'Gaping Holes In Prosecution' : Supreme Court Acquits Man Who Was Sentenced To Death For Rape & Murder

The Supreme Court today(January 28) set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court which upheld the conviction and the death sentence awarded to the Appellant by the Trial Court for the rape and murder of a 23 years old woman which took place in 2014. The Court acquitted the Appellant of all charges on the ground that when the prosecution is relying on circumstantial evidence to draw home the guilty, it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; which is a cardinal principle of criminal law as held in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra (1984). In this case, the prosecution failed to do so.A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan held that the facts cumulatively lead to the conclusion that there are "gaping holes" in the prosecution's story.It held: "All these facts cumulatively constrain us to conclude that there are gaping holes in the prosecution story leading to the irresistible conclusion that there is something more than what meets the eye in this case. While the old adage, witness may lie but not the circumstances, may be correct, however, the circumstances adduced, as held by this Court, should be fully established."There is a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as held by this Court. The circumstances relied upon when stitched together do not lead to the sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and we do not find that the chain is so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused... On the available evidence, we are of the opinion that it will be extremely unsafe to sustain a conviction against the appellant."By an order dated December 20, 2018, the High Court upheld the death sentence award for the offence of murder and the respective sentences awarded for various offences including kidnapping or abducting to murder. The Appellant was directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000 to the deceased's parents. As per brief facts, the dead body of the young woman, who was travelling to Mumbai where she was working, was found burnt and decomposed.After registration of the First Information Report, the chemical analysis report stated death due to head injury with smothering associated with genital injuries as the final cause of death. It was further clarified that injuries to the genitals are possible by forcible entry of some article in the vagina (since the defence had raised the issue that no semen was found).The High Court had stated that post post-mortem report established the body was partly burnt. There was an attempt made to destroy evidence. The High Court also stated that the accused had consumed alcohol and was seen loitering on the railway platform and that the deceased had accompanied the accused while leaving the railway station as per the CCTV footage. 14 circumstantial evidence by the High Court to sustain conviction and sentence There were in total 14 circumstances drawn by the High Court for sustaining the conviction and sentence of the accused. The Supreme Court addressed circumstances 6 to 13 which concerned the grounds of criminal appeal. These were: 6. The accused consumed liquor at prosecution witness 12's residence and in company of prosecution witness 9 and was seen leaving on a motorcycle belonging to PW 9. 7. CCTV at the Lokmanya Tilak Terminus disclosed that accused was loitering on the platform at 4:50 am. 8. Deceased last seen in the company of the accused in the CCTV. 9. Accused was seen near the Eastern Express Highway with the trolley bag and a bag pack belonging to the deceased. 10. Accused seen with trolley bad in morning on the date of incident by prosecution witness 13 leaving the building. 11. Accused going to astrologer to wash off his sins 12. Some articles belonging to deceased and identify by her father came to be recovered at the instance of accused 13. Accused in extra-judicial confession to PW 9 disclosed he poured petrol on the deceased and set it on fire after raping and killing her.What did the Supreme Court observe?Admissibility of CCTV footage The Court first made observations in regard to the admissibility of the CCTV footage. It found various infirmities in the evidence led by the prosecution. Most importantly, the prosecution did not furnish the Section 65-B(4) certificate under the Indian Evidence Act while collecting the electronic evidence. In this context, the Court perused various judgments and considered the settled position of law which was Section 65-B(4) certificate as a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic evidence as held in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014). In this regard, the Court said: "Thus, when the prosecution was aware of the need for the 65-B (4) certificate and they themselves collected it for the CDRs there was no reason as to why they did not collect the same for the CCTV footage...In view of the above, there is no manner of doubt that...

'Gaping Holes In Prosecution' : Supreme Court Acquits Man Who Was Sentenced To Death For Rape & Murder

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags