Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, who had been sentenced to death for the abduction, rape and murder of a young woman after she arrived at Lokmanya Tilak Terminus, Mumbai. The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence. The CCTV footage, which the High Court called the axis of the case, was inadmissible without a Section 65-B(4) certificate, and the remaining circumstances (last seen, sightings, conduct, recoveries and an extra-judicial confession) were unreliable and did not form a complete chain.
Issues
- Whether CCTV footage produced without a certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act was admissible, and whether the objection was raised in time in a capital case.
- Whether the last-seen and sighting witnesses and the test identification parade were reliable, given the delay in recording their statements and the earlier publication of the appellant's photograph in the press.
- Whether the alleged extra-judicial confession, the post-crime conduct and the recoveries proved the appellant's guilt.
- Whether the circumstances proved formed a chain complete enough to sustain the conviction and death sentence.
Provisions considered
- Section 65-B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Following Anvar P.V. and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, the Court treated the Section 65-B(4) certificate as a condition precedent to admitting electronic evidence. The investigating officer admitted that he collected certificates for the CDRs but not for the CCTV footage, and was questioned on this after Anvar P.V. The Court treated that questioning as an objection taken at the earliest point and excluded the footage. It also relied on Mohd. Arif and Sundar, which applied the strict rule in death sentence cases. (¶¶ 28, 35, 41, 42, 43, 49, 50, 51)
- Section 465(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The State argued that the absence of an objection at the trial stage cured the defect. The Court rejected this, holding that the objection had been taken at the earliest available instance. (¶ 44)
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The recoveries said to follow the appellant's disclosure (the motorcycle, the trolley bag and the deceased's belongings) were found unreliable. The person who brought the motorcycle key and one panch witness were not examined. The trolley bag was produced by an elderly woman who said the police threatened her with arrest, with a panch brought from Mumbai. The belongings were said to come from the appellant's sister, who was not examined, and it was improbable that the deceased's ID card would be kept for two months. (¶¶ 101, 102, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119, 120)
- Sections 302, 364, 366, 376(2)(m), 376A, 392 read with 397, and 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860The Court upheld the finding that the death was homicidal, with genital injuries. But the prosecution did not prove the appellant's involvement beyond reasonable doubt, so his convictions under all these provisions, including the death sentence under Section 302, were set aside. (¶¶ 1, 11, 17, 123, 124)
Held
- A certificate under Section 65-B(4) is a condition precedent to admitting electronic records, and oral evidence cannot take its place. In a case involving the death penalty, the Court will not be technical about how the objection was raised. Where the prosecution knew of the requirement and obtained certificates for other electronic evidence, CCTV footage without a certificate must be excluded. (¶¶ 43, 49, 50, 51)
- Even apart from admissibility, the CCTV evidence had unanswered infirmities. The recorder covering the platforms kept footage for only 12 days, yet the footage was said to have been copied on the 13th day. No witness identified the appellant and the deceased in the same footage, and nothing explained how the police linked other witnesses to the person seen in it. (¶¶ 26, 34)
- The last-seen witnesses did not inspire confidence. Their statements were recorded two to two and a half months later, without explanation, after they had earlier met the police and said nothing. They contradicted each other, and their detailed recall of a crowded platform was improbable. Even taken at face value, their evidence did not exclude other hypotheses. (¶¶ 70, 71, 72, 75, 76)
- A test identification parade carries little value where the witnesses had an opportunity to see the accused beforehand. Here the appellant's photograph had appeared in newspapers about three weeks before the parade. (¶¶ 60, 61, 72, 73, 74, 77, 81)
- The witnesses who claimed only to have seen the appellant, at the station or near the scene, were not last-seen witnesses. Their recollection of chance encounters weeks later was unnatural, and their evidence was discarded. The neighbour's evidence of seeing the appellant with a trolley bag was not a link in the chain. (¶¶ 77, 81, 82)
- The appellant's visit to an astrologer and a puja at Trimbakeshwar, with an alleged remark about a sin against a woman, had no nexus with the crime. The priest's register was unsystematic, and this evidence was excluded from the chain of circumstances. (¶¶ 86, 90)
- An extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence that needs independent corroboration. The alleged confession to a witness was rejected: he did not enjoy the appellant's confidence and had quarrelled with him, his statement was delayed, it contained numerous omissions, there were indications he was already in police contact, and the threatening calls were not linked to the appellant. (¶¶ 102, 108, 109, 110)
- Taken together, the circumstances did not lead only to the hypothesis of guilt, and the chain was not complete, so the Sharad Birdhichand Sarda test was not met. The Court cautioned against straining circumstances to fill gaps in a case built on circumstantial evidence. (¶¶ 15, 121, 122, 123)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court's judgment confirming the conviction and death sentence was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released forthwith unless required in another case.