Delhi HC acquits two of 1998 murder: blood on sword and clothes matched, but the chain broke
Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja set aside life sentences from 2002, holding that the sole eyewitness was unreliable and that the disclosure, the recoveries and a matching blood group could not complete the chain of circumstances.
Two men have spent more than two decades under a murder conviction that the Delhi High Court has now set aside. On 5 November 2026 it acquitted Yashpal and Banarsi Dass of killing Hari Chand in Sultan Puri on 13 October 1998, giving them the benefit of doubt.
Justice Navin Chawla wrote the judgment for a Division Bench that also included Justice Ravinder Dudeja. The trial court had sentenced both men to life imprisonment on 31 January 2002, and the appeals have waited since.
A body in the lane
Police received word of a murder at about 8.35 pm on 13 October 1998. They found Hari Chand dead in the lane between a government school and Ambedkar Park, with wounds to his head, neck, chest and back. His cycle lay about 50 paces away, and there was no eyewitness at the spot.
The post-mortem recorded multiple injuries from a sharp cutting weapon. Death was due to asphyxia from blood clots in the airway and haemorrhagic shock. The court later noted that the deceased had suffered 20 injuries.
The prosecution first named the deceased’s brother-in-law, Ratan Lal, as an eyewitness. He said Yashpal, Banarsi Dass and a third man, Virender, attacked Hari Chand with a sword.
The recoveries after five days
The three men were arrested on 18 October 1998. Police recorded their disclosure statements, and said Banarsi Dass led them to his house, where a sword was recovered from under a cot.
He also allegedly pointed out Wazirabad Bridge, where he said he had thrown his clothes. Those were never found. Yashpal’s clothes were seized at the police station because they appeared bloodstained, and he had a stitched wound on his left thumb.
The forensic report of 31 May 1999 found human blood of the deceased’s group on the sword and on Yashpal’s clothes. A doctor said two of the injuries could have been caused by that sword or a similar weapon.
What the trial court did
After 20 prosecution witnesses, the trial court disbelieved Ratan Lal. It asked why he did not raise an alarm, chase the attackers or tell the police, and found no last-seen evidence either. It acquitted Virender, whose only alleged role was to keep a watch.
But it convicted Yashpal and Banarsi Dass under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It called the recovery of the sword credible, and treated the blood on Yashpal’s clothes and his thumb wound as strong circumstances. Each was sentenced to life and fined Rs 2,000.
When questioned under Section 313, both men denied the evidence and said the prosecution witnesses were interested and lying. Banarsi Dass blamed enmity with the deceased, and Yashpal said he was implicated because of his friendship with Banarsi Dass. Neither led defence evidence.
What the appellants argued
Mr Vinayak Bhandari, for Yashpal, said that once Ratan Lal was discarded, nothing placed his client at the scene. The deceased’s brother and mother did not identify the appellants, and the thumb wound could not be dated or linked to a weapon.
He added that blood group B is a very broad classification, no fingerprints were lifted from the sword, and it was improbable that anyone would wear stained clothes for five days. He also said the trial court applied different standards to Yashpal and to Virender.
Mr J.M. Kalia, for Banarsi Dass, said the conviction rested on the recovery of the sword. Ratan Lal had seen it for the first time at the police station, and the brother, whose signature is on the memo, denied the recovery. He relied on State of Rajasthan v. Hanuman and Allarakha Habib Memon v. State of Gujarat.
Mr Hitesh Vali, Additional Public Prosecutor, defended the convictions. He cited the recovery, the opinion that two injuries could have come from the sword, the matching blood group and the enmity over a dispute concerning Banarsi Dass’s sister.
The eyewitness who was not one
The bench held that Ratan Lal could not be believed as an eyewitness, for more reasons than the trial court gave. Read as a whole, his evidence showed he had not seen the attack but learned of it later.
The conviction therefore turned on circumstantial evidence. The court had to ask whether the recoveries, the forensic report and the thumb wound were enough.
The disclosure and the sword
Section 27 of the Evidence Act lets police prove only the part of an accused’s information that leads directly to the discovery of a fact. The court set out the three ingredients and relied on Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which describes how the disclosure and discovery should be recorded.
In Ramanand, the Supreme Court discarded discovery evidence for four reasons. The accused’s exact words and the panchnama were not proved, the authorship of concealment was missing, and the panch witness did not support it.
It added that a court may still weigh a police officer’s evidence of discovery on its own worth.
The disclosure statement of Banarsi Dass was witnessed by Ratan Lal, the deceased’s brother and a Sub-Inspector. Ratan Lal said only that disclosures were made, not what they were, and admitted he first saw the sword at the police station.
The brother turned hostile and denied that any disclosure or recovery took place in his presence. That left only the Sub-Inspector, who said the statements were made and the sword recovered.
Clothes worn for five days
The bench found the clothes improbable. Banarsi Dass was said to have thrown his away, yet Yashpal went on wearing his, with blood spots, for five days. The court said this
“appears to be very improbable” (para 45)
Police also did not notice any blood on the clothes during interrogation or the disclosure statements. The stains were seen only when the men returned to the police station after visiting the house and the bridge.
Of the two seizure witnesses, one could not recall where the clothes were taken. The other did not notice whether they were bloodstained. The court said these discrepancies
“cast a grave doubt” (para 48)
on the disclosures and the recoveries.
A blood group is not a signature
The trial court had found the sword and the clothes both matched the deceased’s blood group, which it took as a strong pointer. The Division Bench disagreed that this could carry a murder conviction.
On the forensic evidence, the bench held that blood of the same group on the sword, and the doctor’s view that two injuries were possible from it, could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that this sword was the weapon. The deceased had 20 injuries, and the prosecution did not explain how the others were caused.
The court relied on State of Rajasthan v. Hanuman, which follows Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh, and on Allarakha Habib Memon. Those decisions hold that recovery of a bloodstained weapon, even of the victim’s blood group, is not enough to prove murder.
The bench reproduced a passage from Allarakha on the same point. Even if a forensic report shows that the blood group on a recovered weapon matches the deceased’s, that circumstance alone cannot link an accused to the crime, and the weapon must be connected to the murder.
The thumb wound and motive
Yashpal had told police that he injured his thumb when Banarsi Dass struck the blow. The court said the wound was visible and not a fact discovered through his statement, and nothing independent linked it to the offence. Two medical examinations could not date it or name a weapon.
On motive, the court called it double-edged. It can complete a chain of circumstances, or it can invite false implication. There was a motive for Banarsi Dass, and perhaps for his friend Yashpal, but without other links it did not show that only the appellants could have done it.
Why the chain failed
The court held that once an eyewitness is disbelieved, the case rests on circumstantial evidence, and the circumstances must lead only to the hypothesis of guilt. The bench held that
“the prosecution has failed to meet this test” (para 54)
It added that the trial court had tried to complete a chain the prosecution had failed to establish. The same court had given the benefit of doubt to Virender while convicting the two appellants.
Order
The Division Bench set aside the judgment of conviction and the order on sentence, both dated 31 January 2002, and acquitted Yashpal and Banarsi Dass, giving them the benefit of doubt. The appeals were allowed.
Their bail bonds stay valid for six weeks under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. A copy of the judgment goes to the trial court and the Jail Superintendent.