Summary
Three men were sentenced to death for the 2012 kidnapping, gang rape and murder of a young woman in Delhi. The Supreme Court acquitted them on benefit of doubt. The case rested on circumstantial evidence. No witness identified the accused and no test identification parade was held. The arrests, the identity of the car, and the recoveries and seizures were doubtful. The entire disclosure statements had been wrongly exhibited. Call records were not proved under Section 65B. DNA samples lay in the police malkhana before testing and the basis of the reports was never examined. Ten material witnesses went uncross-examined while the trial judge stayed passive. The Court reminded trial judges of their Section 165 power. The victim's parents may claim compensation under Section 357A.
Issues
- Whether the circumstances relied on by the trial court and the High Court formed a complete chain establishing the guilt of the three accused for kidnapping, gang rape and murder.
- Whether the entire disclosure statements of the accused could be exhibited in evidence, and what proof DNA reports and call records require.
- Whether the accused had a fair trial where material witnesses were not cross-examined and the trial judge remained passive.
Provisions considered
- Sections 25, 27 and 8, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Confessions to the police in custody are inadmissible; only the portion of a disclosure statement leading to discovery is admissible, so the trial court erred in exhibiting the entire disclosure statements. (¶ 25)
- Section 45, Indian Evidence Act, 1872DNA evidence is opinion evidence whose probative value varies; merely exhibiting the report does not prove its contents, and the courts below did not examine its basis or whether the techniques were reliably applied. (¶¶ 31, 32)
- Section 65B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The call details record of the deceased's phone, being an electronic record, was not proved in terms of Section 65B. (¶ 28)
- Section 165, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The trial judge may put any question to any witness at any stage to elicit the truth and must not act as a passive umpire; the Court left its exercise to the trial courts. (¶¶ 34, 35)
- Section 357A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The victim's family remains entitled to compensation despite the acquittal; the parents may receive it from the Delhi State Legal Services Authority if not already awarded. (¶ 37)
- Sections 365, 367, 376(2)(g), 302 and 201 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The convictions and death sentences under these provisions were set aside. (¶¶ 1, 36)
Held
- In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established and form a chain so complete that, in all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 33)
- The identity of the accused was not established: none of the witnesses to the abduction identified them in court, some said the faces were covered or not visible in the dark, and no test identification parade was held. (¶¶ 19, 20)
- The arrest of the first accused merely because he was driving a red Indica car was doubtful, as no witness identified the car or its number, the beat constables who brought the others were not examined, and the police witnesses contradicted each other on reaching the body. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 24)
- The recoveries of the bumper piece, the wallet, the hair strand, the phone and other articles were unreliable, being unmentioned by other witnesses at the spot or omitted from seizure memos, and the post-mortem did not support the prosecution's time of death. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29)
- The DNA reports were highly vulnerable because the samples remained in the police malkhana before being sent to the laboratory, their collection and sealing were suspect, and no evidence showed the basis of the findings or the reliability of the techniques. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32)
- Courts may not convict on moral conviction or suspicion, or under outside pressure, however heinous the crime; with ten material witnesses not cross-examined and a passive trial judge, the accused were also denied a fair trial. (¶¶ 33, 34, 35)
Result
Appeals allowed; the convictions and death sentences imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the Delhi High Court set aside; the accused acquitted on benefit of doubt and directed to be set free if not required in any other case; the victim's parents entitled to compensation under Section 357A CrPC if not already awarded.