Read Time: 13 minutes

The Supreme Court has acquitted two men sentenced to capital punishment and another man awarded life imprisonment in a case of kidnap and murder of 15-year-old boy of their neighbour, granting them benefit of doubt due to "yawning infirmities and gaps in the chain of circumstantial evidence". 

A bench of Justices B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala and Sanjay Kumar noted with deep and profound concern the disappointing standards of police investigation that seem to be the invariable norm. 

The court pointed out as long back as in the year 2003, the Report of Dr Justice V S Malimath’s ‘Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System’ had recorded their role in critical importance of the criminal justice system. It also highlighted  Law Commission of India's 239 report of March, 2012 which observed that the principal causes of low rate of conviction in our country, inter alia, included inept, unscientific investigation by the police and lack of proper coordination between police and prosecution machinery. 
 
"Despite passage of considerable time since these gloomy insights, we are dismayed to say that they remain sadly true even to this day. This is a case in point. A young boy in the first flush of youth was cruelly done to death and the wrongdoers necessarily had to be brought to book for the injustice done to him and his family," the bench said.

The court allowed appeals filed by Om Prakash Yadav, his borther Raja and son Rajesh alias Rakesh against the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgement which confirmed the trial court's findings and sentence against them, upon noting "shocking lapses, slipshod investigation'' and "dubious process" adopted by the police.

The case related to kidnapping and murder of Ajit Pal, living in neighbourhood of the appellants. According to the prosecution, the accused kidnapped the boy to extract huge sum of money received by the mother of the deceased by sale of one house.

In critical observations, the bench said, the manner in which the police tailored their investigation, with complete indifference to the essential norms in proceeding against the accused and in gathering evidence; leaving important leads unchecked and glossing over other leads that did not suit the story that they had conceived; and, ultimately, in failing to present a cogent, conceivable and fool-proof chain of events pointing to the guilt of the appellants, with no possibility of any other hypothesis, leaves us with no option but to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellants. 

It said the higher principle of ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ and more so, in a case built on circumstantial evidence, would have to prevail and be given priority. 

"It is high time, perhaps, that a consistent and dependable code of investigation is devised with a mandatory and detailed procedure for the police to implement and abide by during the course of their investigation so that the guilty do not walk free on technicalities, as they do in most cases in our country," the bench said.

Hearing their appeals, the court found that the entire prosecution case was poised entirely on circumstantial evidence as there was no eyewitness to the kidnapping and murder.

"We find that the prosecution utterly failed to pass muster in establishing its case. There are cavernous gaps in the evidence that the prosecution would offer as an ‘unbroken chain unerringly pointing to the guilt of the appellants’. Discrepancies galore in the prosecution’s case tear asunder the fabric of its purported version as to how events unfolded. Oftentimes, Courts find that reckless overzealousness and unbridled fervour coupled with scant regard for due procedures and practices on the part of the police, in picking upon those whom they perceive to be the guilty party and then building up a case against them, accomplishes the direct opposite of what they seek to achieve, by exposing gaping holes and weak links in the chain of evidence that they ultimately offer, as is the situation now," the bench said.

The court, in the case, said degree of proof required to hold them guilty beyond reasonable doubt, on the strength of circumstantial evidence, is clearly not established.

"It is indeed perplexing that, despite the innumerable weak links and loopholes in the prosecution’s case, the Trial Court as well as the High Court were not only inclined to accept the same at face value but went to the extent of imposing and sustaining capital punishment on Rajesh Yadav and Raja Yadav. No valid and acceptable reasons were put forth as to why this case qualified as the ‘rarest of rare cases’, warranting such drastic punishment. Per contra, we find that the yawning infirmities and gaps in the chain of circumstantial evidence in this case warrant acquittal of the appellants by giving them the benefit of doubt," the bench said. 

In the case at hand, the prosecution claimed the accused kidnapped the victim and drank liquor with him before killing him. But the bench noted the doctor who conducted the post mortem negated it after finding no smell of alcohol in semi digested food in stomach.

It also pointed out the mobile number from which ransom calls were made was in the name of one Bhuraji, s/o Deepu, and his address was available. However, the police did not even attempt to contact Bhuraji or examine him to find out how and why his SIM card was used for making the ransom calls. Even more startling is the fact that, though actual proof of the allotment of this mobile number to Bhuraji was placed, no such steps were taken by the police to establish the link between Om Prakash Yadav and mobile number.

It also rejected DNA analysis report related to strands of hair found in the hand of the victim, saying as the two accused were much taller than the deceased so the theory that he could have plucked during the struggle seemed "inherently improbable".

"This scenario does not lend itself to credibility and seems to have been concocted so that Rajesh Yadav’s hair would be conveniently available for DNA analysis to corroborate the prosecution’s case. Further, as there is a doubt as to when Rajesh Yadav was taken by the police and as to whether his hair could have been pulled out by the police while he was in their control, the possibility of such evidence being introduced by the police themselves cannot be ruled out," the bench said.

Case title: Rajesh & Anr vs State of Madhya Pradesh