Delhi High Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 1996 Murder Case, Holds Child Witness Testimony and Disclosure-Based Recovery Were Too Doubtful to Sustain Conviction
Facts
The appeals arose from the conviction of Saleem @ Kalua, Maya, Roshni and Savitri under Sections 302/201/34 IPC for the alleged murder of Dr. Ashok Kumar Bansala. The prosecution alleged that Saleem was in an illicit relationship with Roshni, the wife of the deceased, and that all accused assaulted the deceased with danda blows and knife, thereafter disposing of his body in the Kusumpur Pahari jheel by tying it with cement naalis and electric wires.
The case began after Roshni lodged a missing person report on 3 August 1996, stating that the deceased had gone to his native village and had not returned. Later, on 13 August 1996, Neelam, the minor daughter of the deceased and Roshni, approached the police with her paternal aunt Shakuntala and alleged that her father had been murdered by her mother Roshni, Saleem, Maya and Savitri. The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC and seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 201/34 IPC. Savitri died during pendency of the appeal and the appeal abated against her.
Issues
Whether the testimony of PW-2 Neelam, a child witness and daughter of the deceased, was reliable enough to sustain conviction.
Whether the Trial Court complied with the safeguards required while recording the testimony of a child witness.
Whether the alleged disclosure statements and recovery of skeletal remains from the jheel could be relied upon under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstances proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellants argued that PW-2 Neelam was not a trustworthy witness, as her testimony contained material contradictions regarding the place from where she allegedly saw the incident, the jaali in the wall, the presence of light, the locked or jammed clinic door, the alleged intoxication of the deceased, and the mode of removal of the body.
It was submitted that PW-2 claimed that the body was taken away in a car/Maruti van, whereas the prosecution later relied on disclosure statements suggesting that the body was transported on a bicycle. The appellants argued that this contradiction went to the root of the prosecution story.
The appellants further contended that the child witness had behaved unnaturally after allegedly witnessing the murder of her father, as she went to school the next morning, did not inform neighbours, teachers or friends, and disclosed the incident only later to her aunt.
They also challenged the alleged disclosure statements and recoveries, arguing that there were no arrest memos, no independent witnesses to the alleged disclosures, and that divers had allegedly been called before the accused were said to have made disclosures.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued that PW-2 Neelam was a natural eyewitness, being the daughter of the deceased and resident of the same house. It was submitted that her testimony was consistent on the core allegation and was duly corroborated by the recovery of the body, skull, DNA report and surrounding circumstances.
The State contended that a child who had seen her own mother and relatives assaulting her father would naturally be traumatised and afraid, and therefore her delayed disclosure could not be treated as unnatural.
The prosecution also relied upon the alleged recovery of the headless body and skull from Kusumpur Pahari jheel pursuant to the disclosure statements of the accused. It was submitted that the recovery was photographed and videographed, and that DNA evidence established the identity of the deceased.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated that while conviction may be based on the testimony of a child witness, such testimony must be scrutinised with caution. The Court noted that under Section 118 of the Evidence Act and Section 4 of the Oaths Act, the Trial Court must satisfy itself that the child understands the questions, can give rational answers, and understands the duty to speak the truth.
The Court found that in the present case, the Trial Court did not put even a single preliminary question to PW-2 to determine whether she was capable of understanding questions and giving rational answers. Though this alone did not automatically discard her testimony, it required the High Court to examine her evidence with greater caution.
On disclosure-based recovery, the Court applied the principle that only information distinctly leading to discovery is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. If the police already knew the place of recovery, there could be no “rediscovery” based on a later disclosure.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on Pradeep v. State of Haryana, where the Supreme Court held that corroboration of a child witness is not a rigid rule, but courts must carefully examine whether the witness was capable of understanding questions and whether there was any possibility of tutoring.
The Court also relied on State of Rajasthan v. Chatra, which summarised the principles for assessing a child witness, including the need to remain alive to the possibility of tutoring and the practical wisdom of seeking corroboration.
The Court referred to Nimai Ghosh v. State of Bihar while considering unnatural conduct of an eyewitness, particularly where the witness does not inform anyone about the incident despite having allegedly seen a serious offence.
For circumstantial evidence, the Court applied Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, holding that each circumstance must be fully established and the chain must exclude every hypothesis except guilt.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found PW-2 Neelam’s testimony unreliable on several material aspects. It doubted whether she could have seen the entire incident from the jaali of the brick wall, especially when the alleged incident occurred in different directions, partly in the courtyard and partly outside the house. The investigating officer had not measured the height of the jaali or noted the position of the light source, both of which were important to test visibility.
The Court also found her conduct unnatural. Although she claimed to know that her mother had been administering intoxicating medicine to the deceased for about one month, she never informed her father. After allegedly witnessing the murder, she went to school the next morning and did not inform anyone. She also first asked her mother about her father’s whereabouts, despite claiming to have seen the entire murder.
The Court held that the recovery evidence was also doubtful. There was no arrest memo, no public witness to the alleged disclosure statements, and the entire alleged episode of arrest, disclosure and recovery was said to have occurred within an unusually short span of about 15 minutes. More importantly, one diver stated that the police had called him around noon, before the alleged arrest and disclosure of the accused, creating serious doubt about whether the recovery was truly made pursuant to disclosure statements.
The Court further held that even if the alleged illicit relationship between Saleem and Roshni was assumed, that alone could not prove murder. The alleged presence of Maya and Savitri was also doubtful, particularly because the incident allegedly occurred when the deceased unexpectedly woke up to urinate, making pre-planned presence of all accused at that exact time improbable.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found the child witness unreliable, the disclosure-based recovery doubtful, and the circumstantial chain incomplete. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.
Case: Saleem @ Kalua v. State (NCT of Delhi); Maya v. State; Roshni & Anr. v. State
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: CRL.A. 461/2002, CRL.A. 506/2002, CRL.A. 49/2004
Judge: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Date: 2 July 2026
Result: Appeals allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted. Appeal abated against Savitri due to her death during pendency.
Read Also: Delhi High Court Says Recovery of Money Alone Is Not Enough to Convict a Public Servant for Bribery