SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(SC) 637

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, INDU MALHOTRA, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
RAJESH @ SARKARI & ANR. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1648 OF 2019
Decided on : 03-11-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Rakesh K. Khanna, Anil Hooda, Ravindeer Hooda, Jitendra Hooda, Ajay Sharma, Apsana Khatoon, Pramod Kumar, Sandeep Mishra, Yadav Narender Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Deepak Thukral, Monika Gusain, Advocates

Headnote:

The appellants were convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution's case was that the appellants, along with a co-accused, had shot and killed the deceased in broad daylight near the law department of a university. The appellants' conviction was based primarily on the testimony of two eyewitnesses, the deceased's father (PW4) and brother (PW5), who claimed to have witnessed the shooting from a distance of about 100 feet. The appellants challenged their conviction on several grounds, including the reliability of the eyewitness testimony, the discrepancies in the forensic science laboratory (FSL) reports, and their refusal to undergo a test identification parade.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased was shot and killed in broad daylight near the law department of a university. The prosecution's case was that the appellants, along with a co-accused, had committed the murder. The appellants' conviction was based primarily on the testimony of two eyewitnesses, the deceased's father (PW4) and brother (PW5), who claimed to have witnessed the shooting from a distance of about 100 feet.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the eyewitness testimony was unreliable and that the FSL reports were contradictory and suffered from serious infirmities. The court also found that the appellants' refusal to undergo a test identification parade was not a sufficient basis for drawing an adverse inference against them, given the other weaknesses in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants of the murder charge.

Issues: 1. Whether the eyewitness testimony was reliable. 2. Whether the FSL reports were contradictory and suffered from serious infirmities. 3. Whether the appellants' refusal to undergo a test identification parade was a sufficient basis for drawing an adverse inference against them.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court found that the eyewitness testimony was unreliable because the eyewitnesses had made several improvements in their testimony and because their account of the events was contradicted by other evidence, such as the medical evidence and the FSL reports. 2. The court found that the FSL reports were contradictory and suffered from serious infirmities because they contained errors and inconsistencies, and because the ballistics examiner was not called to testify at trial to explain the discrepancies. 3. The court found that the appellants' refusal to undergo a test identification parade was not a sufficient basis for drawing an adverse inference against them because the identification in the course of a TIP is intended to lend assurance to the identity of the accused, but the finding of guilt cannot be based purely on the refusal of the accused to undergo an identification parade.

Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellants of the murder charge.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J

1. The appellants Rajesh alias Sarkari and Ajay Hooda have been convicted, together with a co-accused1 [Pehlad Singh alias Harpal] for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the India Penal Code2[IPC] and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life.

2. On 26 December 2006, a ruqqa3[written intimation] was received at the Police Post, PGIMS from PGIMS, Rohtak about Sandeep Hooda, son of Azad Singh Hooda, having been brought dead there. ASI, Meha Singh met Azad Singh, the complainant, at the emergency ward in PGIMS, Rohtak. Azad Singh made a statement which was reduced into writing upon which a First Information Report4[FIR] being FIR No. 781 was registered under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code5[CrPC] at Police Station Sadar, Rohtak. The complainant stated that his elder son Sandeep was studying in the final year of the LLB degree course in Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak6[University]. On 26 December 2006, Sandeep had gone to the law department in the University to prepare for the exams. The complainant’s son-in-law had come to their house and was in a hurry to leave after meeting Sandeep. They tried to contact Sandeep on his cell phone but were unable to get through. The complainant and his younger son, Sunil, then proceeded on their motor-cycle to the University. At about 2:30pm when they reached the parking in proximity to the law department, they saw that 6 men standing under the tin sheds started firing shots at Sandeep who was standing there. Sandeep was alleged to have fallen down upon which the complainant and his son, Sunil, rushed towards the spot. The three young men fled towards the Delhi road on a silver coloured Pulsar make motor-cycle. The complainant stated that he had not noted the registration number of the motor-cycle but could identify the assailants, if they were brought before him. The complainant alleged that blood was oozing out from the right foot, abdomen, arm, left temple and thigh of Sandeep. The complainant also stated that Sandeep was taken to PGIMS, Rohtak by Parveen, son of Zile Singh Hooda, and “another person” in a Santro car belonging to Sandeep. However, he succumbed to the fire arm injuries before reaching the hospital. The complainant, Azad Singh, stated that his son had strained relations with some persons and those persons had killed him.

3. As a result of the investigation, initially, accused Rajesh alias Sarkari and Ajay Hooda were apprehended and arraigned. Subsequently, accused Pehlad, was also arraigned to face trial. The offence under Section 302 being triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the two appellants were committed for trial to the Sessions Judge, Rohtak by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, pursuant to an order dated 25 September 2007. Subsequently, on the basis of the supplementary charge-sheet presented against accused Pehlad, he was also committed to the Court of Sessions Judge by the JMFC on 31 March 2008. The trials against all the three accused were consolidated by an order dated 12 April 2008. Charges were framed on 8 May 2008. All the accused pleaded that they were not guilty. The prosecution examined 24 witnesses at the trial, as noted by the judgment of the Sessions Court:

    “9. The prosecution … examined as many as twenty four witnesses namely HC Karan Singh as PW1, Ram Singh as PW2, Ajit Singh as PW3, Azad Singh as PW4, Sunil as PW5, SI Wazir Singh as PW6, SI Jagram as PW7, HC Sat Narain as PW8, Constable Sumit Kumar as PW9, SI Mahender Singh as PW10, ASI Dharambir as PW11, Constable Rajiv Godara as PW12, HC Vijay Pal as PW13, Dr. Sushma jain as PW14, retired Inspector Ram Mehar Singh as PW15, Ex. Head Constable Ranbir Singh as PW16, Constable Jitender Kumar as PW17, Inspector/SHO Rajender Singh as PW18, SI Ram Kishan as PW19, HC Jai Kishan as PW20, retired SI Maha Singh as PW21, retired ASI Balwan Singh as PW22, SIBanarsi Dass as PW23 and EHC Ram Chander as PW24. Learned Public Prosecutor


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top