In a dramatic turn during Monday’s hearing, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of Raj Kumar @ Bheema, who had spent nearly 15 and a half years behind bars for the 2008 murder of an elderly Delhi resident. The bench sharply questioned the investigation, noting troubling gaps in identification procedures and what one judge described as “serious miscarriage of justice.” The courtroom atmosphere grew tense at several moments as the bench revisited evidence that had remained unquestioned for years.
Background
The case dates back to the intervening night of November 2–3, 2008, when five intruders allegedly entered the Sukhdev Vihar home of Madan Mohan Gulati and his wife, Indra Prabha Gulati. Mr. Gulati was killed, and his wife suffered multiple stab injuries. Police arrested Raj Kumar weeks later, claiming he matched the description given by the injured woman.
Read also: Supreme Court signals fresh push for pending 2025 guidelines, adjourns plea by disabled students
Trial proceedings stretched over a decade. The trial court acquitted all co-accused but convicted Raj Kumar for murder under Section 302 IPC, relying mainly on the injured survivor’s identification through video conferencing in 2017-eight and a half years after the incident. The Delhi High Court upheld that conviction, leaving the Supreme Court as the final recourse.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court bench, hearing the appeal almost 17 years after the incident, noted that the entire prosecution case rested on three pillars: the survivor’s identification, the alleged refusal to participate in a Test Identification Parade (TIP), and recoveries made at the accused’s instance.
But each of these pillars, the bench found, was “shaky.”
Read also: Supreme Court Slams Madhya Pradesh High Court for 'Shocking' Habeas Corpus Bail Order, Sets Aside
The Court emphasised that the survivor, who was 73 at the time of the incident and had weak eyesight, testified through video conferencing from abroad many years later-without spectacles. “The bench observed, ‘The possibility of a reliable identification after eight-plus years, that too virtually, appears extremely doubtful.’”
A major concern was the TIP. Records showed no proof that the witness ever actually attended the identification proceedings. Worse, the prosecution failed to show that Raj Kumar’s face was kept “baparda” (covered) after arrest, raising the possibility that the witness had seen him beforehand.
Calling this a “serious procedural lapse," the Court issued a broader direction for all future video-based witness examinations: trial courts must ensure that any previous written statements intended for contradiction are electronically provided to the witness so cross-examination can be fair and effective.
On recoveries, the bench noted that the blood-stained pant recovered allegedly at Raj Kumar’s instance did not match the deceased’s blood group. The weapon (a chheni) was never identified by the survivor in court. And the son, who had identified stolen items, was never examined during trial.
“These gaps cannot be lightly brushed aside,” the Court remarked, pointing out that no reliable evidence remained once the identification and recoveries were discredited.
Decision
After reviewing the entire record, the bench held that the conviction could not be sustained. “The impugned judgments do not stand to scrutiny,” the Court declared.
The Supreme Court set aside the trial court’s conviction and the High Court’s affirmation, acquitting Raj Kumar of all charges.
He was ordered to be released immediately, having already spent over 15 years in custody.
Case Title: Raj Kumar @ Bheema vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2025 Supreme Court – Acquittal in 2008 Sukhdev Vihar Murder Case)
Case Type: Criminal Appeal (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 697 of 2024)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Appellant: Raj Kumar @ Bheema
Respondent: State of NCT of Delhi
Judgment Date: 17 November 2025