. 208/2011 registered at PS Subzi Mandi upon the incident being recorded.¶18
Prior proceeding
Case investigated and charge-sheet filed before the learned Trial Court.¶18
Prior proceeding
Certain recoveries made during investigation, including a pistol and a knife.¶18
Prior proceeding
Case committed to Sessions Court, Central District, Tis Hazari; charges framed against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 vide order on charge dated 4th April, 2012 under Section 302/34 IPC; both accused pleaded not guilty.¶18
Prior proceeding
Trial conducted; prosecution examined 25 witnesses; statements of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.¶19
Prior proceeding
Trial court concluded prosecution failed to lead sufficient evidence; fingerprints were not lifted from the pistol or knife; benefit of doubt given to both accused.¶19
Prior proceeding
Conclusion of the impugned trial court judgment: acquittal of each accused, extending benefit of doubt.¶22
Prior proceeding
Present appeal against the acquittal preferred by Mrs. Satnam Kaur, mother of the deceased.¶26
Prior proceeding
On 20th July, 2017, Court directed the ld. APP to obtain instructions on whether the State was preferring any appeal.¶27
Prior proceeding
On 31st August, 2017, notice issued in the appeal and delay condoned; matter pending thereafter.¶28
Prior proceeding
Appeal admitted on 26th April, 2018; Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 admitted to bail on that date.¶29
Prior proceeding
Appellant passed away during pendency; verification of her death conducted and now stands verified.¶30
Prior proceeding
Father of the deceased had passed away prior to the filing of the appeal itself.¶30
Prior proceeding
Respondent No. 2, Mr. Gurnam Singh, one of the accused, also passed away.¶31
Prior proceeding
Daughter of the Appellant (sister of the deceased) is alive and verified the demise of both her parents, but did not come forward to press the appeal.¶32
Prior proceeding
State did not prefer an appeal against the impugned judgment despite the Court's 20th July 2017 direction to obtain specific instructions.¶33

Satnam Kaur v. the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satnam Kaur v. the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State (Nct of Delhi) Vs Harish & Anr.

State ( Govt of NCT of Delhi) Vs Mukesh & Anr.

Saroj (Widow of Khemchand) Vs State of NCT of Delhi through Its Chief Secretary & Ors.

Sanjay Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Pradeep Vs the State

The State ( NCT of Delhi) Vs Ranjit & Ors.