Summary of the Judgment
Case Name: Randeep Singh @ Rana & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
Date: 22 November 2024
Judges: Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Hon’ble Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Hon’ble Justice Augustine George Masih
Advocates: Mr. Vinay Navare (Appellants)
Acts and Sections: Sections 364, 302, 201, 212, and 120-B of IPC Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act
Cited Judgements: State of Maharashtra v. Praful Desai (2003), Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984), Subhash Chand v. State of Rajasthan (2002)
Introduction
The Supreme Court's decision in Criminal Appeal No. 297 of 2024 is a critical examination of evidentiary requirements and procedural fairness in the criminal justice process. While addressing the brutal murder of Gurpal Singh, the Court has reiterated the importance of admissible evidence and the sanctity of due process.
Background
The case stems from the murder of Gurpal Singh, who was abducted and later found brutally dismembered. Eight individuals, including the appellants, were charged under various sections of the IPC. The appellants were convicted by the Sessions Court, and their conviction was upheld by the High Court, while other co-accused were acquitted.
The prosecution relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, eyewitness testimony, and CCTV footage to establish the appellants' culpability.
Key Issues
Eyewitness Credibility: The sole eyewitness (PW-26) failed to provide a consistent account of the events, with significant omissions in her testimony.
Admissibility of CCTV Evidence: The prosecution failed to produce a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, rendering the CCTV evidence inadmissible.
Reliance on Disclosure Statements: The trial court's reliance on confessional statements to the police was challenged as it contravenes Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.
Judicial Observations
On Eyewitness Testimony
The Court found the testimony of PW-26 unreliable due to multiple contradictions. As stated:"The material part of the testimony of PW-26 is full of omissions... These omissions amount to contradictions under Section 162 of the CrPC."
Additionally, the non-examination of another eyewitness (PW-26’s husband) further weakened the prosecution's case.
On CCTV Evidence
The prosecution's failure to meet the requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act proved fatal. The Court held:"The evidence in the form of the CD will have to be kept out of consideration as it is not admissible in evidence."
Moreover, the CCTV footage was neither viewed by the trial or appellate courts, further diminishing its evidentiary value.
On Circumstantial Evidence
Relying on the principles laid out in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, the Court emphasised that every link in the chain of circumstantial evidence must be conclusively proven. As noted:
"Even if one of the circumstances forming part of the chain is not proved, the prosecution case cannot be held as established."
On Disclosure Statements
The Court reaffirmed the limited admissibility of confessions made to police under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It criticised the trial court's handling of such statements, observing:
"A confessional statement made by the accused to a police officer while in custody is not admissible in evidence except to the extent to which Section 27 is applicable."
Significant Legal Principles
Admissibility of Electronic Evidence: This case underscores the importance of complying with Section 65B to authenticate electronic evidence like CCTV footage.
Role of Eyewitnesses: The reliability and consistency of eyewitness accounts are critical, especially when corroborative evidence is lacking.
Protection Against Police Confessions: The judgment reiterates that confessions to police officers are inadmissible unless they strictly meet the exceptions under Section 27.
Eyewitness Testimony
The case relied heavily on the testimony of PW-26, the sister of the deceased and the only alleged eyewitness. Her account, however, was fraught with contradictions and omissions. For instance, she initially described the attackers as "seven to eight boys" but failed to identify any of them specifically during her examination-in-chief. The absence of a test identification parade further weakened the evidentiary value of her testimony.
Moreover, she admitted during cross-examination that several critical details mentioned in court, such as the parking of the deceased's car and the abduction sequence, were missing from her original statement recorded by the police. The Court observed:
"These omissions are very significant and relate to the most crucial part of the prosecution’s case. Hence, they amount to contradictions under Section 162 of the CrPC."
The Court also drew an adverse inference against the prosecution for failing to examine PW-26’s husband, who was claimed to have been present during the incident.
Circumstantial Evidence: Gaps in the Chain
The judgment extensively examined the chain of circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. Referring to the landmark case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, the Court reiterated the five principles governing circumstantial evidence:
Circumstances must be fully established.
They must point exclusively to the guilt of the accused.
They must be of a conclusive nature.
Every other hypothesis must be excluded.
The chain of evidence must be complete.
The Court highlighted several missing links in the chain. For instance, while the prosecution relied on the recovery of the deceased’s car and torso, it failed to establish a direct connection between these recoveries and the accused. Additionally, the Court noted that circumstantial evidence like CCTV footage and disclosure statements was either inadmissible or insufficiently corroborated.
Electronic Evidence
A significant portion of the prosecution’s case hinged on CCTV footage from a nearby bank. However, the prosecution failed to produce a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act to authenticate the footage. Furthermore, both the bank manager (PW-1) and the CCTV engineer (PW-24) admitted during cross-examination that they had not personally reviewed the footage or ensured the CD’s integrity.
As the Court stated:
"Without the certificate under Section 65B, the CD containing the CCTV footage cannot be admitted as evidence."
This procedural lapse rendered the electronic evidence inadmissible, further undermining the prosecution’s case.
Conclusion
This judgment highlights the judiciary’s commitment to procedural integrity, ensuring that convictions are based solely on legally admissible evidence. While acknowledging the heinous nature of the crime, the Court noted:
"The brutality of the offence does not dispense with the legal requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
The acquittal of the appellants serves as a reminder that justice must be administered within the bounds of the law, without succumbing to moral convictions unsupported by evidence.
Comentarios