LexRANDEEP SINGH @ RANA & ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1425 : 2024 INSC 887 Randeep Singh @ Rana & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 297 of 2024) 22 November 2024 [Abhay S. Oka,* Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards conviction and sentence of the appellants u/ss.364, 302, 120-B and 201 IPC for abduction and brutal murder of the victim, if justified. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.364, 302, 120-B and 201 – Abduction and brutal murder – Criminal conspiracy – Prosecution case that accused persons abducted the victim, thereafter murdered him and the next day the torso with other body parts of the deceased were recovered from the canal – Conviction of the appellants-accused along with others u/ss.364, 302, 120-B and 201 and sentenced accordingly – High Court upheld the conviction of the appellants-accused while acquitted the other persons – Correctness: Held: Brutality of the offence does not dispense with the legal requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt – No legal evidence to prove the involvement of the accused – Courts can convict an accused only if his guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt on the basis of legally admissible evidence – There cannot be a moral conviction – Appellants’ guilt not established beyond a reasonable doubt – Material part of the testimony of eyewitness full of omissions – Identification of the accused by the eye-witness doubtful in the absence of the test identification parade – Thus, the evidence to be kept out of consideration – Also the husband of the eyewitness who, according to her, was an eyewitness, * Author 1426 [2024] 11 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports not examined by the Police – Thus, an adverse inference to be drawn against the prosecution for withholding evidence of an eyewitness – Prosecution failed to produce the certificate u/s. 65B of the Evidence Act concerning the CD prepared from the CCTV footage concerning the incident outside the premises of the bank – Neither the Bank Manager nor the CCTV engineer saw the CCTV footage downloaded on the CD – Thus, the evidence in the form of the CD to be kept out of consideration as it is not admissible in evidence – In view thereof, it is not possible to sustain the conviction of the accused only based on the evidence of recovery – Moreover, all the circumstances forming part of the chain not proved – Confessional statement made by the accused to a police officer while in custody not admissible in the evidence – Judgments passed by the trial court as well as the High Court quashed and set aside. [Paras 7-13, 16-18] Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.25-27 – Confession to police officer not to be proved – Confessions allegedly made by the accused to a police officer when they were in Police custody – Admissibility: Held: s.27 is an exception to ss.25 and 26 – It permits certain parts of the statement made by the accused to a police officer while in custody to be proved – U/s. 27 only that part of the statement made by the accused is admissible, which distinctly relates to the discovery – It becomes admissible when a fact is discovered as a consequence of the information received from the accused – What is admissible is only such information furnished by the accused as relates distinctly to the facts thereby discovered – No other part is admissible – Confessional statement made by the accused to a police officer while in custody is not admissible in the evidence except to the extent to which s.27 is applicable – If such inadmissible confessions are made part of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, then there is every possibility that the trial courts may get influenced by it. [Paras 16, 17] Case Law Cited Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [1985] 1 SCR 88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116; Pulukuri Kotayya & Ors. v. King Emperor (1946) SCC OnLine PC 47 : AIR 1947 PC 67; K. Chinnaswamy [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1427 Randeep Singh @ Rana & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors. Reddy v. State of A.P. [1963] 3 SCR 412 : (1962) SCC OnLine SC 32; Subhash Chand v. State of Rajasthan [2001] Supp. 4 SCR 163 : (2002) 1 SCC 702 – referred to. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Evidence Act, 1872; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Abduction; Brutal murder; Criminal conspiracy; Proof beyond reasonable doubt; Omissions; Identification; Test identification parade; CCTV footage; Admissible in evidence; Evidence of recovery; Confess
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.