New Delhi, Nov 8.
The Supreme Court has extended the benefit of doubt to three convicts in the heinous Chhawla rape and murder case in Delhi and set aside their conviction and sentences. The three had been sentenced to death by the trial court and the High Court.
The court set free the three convicts — Rahul, Ravi Kumar and Vinod @Chhotu — on the ground that the prosecution had not been able to establish a cogent chain of evidence to prove their involvement in the crime.
“The prosecution has to bring home the charges levelled against them beyond reasonable doubt which the prosecution has failed to do in the instant case.”
“Resultantly, the court is left with no alternative but to acquit the accused, though involved in a very heinous crime,” a three-judge bench led by outgoing Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit said.
The other two judges on the bench were Justices Ravindra Bhatt and Bela M. Trivedi.
Parents will get compensation as per law
The judges, however, said that the parents of the victim would be entitled to compensation even though the accused have been acquitted.
“It is needless to say that in view of Section 357(A) CrPC, the family members of the deceased, victim would be entitled to the compensation even though the accused have been acquitted.”
“Hence, while allowing these appeals and acquitting the accused, we direct that the parents of the victim would be entitled to the compensation, if not awarded so far by the Delhi state legal services authority, as may be permissible in accordance with law.”
“The judgments and orders of conviction and the sentence passed by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court are set aside.”
The case had created a stir in view of the brutal manner in which the victim was raped, tortured and killed. The trial court had in its Feb 19, 2014, order convicted all three Ravi Kumar, Vinod @ Chhotu and Rahul for the offences of murder and gang rape.
Incident dates back to 2012
In appeal, the Delhi High Court on Aug 26, 2014, affirmed the sentence of death and other sentences imposed on the accused. The incident dates back to Feb 9, 2012, when the girl was kidnapped while returning home. Her body was found three days later.
Justifying its decision to set aside the concurrent findings of the lower court and the High Court, the top court said that in the instant case, “material witnesses examined by the prosecution having not been either cross-examined or adequately examined”.
“The trial court also having acted as a passive umpire, we find that the 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.”
Entire disclosure statement of accused was read as evidence
The trial court had committed gross error, in exhibiting the entire disclosure statements of the accused recorded by investigating officer, for being read in evidence.
The information furnished to the investigating officer leading to the discovery of the place of the offence would be admissible to the extent indicated in Section 27 read with Section 8 of the Evidence Act, not the entire disclosure statement in the nature of confession recorded by the police officer, the top court said.
Some witnesses not examined; others not adequately examined
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, it noted.
The record shows that all samples relating to the accused and relating to the deceased were seized by the Investigating Officer on 14.02.2012 and 16.02.2012; and they were sent to CFSL for examination on 27.02.2012. During this period, they remained in the Malkhana of the Police Station.
Tampering with DNA samples not ruled out
“Under the circumstances, the possibility of tampering with the samples collected also could not be ruled out.”
Neither the trial court nor the High Court examined the underlying basis of the findings in the DNA reports nor have they examined the fact whether the techniques were reliably applied by the expert, the top court said.
In absence of such evidence on record, all the reports regarding DNA profiling become highly vulnerable, more particularly when the collection and sealing of the samples sent for examination were also not free from suspicion.
Thus, having regard to the totality of circumstances and the evidence on record, it is difficult to hold that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused by adducing cogent and clinching evidence, the apex court said.
Circumstantial evidence must form a chain consistent with guilt of accused
As per the settled legal position, in order to sustain conviction, 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 court said.
The circumstantial evidence must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence, the bench said.
Evidence did not unerringly point at guilt of accused
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, it said.
“The prosecution has to bring home the charges levelled against them beyond reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do in the instant case, resultantly, the court is left with no alternative but to acquit the accused, though involved in a very heinous crime.”
“It may be true that if the accused involved in the heinous crime go unpunished or are acquitted, a kind of agony and frustration may be caused to the society in general and to the family of the victim in particular, however the law does not permit the courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. No conviction should be based merely on the apprehension of indictment or condemnation over the decision rendered.”
