LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Rajender @ Rajesh @ Raju v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Criminal Appeal · 2019 INSC 1191Decided 24 Oct 2019
Criminal Appeal No. 1889 of 2010
Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar · Justice Ajay Rastogi

Background

Atma Ram Gupta, a Delhi Municipal Corporation Councillor, went missing in August 2002 after leaving home to visit the house of fellow Councillor Sharda Jain before attending a political rally; his body was later recovered from a canal. Nine people were charge-sheeted, and the trial court convicted several of them, including Sharda Jain, Raj Kumar and Rajender, for murder, criminal conspiracy, and destruction of evidence. The Delhi High Court affirmed the convictions, and three separate appeals by Sharda Jain, Rajender, and Raj Kumar reached the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court examined the circumstantial evidence against each appellant separately. It found that Rajender had driven the car in which the deceased was last seen, that soil on the car's tyres forensically matched the crime scene, and that he offered no explanation for his movements: evidence sufficient to confirm his conviction for murder and destruction of evidence. Sharda Jain's conviction was similarly affirmed based on corroborated evidence. However, the Court held that the charge of criminal conspiracy was not properly established against either Sharda Jain or Rajender, since the High Court had not given adequate reasoning for it, though their actions still attracted liability under the "common intention" provision (Section 34 IPC) instead. Raj Kumar's appeal was allowed and he was acquitted entirely, as the evidence connecting him to the crime was found inadequate. Sharda Jain's and Rajender's bail bonds were cancelled and they were ordered back into custody to serve their sentences.

Lesson Learnt

A conviction for an underlying offence like murder can survive even if a separate charge like criminal conspiracy fails for lack of reasoned proof: courts assess each charge and each co-accused's culpability independently rather than as a package deal; also, circumstantial evidence such as forensic soil-matching can be decisive even without eyewitnesses.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case