RAHUL versus STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 9 S.C.R. 1129 · Decided: 07-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1129
RAHUL
v.
STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 611 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 07, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI, S. RAVINDRA BHAT
 AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 365, 367, 376(2)(g), 302, 201 & 34 –
A girl was kidnapped when she was returning from her job along
with her friends – She was raped and killed later on and her body
was thrown in open field – FIR was registered against the accused-
appellant u/s 365, 367, 376(2)(g), 302, 201 read with 34 of IPC –
Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record and material
recovered during investigation, convicted and sentenced them with
death penalty – The same was confirmed by the High Court in Death
Sentence Reference referred by the Session Court – On appeal,
held: Neither any T.I. Parade was conducted by the investigating
officer during the course of investigation for the identification of
the accused, nor any of the witnesses had identified the accused
during their respective depositions before the Court – The
circumstances under which the accused were arrested and the car
was seized have also raised serious doubts in the story put-forth by
the prosecution – None of the witnesses had seen the registration
number of the car in which the victim was kidnapped – The trial
Court had allowed the entire disclosure statements of the three
accused to be admitted in evidence, the said statements being in
nature of the confessions before the police were hit by s.25 of the
Evidence Act – Trial Court had committed gross error in exhibiting
the entire disclosure statements of the accused recorded – The
incriminating articles were sent to the CFSL for examination
however, no conclusive opinion was given by the CFSL to establish
their link with the accused – The call details record of the phone
being electronic record, was also not proved in terms of s.65B of
the Evidence Act – It has been noticed from the record that out of
the 49 witnesses examined by the prosecution, 10 material witnesses
were not cross-examined and many other important witnesses were
not adequately cross-examined by the defence counsel – The
   [2022] 9 S.C.R. 1129
1129
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
Appellants-accused were deprived of their rights to have a fair trial,
apart from the fact that the truth also could not be elicited by the
trial Court – Judgments and orders of conviction and sentence
passed by the trial Court and the High Court set aside.
Evidence Act, 1872 – 27, 45 & 65B – Circumstantial Evidence
– The circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so
complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all
human probability, the crime was committed by the accused only
and none else – The evidence with regard to the arrest of the
appellants-accused, their identification, discoveries and recoveries
of the incriminating articles, identity of the Indica Car, the seizures
and sealing of the articles and collection of samples, the medical
and scientific evidence, the report of DNA profiling, the evidence
with regard to the CDRs etc. were not proved by the prosecution by
leading, cogent, clinching and clear evidence much less unerringly
pointing the guilt of the accused.
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.165 – Section 165 of the Indian
Evidence Act confers unbridled powers upon the trial courts to put
any question at any stage to the witnesses to elicit the truth – The
Judge is not expected to be a passive umpire but is supposed to
actively participate in the trial, and to question the witnesses to
reach to a correct conclusion.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Neither any T.I. Parade was conducted by the
investigating officer during the course of investigation for the
identification of the accused, nor any of the witnesses had
identified the accused during their respective depositions before
the Court. Therefore, the very identity of the Appellants -accused
having not been duly established, the entire case of the
prosecution falls flat on the very first circumstance having not
been duly proved by any evidence much less clinching evidence,
against the Appellants-accused. [Para 20][1147-D-E]
1.2 As regards the arrest of the accused-R, PW-12 ASI had
stated before the Court that the accused-R was seen driving the
red Indica Car, and he looked perplexed; when he asked for the
documents of the said vehicle, the accused-R could not produce
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1131
them and therefore he (PW-12) apprehended ‘R

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.