Read Time: 18 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on November 22, 2024, emphasized that the brutality of the offence does not override the legal requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, asserting that courts can convict an accused only if his guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt based on legally admissible evidence, as there cannot be a moral conviction.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih acquitted one Randeep Singh alias Rana and another accused, allowing their appeal against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment which upheld their conviction and sentence of life in a case of abduction and murder by the sessions court in Ambala.

The top court discarded the testimony of the alleged eyewitness, the sister of the deceased for it was full of omissions.

The High Court had acquitted six other accused but confirmed the conviction of the appellants in the case related to the abduction and murder of one Gurpal Singh on July 8, 2013.

According to the prosecution, the deceased had gone to meet his sister Paramjeet Kaur, a prosecution witness in a car but on his return, he was abducted by eight accused persons while taking away his car. His body parts were recovered from a canal the next day on July 9, 2013.

The appellants' counsel contended that except for the evidence of the discovery of the car and the weapon used by the accused at the instance of the accused, there was no other legal evidence on record. He submitted that only based on discovery/disclosure statements, the accused could not be convicted. He also submitted that the CCTV evidence could not be proved as certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act was not produced.

The counsel said that the evidence did not prove that the CD produced on record contained what was recorded in the CCTV cameras installed by the Bank. He submitted that though the prosecution claimed that Paramjeet was an eyewitness, the material part of her evidence was an omission.

The Haryana government counsel submitted that there was no reason to discredit the testimony of Paramjeet, who was a natural eyewitness. He pointed out that she had identified the accused in court. The circumstantial evidence proved the appellants' guilt even otherwise, he submitted. He added that the CCTV footage also proved the complicity of the accused.

He also submitted that this case was a very brutal and gruesome offence, and, therefore, no interference should be made with concurrent judgments of conviction.

Examining the evidence including of alleged eyewitness, Paramjeet, the bench said that she did not state that she knew the accused earlier. She described the accused as ‘seven to eight boys’. She did not depose that a test identification parade was conducted.

Moreover, she did not identify the accused in the examination-in-chief by ascribing specific roles to them. She stated in the examination-in-chief that “accused were present in the court through video conferencing”. She did not identify the accused who picked up her brother and the accused who sat in her brother's car. She did not identify the boys who came on the motorcycle, the bench pointed out.

The court also opined that the material part of her testimony was full of omissions.

"These omissions are very significant and relevant as they relate to the most crucial part of the prosecution’s case. Hence, these omissions amount to contradictions in view of the explanation to Section 162 of the CrPC. Moreover, the identification of the accused is very doubtful in the absence of the test identification parade. For all the reasons, the evidence of Paramjeet will have to be kept out of consideration," the bench said.

Her husband, who, according to her, was an eyewitness, was not examined by the Police. Therefore, an adverse inference will have to be drawn against the prosecution for withholding evidence of an eyewitness, the bench added.

With regard to CCTV footage, the bench said, the CD did not bear any marking or sign from either of the witnesses.

"Most importantly, the prosecution failed to produce the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act concerning the CD. Therefore, the evidence in the form of the CD will have to be kept out of consideration as it is not admissible in evidence," the bench said.

The court also said that there was one more crucial aspect. "Assuming that the CCTV footage was admissible, the trial judge and the judges of the High Court did not see the CCTV footage. Still, the courts relied upon it," it said.

Referring to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs the State of Maharashtra (1984), the bench said, CCTV footage was one of the circumstances in the chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution. Even if one of the circumstances forming part of the chain was not proved, the prosecution case could not be held as established, it added.

So far as the evidence of recovery of the parts of the dead body of the deceased, the court said, it had to be noted that the recovery of the torso and other body parts was made on July 9, 2013.

"The recovery cannot be said to be at the instance of the accused. The reason is the Investigating Officer stated that he received an information that one dead body was found without head, hands and legs near village Dhalla. This information was given to him on telephone by MHC, Police Station at Mahesh Nagar. The evidence of recovery at the instance of the accused is of the Maruti car used in the offence, the weapon used in the offence and recovery of articles of the deceased such as a driving licence," it pointed out.

"After disbelieving the testimony of PW-26 (Paramjeet), who claims to be an eyewitness, after discarding the evidence of the CD of the alleged CCTV footage and after finding that another eyewitness, though available, has not been examined, 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 have not been proved," the bench said.

On confessions recorded by the Investigating Officer, the bench said that he attempted to prove the confessions allegedly made by the accused to a police officer when they were in Police custody.

"There is a complete prohibition on even proving such confessions. The trial judge has completely lost sight of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and has allowed PW-27 (IO) to prove the confessions allegedly made by the accused while they were in police custody," the bench said.

The court said that Section 27 is an exception to Sections 25 and 26.

"It permits certain parts of the statement made by the accused to a police officer while in custody to be proved. Under Section 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," the bench said.

In this case, the bench noted, even the inadmissible part of the statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act had been incorporated in the examination-in chief of the Investigating Officer.

"The trial judge should not have recorded an inadmissible confession in the deposition. A 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 Section 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," the bench said.

On state counsel's assertions that it was gruesome murder, the bench said, "It is true that this is a case of a brutal murder. The brutality of the offence does not dispense with the legal requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, there is no legal evidence to prove the involvement of the accused. The 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."

The court thus set aside the judgments of the High Court and the sessions court and acquitted the appellants, saying if they were in prison, they should be set at liberty immediately in case not required in any other case.

Case Title: Randeep Singh @ Rana & Anr Vs State of Haryana & Ors