In a strong message against false testimonies, the Supreme Court has directed a Delhi trial court to take suo motu action against any witness found to have lied during the ongoing Shahdara murder trial. The direction came while hearing a plea challenging the bail granted to one of the accused, Raj Sharma, in the 2019 murder of Vijendra Singh.
A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice N.V. Anjaria issued the order, underscoring the importance of truthful witness statements in ensuring fair justice. The case was adjourned to December 11 for further hearing.
Background
The case traces back to April 2019, when Vijendra Singh was allegedly murdered in Shahdara, Delhi. His son, Rahul Sharma, approached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court granted bail to one of the accused, Raj Sharma.
Rahul alleged that several witnesses turned hostile after the other accused secured bail, which, he claimed, was a direct result of intimidation and threats. Police complaints have reportedly been filed alleging harassment and pressure tactics by the accused.
Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the integrity of the trial was being compromised. “When witnesses are forced to retract, the truth suffers. This must not be allowed to happen,” he submitted before the bench.
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta, representing the respondent, maintained that Raj Sharma had already spent six years in custody and that his name was missing from the victim’s dying declaration — a major factor that led the High Court to grant him bail.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, the Supreme Court took note of the submissions made by the Delhi Police and the State counsel. It was informed that all private witnesses had been examined, leaving only official witnesses - two doctors and forensic experts - yet to testify.
The bench seemed visibly concerned about the possibility of manipulation in witness testimonies. “If a witness is found taking sides or deviating from the truth, the trial court must act immediately,” Justice Amanullah observed, adding that the credibility of the justice system rests heavily on honest testimony.
The Court further directed that the remaining witnesses be examined under police protection to ensure that “no one is influenced or intimidated in any manner.”
A legal observer present in the courtroom described the atmosphere as “intense yet deliberate,” as the bench repeatedly emphasized that false testimony is not a minor lapse but a direct attack on justice delivery.
Decision
In its interim order, the Supreme Court instructed the trial court to take suo motu cognizance if any witness is found to have given untruthful statements during the trial. Such individuals, the bench said, should face legal action in their personal capacity.
“It is made clear that if the trial court finds any witness to have taken sides without being truthful, it shall initiate action against them,” the order read.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Adjourns Actress Lakshmi R Menon’s Plea to Quash FIR in Alleged Abduction and Assault Case till November 7
By doing so, the apex court has sent a clear signal- perjury will not be tolerated, and witnesses who distort facts in courtrooms must face the consequences.
The matter will next be heard on December 11, when the bench will review the progress of the trial and the examination of the remaining witnesses.
Case: Rahul Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) - Suo Motu Action Against False Witnesses in Shahdara Murder Case
Case Type: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 15630/2025
Petitioner: Rahul Sharma (son of deceased victim Vijendra Singh)
Respondent: State (NCT of Delhi)
Incident: Murder of Vijendra Singh in Shahdara, Delhi, April 2019
