Rahul Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., 2025

• The case arises out of the murder of Vijendra Singh in Shahdara, Delhi, in April 2019.

   

• Raj Sharma, one of the accused in the case, was granted bail by the Delhi High Court after spending nearly six years in custody.

• The victim’s son, Rahul Sharma (petitioner), approached the Supreme Court seeking cancellation of bail granted to Raj Sharma.

• The petitioner alleged that after the accused were released on bail, several prosecution witnesses turned hostile and police complaints were lodged alleging intimidation and threats to witnesses.

• The Delhi High Court, while granting bail, noted factors such as:

  • Raj Sharma’s prolonged incarceration (six years);

  • His name not appearing in the dying declaration of the deceased;

  • The completion of examination of prosecution witnesses.

1. Whether the bail granted to the accused Raj Sharma should be cancelled due to allegations of witness intimidation?

2. Whether the Trial Court is empowered to take suo motu action against witnesses making false statements in a criminal trial?

3. What safeguards should be ensured to protect remaining witnesses during the ongoing trial?

• The Supreme Court did not immediately cancel the bail but issued strong directions to ensure the integrity of the trial and truthfulness of witness testimony.
  
  
• The Bench directed that the State must ensure that the remaining witnesses—particularly the two doctors and FSL officers are examined under police protection and without intimidation.

• The Trial Court shall take suo motu cognizance if it finds that any witness has made false or untruthful statements during deposition.

• The Trial Court must initiate appropriate legal action against such witnesses in their individual capacity under the relevant penal provisions.

• The Court expressed serious concern about the increasing tendency of witnesses turning hostile, particularly in murder trials, which undermines the administration of criminal justice.

• It reminded trial courts of their duty to act proactively when witnesses are found to commit perjury or deliberately mislead the court.

• The Bench reiterated that truthful testimony is the foundation of justice, and any attempt to subvert it must be dealt with firmly.

• “If the trial Court finds that any witness has tried to take sides in their deposition without being truthful to the Court, the Court shall take suo motu cognizance of such conduct and initiate action in their individual capacity.”

This judgment serves as a strong reaffirmation of the Supreme Court’s intolerance toward perjury and hostile testimony in criminal trials.

The Court highlighted two crucial aspects:

1. Judicial Accountability for Truth-Telling:

   • The direction for suo motu prosecution of lying witnesses strengthens the trial courts’ role as guardians of truth.

   • It underscores that witness credibility is essential for justice and that dishonesty in testimony cannot be ignored or condoned.

2. Balance Between Liberty and Justice:

   • By not immediately cancelling bail, the Court upheld the principle of personal liberty, but simultaneously fortified procedural safeguards to prevent witness intimidation.

   • This reflects a nuanced balance between individual rights and the integrity of the criminal process.

The order also sends a broader institutional message to subordinate courts across India — that they must not remain passive when witnesses attempt to derail justice through falsehood, but must exercise statutory powers under Section 195 CrPC and Section 193 IPC to protect the sanctity of the trial.