2023 (9) TMI 1437 - SC - Indian Laws

Murder - rarest of the rare case - case based on circumstantial evidence - principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt - HELD THAT - A conspectus of the prosecution's case clearly reveals that it is poised entirely on circumstantial evidence as there was no eyewitness to the kidnapping and murder of Ajit Pal. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a chain of unbroken events unerringly pointing to the guilt of the Accused and none other. The manner in which the police tailored their investigation, with complete indifference to the essential norms in proceeding against the Accused and in gathering evidence; leaving important leads unchecked and glossing over other leads that did not suit the story that they had conceived; and, ultimately, in failing to present a cogent, conceivable and fool-proof chain of events pointing to the guilt of the Appellants, with no possibility of any other hypothesis, leaves us with no option but to extend the benefit of doubt to the Appellants. The higher principle of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' and more so, in a case built on circumstantial evidence, would have to prevail and be given priority. It is high time, perhaps, that a consistent and dependable code of investigation is devised with a mandatory and detailed procedure for the police to implement and abide by during the course of their investigation so that the guilty do not walk free on technicalities, as they do in most cases in our country. It is indeed perplexing that, despite the innumerable weak links and loopholes in the prosecution's case, the Trial Court as well as the High Court were not only inclined to accept the same at face value but went to the extent of imposing and sustaining capital punishment on Rajesh Yadav and Raja Yadav. No valid and acceptable reasons were put forth as to why this case qualified as the 'rarest of rare cases', warranting such drastic punishment. Per contra, we find that the yawning infirmities and gaps in the chain of circumstantial evidence in this case warrant acquittal of the Appellants by giving them the benefit of doubt. The degree of proof required to hold them guilty beyond reasonable doubt, on the strength of circumstantial evidence, is clearly not established. The conviction and sentences of all the three Appellants on all counts are set aside - appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
2. Procedural lapses in police investigation.
3. Admissibility of confessions and evidence under Sections 26 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
4. Reliability of DNA evidence.
5. Standard of police investigation and its impact on the justice system.

Summary:

1. Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence:
The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, with no eyewitnesses to the kidnapping and murder of Ajit Pal. The Supreme Court reiterated that in such cases, the prosecution must establish a chain of unbroken events unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused. The Court cited several precedents, including *C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P.* and *Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh*, emphasizing that the circumstances must exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.

2. Procedural Lapses in Police Investigation:
The Court found significant gaps and discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence. There was ambiguity about the time Ajit Pal went missing, and inconsistencies in the ransom demands. The police investigation was criticized for its overzealousness and disregard for due procedures, leading to weak links in the chain of evidence. The Court noted that the police often picked upon those they perceived to be guilty and built a case against them, exposing gaping holes in the evidence.

3. Admissibility of Confessions and Evidence Under Sections 26 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act:
The Court highlighted that confessions made by the accused while not in police custody are inadmissible under Section 26 of the Evidence Act. The exceptions under Section 27 require that the accused must be in custody and accused of an offense for the confession to be admissible. The Court found that the confessions and subsequent recoveries were made before the accused were formally arrested, rendering them inadmissible.

4. Reliability of DNA Evidence:
The prosecution's reliance on DNA evidence was also questioned. The scenario presented by the prosecution, where Ajit Pal allegedly pulled out hair from Rajesh Yadav during a struggle, was found to be improbable. The Court noted the possibility of the police introducing the hair evidence themselves, thus rendering the DNA evidence suspect.

5. Standard of Police Investigation and Its Impact on the Justice System:
The Court expressed deep concern over the poor standards of police investigation, citing past reports and observations that highlighted inefficiencies, suppression of evidence, and concoction of evidence. The Court emphasized the need for a consistent and dependable code of investigation to ensure that the guilty are apprehended and punished, and the innocent are not harassed.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The procedural lapses, inadmissible confessions, unreliable DNA evidence, and poor police investigation led to the acquittal of the accused. The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences, and ordered the release of the accused if not required in any other case. The Court also called for a refund of any fine amounts paid by the accused within eight weeks.

← Previous Next →