Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Inconsistencies: Rajesh vs. State of Haryana (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 3 November 2020

Citation: 2020 INSC 822

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J, Indu Malhotra, J, and Indira Banerjee, J. The judgment was authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.

Can inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony and forensic reports lead to the acquittal of accused individuals in a murder case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, ultimately acquitting the accused due to doubts about the prosecution’s case. This judgment highlights the importance of credible evidence and thorough investigation in criminal trials. The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra, and Indira Banerjee, with the opinion authored by Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Sandeep Hooda, a law student, on December 26, 2006, at Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. The complainant, Azad Singh Hooda, Sandeep’s father, stated that he and his younger son, Sunil, witnessed six men firing shots at Sandeep near the law department’s parking area. Sandeep sustained multiple gunshot injuries and was taken to PGIMS, Rohtak, where he was declared dead. Initially, the FIR stated that Parveen, son of Zile Singh Hooda, and another person took Sandeep to the hospital. However, during the trial, the complainant and his son claimed they transported Sandeep to the hospital themselves.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court convicted the appellants, Rajesh alias Sarkari and Ajay Hooda, along with co-accused Pehlad, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld this conviction. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court of India, challenging their conviction.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines the punishment for murder, and Section 34 of the IPC, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code: This section prescribes the punishment for murder, which can be either death or life imprisonment, along with a fine.
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code: This section states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

Arguments

The appellants, represented by Senior Counsel Mr. Rakesh Khanna, raised several arguments challenging their conviction:

• Eyewitness Testimony:
  • The appellants argued that PW4 (Azad Singh) and PW5 (Sunil), the complainant and his son, were not present at the scene of the crime. They highlighted the discrepancy between the FIR, which stated that Sandeep was taken to the hospital by Parveen and another person, and the witnesses’ later depositions claiming they took Sandeep to the hospital.
  • DW4 (Parveen) and DW5 (Sikandar) testified that they took Sandeep to the hospital, and PW4 and PW5 arrived later.
  • The appellants pointed out that the medical evidence (post-mortem report) indicated blackening and charring around some entry wounds, suggesting the shots were fired from a close range (less than 2 feet), contradicting PW4’s claim that the shots were fired from 4-5 feet away. This was supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Daud Khan [(2016) 2 SCC 607].
• Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Reports:
  • The appellants highlighted inconsistencies in the FSL reports. They noted that the FSL reports related to FIR No. 311 (a previous case) and FIR No. 781 (the present case) had discrepancies regarding the description of the weapons and cartridges.
  • The appellants argued that the pistol (W/2) mentioned in the third FSL report was not properly linked to them and was erroneously attributed to Rajesh alias Sarkari instead of Ajay Hooda.
  • The ballistic experts who prepared the FSL reports were not examined during the trial, which the appellants argued was a critical lapse.
• Test Identification Parade (TIP):
  • The appellants argued that they refused to participate in the TIP because they were known to the complainant and his son, as the deceased and one of the appellants were co-accused in a previous case.

The respondent, State of Haryana, represented by Mr. Deepak Thukral, argued:

• Eyewitness Testimony:
  • The State argued that the presence of PW4 and PW5 was corroborated by the fact that PW5 handed over the deceased’s track suit to the police, which was examined in the FSL report.
  • The State contended that PW4 and PW5 were cross-examined at length and their testimony was consistent with the medical evidence.
• FSL Reports:
  • The State submitted that the test cartridges were fired from pistol W/2 in the lab, and the third FSL report inadvertently mentioned that pistol W/2 was recovered from Rajesh instead of Ajay.
  • The State argued that the conviction could be sustained under Section 34 of the IPC, given the extensive nature of the firearm injuries and the recovery of firearms.
• Test Identification Parade (TIP):
  • The State argued that the appellants’ refusal to participate in the TIP should lead to an adverse inference, as only one newspaper publication mentioned their names and none published their photographs.

The State further argued that the FSL reports were filed by the defense after the statements of the appellants under Section 313 of the CrPC were recorded, and the failure to examine the ballistic experts must be construed from that perspective. They also cited the decision in Mohan Singh vs. State of M.P. [(1999) 2 SCC 428] to argue that blackening of injuries is not always due to close-range firing.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether PW4 and PW5 were eye-witnesses at the scene of the occurrence on 26 December 2006?
2. The weight to be ascribed to the third FSL report.
3. The refusal of the accused appellants to undergo a test identification parade.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and arguments presented by both sides.

The Court considered the following authorities:

• Mohinder Singh vs State [AIR 1953 SC 415]: The Court discussed the importance of expert evidence in cases involving lethal weapons.
• Gurucharan Singh vs State of Punjab [(1963) 3 SCR 585]: The Court clarified that expert evidence is not always essential if direct evidence is unimpeachable.
• Sukhwant Singh vs State of Punjab [(1995) 3 SCC 367]: The Court highlighted the importance of ballistic expert opinion in firearm cases.
• State of Punjab vs Jugraj Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 234]: The Court distinguished Sukhwant Singh and held that expert opinion is not always necessary.
• Vineet Kumar Chauhan vs State of UP [(2007) 14 SCC 660]: The Court reiterated that expert evidence is not essential in every firearm case.
• Govindaraju vs State [(2012) 4 SCC 722]: The Court drew an adverse inference against the prosecution for not examining FSL personnel.

The Court noted that the weapons of offence were allegedly recovered in a previous case (FIR No. 311). The third FSL report did not deal with weapon W/1 and wrongly attributed weapon W/2 to Rajesh alias Sarkari. The ballistic experts were not examined.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the appellants was influenced by a combination of factors that raised significant doubts about the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized the importance of credible eyewitness testimony and reliable forensic evidence in securing a conviction. The inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts, coupled with the discrepancies in the FSL reports, created a reasonable doubt that the prosecution failed to overcome.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following:

• Doubtful Eyewitness Testimony: The court found that the testimonies of PW4 and PW5 were inconsistent and unreliable. The initial FIR and medical records suggested that other individuals took the deceased to the hospital, contradicting their claims of being present at the scene of the crime.
• Flawed Forensic Evidence: The FSL reports contained significant discrepancies, particularly regarding the description and attribution of the weapons. The failure to examine the ballistic experts further weakened the prosecution’s case. The Court noted that the third FSL report wrongly attributed weapon W/2 to accused Rajesh alias Sarkari.
• Reasonable Refusal of TIP: The Court acknowledged that the appellants had a valid reason for refusing the TIP, as they were known to the complainant and his son from a previous case.

The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “In the present case, the weapons of offence were alleged to have been recovered in the context of the investigation in another FIR (FIR No.311 dated 19 May 2006).”
• “The third FSL report arising out of the investigation in FIR No. 781 in the present case does not deal with weapon W /1 at all.”
• “Moreover, as we have noted earlier , the third FSL report wrongly attributes weapon W /2 to accused Rajesh alias Sarkari.”

There were no minority opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Credible eyewitness testimony and reliable forensic evidence are crucial for securing convictions in criminal cases.
• Inconsistencies and improvements in eyewitness accounts can cast doubt on their reliability.
• Discrepancies in forensic reports and the non-examination of expert witnesses can weaken the prosecution’s case.
• The refusal to undergo a TIP does not automatically lead to an adverse inference, especially when there is a plausible reason for refusal.
• The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any significant doubts can lead to an acquittal.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants be released and their bail bonds be cancelled unless they are wanted in connection with any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies and forensic reports, coupled with the non-examination of crucial witnesses, can create reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused. This case reiterates the importance of a thorough investigation and credible evidence in criminal trials. This case also reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court acquitted Rajesh alias Sarkari and Ajay Hooda, emphasizing the importance of credible evidence and thorough investigation. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies, discrepancies in forensic reports, and the non-examination of ballistic experts. This judgment underscores the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction to stand.