Revision petition challenging framing of charges for murder, conspiracy, destruction of evidence and Arms Act offence arising from a hotel-related killing. The Court held circumstantial material disclosed grave suspicion against both petitioners and declined to interfere with the charge-framing order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 19.12.2025 Judgment pronounced on : 05.01.2026
RAUSHAN KUMAR MISHRA & ANR. .....Petitioners
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO
..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sauraj Yadav, Adv. for P1 (through VC) Mr. Manoj K. Srivastava, Adv. for P2 (through VC) For the Respondent : Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State Inspector Kishore Kumar, PS- V. K. (North)
CORAM HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY KUMAR Signing Da te:0 5.01.2026 20:16:28
Page 1 of 14
CRL.REV.P. 884/2023
Courts, New Delhi in the case arising out of FIR No.412/2021, registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj North.
3.1. On 01.11.2021, a PCR call was received regarding gun shot at Mahipalpur, Delhi. The caller informed that his brother had been shot and he was taking his brother to the hospital. On enquiry, it was found that the victim was declared brought dead at the hospital. At the spot, blood and one empty cartridge as well as one fired bullet were found on the road. After postmortem, cause of death was opined as Craniocerebral damage as a result of Antemortem injury to head produced by projectile of a firearm.
3.2. The FIR was registered on the same day for offences under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 on the statement of the victim’s brother. The complainant alleged that the victim had leased out his hotel to Petitioner No.1, however, he was not paying rent and also not paying the electricity bill of the hotel, due to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY KUMAR Signing Da te:0 5.01.2026 20:16:28
Page 2 of 14
CRL.REV.P. 884/2023
which, the victim had asked Petitioner No.1 to vacate the property. The complainant suspected that Petitioner No.1 along with his associates were involved in the murder of the victim.
3.3. On 03.11.2021, Petitioner No.1 surrendered in the police station, and during interrogation, he confessed his role in the offence and further disclosed that he had decided to kill the victim as he was pressuring for payment of rent and electricity bill. He further disclosed that he had conspired with one Dilshad, who had stayed at the hostel on an earlier occasion, and asked him to arrange some persons for committing the murder of the victim. In pursuance of the conspiracy, Dilshad arranged a meeting between Petitioner No.1 and his associates– Golu (relative of Petitioner No.2), Guddu, Aveenash and two other persons in the month of September, 2021, whereafter, the victim was allegedly murdered on the instructions of Petitioner No.1. He further disclosed that it was decided that the accused Golu would come with his companions in a Maruti Swift car of Petitioner No.2.
3.4. During investigation, the workers of the hotel (that is, Mohd. Kasir and Prince) were examined and they stated that in September, 2021, one Sujeet, Golu, Guddu, Aveenash and Dilshad had stayed in the hotel with reference of Petitioner No.1, who had instructed the staff to take care of all their needs. Witness Mohd. Kasir identified most of the accused persons. He stated that on the date of the incident, a car had arrived at the hotel in which 5 boys were sitting. On reaching the car, the said witness saw that the accused Guddu was in the drivers
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY KUMAR Signing Da te:0 5.01.2026 20:16:28
Page 3 of 14
CRL.REV.P. 884/2023
seat and the accused Golu was on the passenger seat, who had shot the victim by putting a pistol to his head. He further stated that the accused Golu had an argument with the victim and told him that Petitioner No.1 was his man. The accused also asked the victim as to how he dared to take back the hotel. While running, the accused Golu and his companions were allegedly saying that the one who takes back the hotel from Petitioner No.1 would have the same fate.
3.5. On 07.11.2021, Petitioner No.2 was arrested and the car used in the commission of the offence was recovered at his instance. It was found that the car was registered in the name of Petitioner No.2’s wife and the accused persons had allegedly absconded in the car after commission of the offence. Allegedly, Petitioner No.2 had removed the original number plate of the car and replaced it with the previous number plate of the same car as a commercial vehicle. Further, Petitioner No.2 had parked the car at Nangloi Railway Station Parking so that the same could not be recovered.
3.6. Chargesheet was filed against Petitioner No.1 for the offences under Sections 302/34/201/120B of the IPC and against Petitioner No.2 for the offences under Sections 482/201 of the IPC.
3.7. By the impugned order, after considering the material on record including the statements of the victim’s relatives and eye witnesses, the learned ASJ found that there was sufficient material on record to frame charge for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC read with Sections 120B/201 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY KUMAR Signing Da te:0 5.01.2026 20:16:28
Page 4 of 14
CRL.REV.P. 884/2023
against Petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.2 was charged for the offences under Sections 482 and 201 of the IPC as well.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY KUMAR Signing Da te:0 5.01.2026 20:16:28
Page 5 of 14
CRL.REV.P. 884/2023
infirmity in the impugned order. He submitted that Petitioner No.1 is the main accused as per the prosecution the motive for commission of the offence was ascribed to him and he had engaged the other accused persons for commission of the offence.
ANALYSIS
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY KUMAR Signing Da te:0 5.01.2026 20:16:28
Page 6 of 14
CRL.REV.P. 884/2023
“10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.
xxx
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. ”
(emphasis supplied)
“21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY KUMAR Signing Da te:0 5.01.2026 20:16:28
Page 7 of 14
CRL.REV.P. 884/2023
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.”
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY KUMAR Signing Da te:0 5.01.2026 20:16:28
Page 8 of 14
CRL.REV.P. 884/2023
“7. It is trite law that application of judicial mind being necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for proceeding with trial and it would not be necessary to dwell into the pros and cons of the matter by examining the defence of the accused when an application for discharge is filed. At that stage, the trial judge has to merely examine the evidence placed by the prosecution in order to determine whether or not the grounds are sufficient to proceed against the accused on basis of charge sheet material. The nature of the evidence recorded or collected by the investigating agency or the documents produced in which prima facie it reveals that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused, so as to frame a charge would suffice and such material would be taken into account for the purposes of framing the charge. If there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused necessarily, the accused would be discharged, but if the court is of the opinion, after such consideration of the material there are grounds for presuming that accused has committed the offence which is triable, then necessarily charge has to be framed.
xxx
12. The primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test of existence of a prima-facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of materials on record need not be gone into. This Court by referring to its earlier decisions in the State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659 and the State of MP v. Mohan Lal Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338 has held the nature of evaluation to be made by the court at the stage of framing of the charge is to test the existence of prima-facie case. It is also held at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to form a presumptive opinion to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and it is not expected to go deep into probative value of the material on record and to check whether the material on record would certainly lead to conviction at the conclusion of trial.”
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY KUMAR Signing Da te:0 5.01.2026 20:16:28
Page 9 of 14
CRL.REV.P. 884/2023
whether, given the material placed before it, there is grave suspicion against the accused which is not properly explained. Though, for the purpose of conviction, the same must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY KUMAR Signing Da te:0 5.01.2026 20:16:28
Page 10 of 14
CRL.REV.P. 884/2023
in fleeing after shooting the victim. Mere absence of the petitioners presence at the spot, prima facie , is not sufficient to negate the possibility of the petitioners’ complicity in the respective offences.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY KUMAR Signing Da te:0 5.01.2026 20:16:28
Page 11 of 14
CRL.REV.P. 884/2023
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY KUMAR Signing Da te:0 5.01.2026 20:16:28
Page 12 of 14
CRL.REV.P. 884/2023
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY KUMAR Signing Da te:0 5.01.2026 20:16:28
Page 13 of 14
CRL.REV.P. 884/2023
learned ASJ has not made any specific observations in relations to Petitioner No.2 in the impugned order. Even so, while Petitioner No.2 has denied any knowledge of the use of car in commission of the offence and asserted that the car is owned by his wife, however, prima facie , the recovery of the vehicle at his instance with a different number plate (old number plate of the car which was changed on 14.01.2021) in the parking lot of a railway station casts strong suspicion against Petitioner No.2 that he used a false property mark and intended to cause disappearance of evidence of offence, which warrants framing of charges under Sections 201 and 482 of the IPC. The effect of non-joinder of independent witnesses to the seizure as well as absence of any eye witness in this respect can only be tested during the course of trial and the recovery cannot be negated at this juncture.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
JANUARY 5, 2026 “SS”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY KUMAR Signing Da te:0 5.01.2026 20:16:28
Page 14 of 14
CRL.REV.P. 884/2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revisional court should interfere with the order framing murder and conspiracy charges against Petitioner No.1 despite absence of direct evidence.
Whether recovery of the vehicle at Petitioner No.2's instance with a changed number plate justified framing charges under Sections 201 and 482 IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh ChanderRelied on¶10
(2012) 9 SCC 460 · Who else cites this
Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar SamalRelied on¶11
(1979) 3 SCC 4 · Who else cites this
Sajjan Kumar v. CBIRelied on¶12
(2010) 9 SCC 368 · Who else cites this
State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh RaoRelied on¶13
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 3 enactments
Raushan Kumar Mishra
Anr.
The State of NCT of Delhi through SHO
Amit Mahajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
