Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
Mukesh & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State for NCT of Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 607-608 OF 2017 (arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos. 3119-3120 of 2014) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 609-610 OF 2017 (arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos. 5027-5028 of 2014)
Decided On : 05-05-2017
(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 154 – Delay in lodging FIR – Even a long delay can be condoned if the informant has no motive for implicating the accused – Instantly, the sequence of events being natural, there is no delay in lodging FIR – a (Para 50, 51)
(1974) 4 SCC 201 : AIR 1974 SC 606; (2009) 6 SCC 308 – Relied upon
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 154 – Non mentioning of names of assailants, description of the bus and use of iron rods – FIR not an encyclopedia of facts – Victim not expected to give details of the incident either in the FIR or in the brief history given to the doctors – Any omission in has to be considered along with the other evidence – Omission in the first statement of the informant not fatal to the case. (Para 55, 57, 58)
(1997) 4 SCC 161; (1975) 4 SCC 153; (1978) 4 SCC 302; 1980 Supp SCC 567; (2008) 5 SCC 368 – Relied upon
(c) Criminal trial – Evidence – Evidence of a witness is not to be disbelieved simply because he is a partisan witness or related to the prosecution – It is to be weighed whether he was present or not and whether he is telling the truth or not – Instantly PW1 was injured in the same occurrence and in a shocked mental condition – Evidence of PW1 impeccable in that he clearly spoken about the occurrence and corroborated his complaint – Not shaken in roving cross examination – Evidentiary value of an injured witness carries great weight – Further, his presence at the place of occurrence established by, apart from injuries, DNA test – Minor omissions in FIR and discrepancies in evidence don not matter. (Para 77, 79, 81, 82, 90, 97)
(2012) 4 SCC 79; (2012) 11 SCC 196; (2000) 4 SCC 484; (2009) 13 SCC 722; (1985) 1 SCC 505; (2002) 6 SCC 470 – Relied upon
(d) Criminal trial – Court is not merely to see that no innocent man is punished – It has also to be seen that a guilty man does not escape. (Para 86)
AIR 1965 SC 277; (1978) 4 SCC 161; (2002) 6 SCC 81 – Relied upon
(e) Criminal trial – Electronic evidence – CCTV footage – Pen drive and CD – Experts certifying no tampering with exhibits pen derive and CD – No reason to doubt the same. (Para 100)
(f) Criminal trial – Parking of seized bus at stadium rather than police station – Bus being guarded round the clock till CFSL team completed their work – Criticism on place of parking pales into insignificance. (Para 105)
(2014) 214 DLT 646 – Cited with approval
(g) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Recovery is a part of investigation and permissible u/s 27 – Not permissible to argue that section 27 is constantly abused by prosecution or is used as a lethal weapon against anyone it likes. (Para 127)
(h) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – ‘Fact discovered’ not equivalent to object produced – Recoveries made while accused in custody – Witnesses deposing in regard to recoveries remaining firm in cross-examination – Recovery founded on the statements of disclosure – Items recovered within special knowledge of accused – No explanation by accused – Recoveries of articles belonging to the informant and the victim from custody of accused persons cannot be discarded. (Para 136)
AIR 1947 PC 67; (1972) 4 SCC 659; (1976) 1 SCC 828; (2004) 10 SCC 657; (2005) 11 SCC 600; (2001) 1 SCC 652; (2012) 11 SCC 205; (2008) 12 SCC 173; (2013) 6 SCC 588 – Relied upon
(i) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 9 – Test Identification Parade – Test Identification Proceedings corroborating and lending assurance to dock identification of accused Mukesh and Akshay by the informant, PW-1 – TIP does not constitute substantive evidence – Can only be used to corroborate statement in court – PW 1 identifying accused also in court – TIP deserves to be accepted (Para 139, 141, 145)
(1971) 2 SCC 75; (1973) 2 SCC 406; (2003) 5 SCC 746; (2003) 6 SCC 73; (2010) 6 SCC 1; (2005) 9 SCC 631; (1975) 4 SCC 480 – Relied upon
(j) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32 – Three dying declarations – Defence pointing at insignificant errors – Inconsequential – Statements recorded under supervision of ICU incharge – Corroborated by medical evidence – Cannot be discarded on account of meagre technical errors. (Para 171, 172)
(k) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32 – Dying declaration, if veracious and voluntary – Could be sole basis for conviction even without corroboration – Instantly dying declaration duly corroborated by other prosecution witnesses including the medical evidence – Dying declaration recorded on the basis of nods and gestures – Not only admissible but also possesses evidentiary value – Non videography of dying declaration – Not fatal – Held, all the three dying declarations consistent with each other and well corroborated with other evidence – Courts below correctly placing reliance upon the dying declarations to record the conviction. (Para 173, 180, 185, 189)
(2002) 6 SCC 710; (2010) 9 SCC 1; (1992) 2 SCC 474; (2008) 17 SCC 190; (2012) 7 SCC 569; (2010) 14 SCC 444; (2015) 11 SCC 154 : (2015) 2 SCR 1999 SC; (2003) 12 SCC 490; (1992) 4 SCC 225; (2015) 4 SCC 749; (1994) 4 SCC 182; (2004) 13 SCC 249 – Relied upon
(l) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 53A and 164A – DNA (Deoxyribo Nucleic Acid) profiling – Now a part of statutory scheme in case of rape – If the sampling is proper and if there is no evidence as to tampering of samples, the DNA test report is to be accepted. (Para 213, 214, 224)
1997 (1) Criminal Appeal Reports 369; 54 App. D.C. 46 (1923); 129 Supreme Court Reporter 2308; (2001) 5 SCC 311; (2009) 14 SCC 607; (2010) 9 SCC 747; (2011) 5 SCC 509; (2011) 7 SCC 130; (2011) 4 SCC 80; (2012) 9 SCC 1; (2012) 6 SCC 107; (2014) 5 SCC 353; (2014) 2 SCC 576 – Relied upon
(m) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 45 – Finger prints – Chance finger prints from the bus establishing presence of accused Vinay. (Para 232)
(n) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 45 – Forensic Odontology – Application of dental knowledge to assist the criminal justice delivery system – Bite mark analysis report linking the crime with accused Ram Singh and accused Akshay – Contention that bite marks were managed rejected. (Para 233, 235, 238, 244)
(o) Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – Alibi – Onus of presence of accused on the spot having been discharged by prosecution – Burden to establish plea of alibi lies on accused – Plea of ‘alibi’, has to be weighed against positive evidence led by the prosecution – Instantly accused persons miserably failing to discharge their burden of absolute certainty qua their plea of ‘alibi’ – Plea appearing to be an afterthought – May be read as an additional circumstance against them – Plea rightly rejected by courts below. (Para 254, 266)
(1997) 1 SCC 283; (2002) 8 SCC 18; (2010) 8 SCC 430; (2012) 6 SCC 204; 1985 (Supp.) SCC 611; (2015) 4 SCC 749 – Relied upon
(p) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120A and 120B r/w section 10, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Criminal conspiracy – Mere formation of an agreement to do an illegal act or a legal act illegally – A punishable and continuing offence – Subsist till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by the choice of necessity – Conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from surrounding circumstances and conduct of the accused – Instantly testimony of PW-1 coupled with the dying declarations of the prosecutrix establish charge u/s 120B against all the accused persons. (Para 271, 275, 283, 287, 289)
(1837) 173 ER 508; (1901) AC 495; AIR 1971 SC 885; AIR 1961 SC 1762; (1977) 4 SCC 540; (1988) 3 SCC 609; (2001) 1 SCC 378; (2009) 15 SCC 643; (2013) 1 SCC 613; (2005) 12 SCC 631; (1999) 5 SCC 253; (2001) 7 SCC 596; 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80; (1980) 2 SCC 665 – Relied upon
(q) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 235(2) r/w section 354(3) and sections 376(g) and 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sentencing – Brutal, barbaric and diabolic nature of the crime – Instantly aggravating circumstances outweighing the mitigating circumstances – Held, High Court correctly confirming the death penalty – No reason to differ with the same. (Para 356, 357)
(1976) 4 SCC 190; (1977) 3 SCC 68; (1980) 2 SCC 684; (1983) 3 SCC 470; (1994) 2 SCC 220; (1996) 6 SCC 250; (2011) 12 SCC 56; (1994) 3 SCC 381; (2008) 11 SCC 113; (2002) 5 SCC 234; (2012) 4 SCC 37 – Relied upon
(2013) 2 SCC 452; (2013) 5 SCC 546; (2007) 4 SCC 713; (2011) 3 SCC 85; (1989) 1 SCC 678; AIR 1968 SC 1402; (1998) 3 SCC 625; (1999) 3 SCC 670; (2009) 6 SCC 498; (2010) 1 SCC 58; (2011) 2 SCC 764; (2012) 4 SCC 107; (2014) 11 SCC 129; (2001) 9 SCC 615; (2011) 13 SCC 706; (2012) 4 SCC 257; (2013) 2 SCC 479; (2008) 13 SCC 767; (2016) 7 SCC 1; (2012) 5 SCC 766; (2013) 7 SCC 725; (2013) 9 SCC 795; (2014) 12 SCC 274; (1991) 3 SCC 471; (2005) 3 SCC 114; (2005) 3 SCC 793; (2009) 6 SCC 667; (2013) 3 SCC 215; (2015) 1 SCC 67; (2013) 10 SCC 421; (2015) 6 SCC 652; 33 L Ed 2d 346 : 408 US 238 (1972); (1998) 2 SCC 372; (2002) 1 SCC 622; (2015) 1 SCC 253 – Referred
Per R. Banumathi, J. (Concurring)
(r) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376(2)(g) – Joint liability – Prosecution must discharge the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused – This onus never shifts – Courts must deal with rape cases with utmost sensitivity – Must not be swayed by minor discrepancies – Testimony of victim not legally required to be corroborated – Victim of rape cannot be equated with an accomplice – Conviction can be based on sole evidence of the victim. (Para 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24)
(1996) 2 SCC 384; (2000) 5 SCC 30; (2000) 1 SCC 247; (2005) 13 SCC 766; (2012) 7 SCC 171; (2000) 4 SCC 75; (1983) 3 SCC 217; (1980) 3 SCC 159; (2009) 16 SCC 69; (2008) 15 SCC 133; (2005) 13 SCC 766; (2004) 1 SCC 421; (2001) 6 SCC 71; (2000) 5 SCC 30; (2000) 1 SCC 247; (2010) 2 SCC 9; (2010) 3 SCC 232; (2011) 14 SCC 309; (2006) 9 SCC 787; (2009) 15 SCC 566; (1999) 1 SCC 220; (2010) 14 SCC 534 – Relied upon
(s) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376 – Rape – Testimony of rape victim must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trauma undergone by the victim – Non-mention of minute details cannot be termed as a material omission. (Para 28)
(t) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32 – Conviction can be based on dying declaration if it is true and voluntary – Multiple dying declarations – Must be consistent with each other – Instantly three dying declarations – Containing improvements, but no material contradictions between the three dying declarations – Recorded in fit state of mind – All the three dying declarations held consistent and trustworthy. (Para 29, 31, 35, 38, 39, 43)
(1976) 3 SCC 618; (1992) 2 SCC 474; AIR 1958 SC 22; (1985) 1 SCC 552; (1996) 2 SCC 194; (2008) 17 SCC 190; (2010) 9 SCC 1; (2014) 7 SCC 405; (2006) 13 SCC 54; (2008) 5 SCC 468; (1993) Supp.(2) SCC 242; (2010) 8 SCC 514; (2011) 2 SCC 750; (2013) 2 SCC 224 – Relied upon
(u) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32 – Dying declaration – Not necessarily by words or in writing – Can be by gestures and nods. (Para 42)
(1994) 4 SCC 182; (2004) 13 SCC 249 – Relied upon
(v) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376 – Injuries on the person of a rape victim – Not even a sine qua non for proving charge of rape. (Para 47)
(2000) 5 SCC 197; (2000) 1 SCC 471; (2000) 5 SCC 30 – Relied upon
(w) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65-B – Electronic record satisfying conditions u/s 65-B – Admissible in proceeding. (Para 56)
(x) Criminal trial – Evidence of injured witness – Generally considered to be very reliable. (Para 58)
(2012) 4 SCC 79 – Relied upon
(y) Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – Injured eye witness – Subsequent statements giving more details than previous one – All consistent – Corroborated by other evidence – Minor discrepancies do not matter. (Page 64)
(2012) 5 SCC 724; (2012) 11 SCC 196; (2000) 4 SCC 484; (2009) 13 SCC 722 – Relied upon
(z) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Recovery of fact and recovery of material – Burden of rebutting the proof of recovery lies on defence and is very strict – Merely pointing out procedural irregularities not enough – Recovery made pursuant to the statement of accused – Seizure memo need not mandatorily be attested by independent witnesses – Held, recoveries made pursuant to disclosure statement of accused duly proved – No substantial reason to discard the same. (Para 77, 80, 82)
(2007) 9 SCC 315; (2001) 1 SCC 652; AIR 1947 PC 67; (2005) 11 SCC 600 – Relied upon
(aa) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 53A – DNA (De-oxy-ribonucleic acid) profiling – An important forensic tool to connect accused to the crime – Almost hundred per cent precise and accurate – Instantly DNA profiling establishing link between the accused persons and the crime. (Para 91)
(2010) 9 SCC 747 – Relied upon
(ab) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120B r/w section 10, Indian Evidence act, 1872 – Essence of the offence of conspiracy is in agreement to break the law – Anything done by any one of the accused in reference to their common intention, is admissible against the others – Joint liability – Conspiracy is a matter of inference – Held, prosecution has proved the existence of conspiracy to commit gang rape and other offences. (Para 94, 96, 98, 101)
(1962) 2 SCR 195; (2000) 6 SCC 269; (1980) 2 SCC 465; (1981) 2 SCC 443; (1988) 3 SCC 609; (1996) 4 SCC 659; (2005) 11 SCC 600; (1999) 5 SCC 253; (2013) 13 SCC 1; (2008) 10 SCC 394; (2003) 2 SCC 143 – Relied upon
(1970) 1 SCC 696; (2001) 7 SCC 596; (2003) 3 SCC 641; (2008) 10 SCC 394; (2013) 1 SCC 613; (2014) 8 SCC 340 – Referred
(ac) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376(2)(g) IPC r/w Explanation – Sharing of common intention and the jointness in commission of rape established – Materials on record establishing guilt of accused persons. (Para 104, 105)
(2003) 2 SCC 143 – Relied upon
(ad) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1860 – Section 235(2) r/w section 354(3) and section 367(20(g) and 302, Indian Penal code, 1860 – Sentencing – Important factors – Aggravating and mitigating circumstances – Undue sympathy should not be shown – “Crime Test”, “Criminal Test” and the “Rarest of the Rare Test” – Young age not a mitigating circumstance – ‘Victim-centric’ approach. (Para 117, 126, 127, 137)
(2005) 2 SCC 710; (1994) 4 SCC 353; (1980) 2 SCC 684; (1983) 3 SCC 470; (2008) 13 SCC 767; (2012) 4 SCC 257; (2013) 2 SCC 452; (1999) 9 SCC 581; (2008) 11 SCC 113; (2009) 6 SCC 667; (2011) 7 SCC 45; (2011) 5 SCC 317; (2008) 15 SCC 269; (2012) 4 SCC 37; (1994) 2 SCC 220; (2013) 5 SCC 546 – Relied upon
(1977) 3 SCC 68; (1991) 4 SCC 341; (2012) 8 SCC 43; (2007) 12 SCC 282; (2005) 3 SCC 793; (2009) 6 SCC 667; (1996) 6 SCC 250; (2005) 3 SCC 114; (2013) 3 SCC 215; (1991) 3 SCC 471; (2015) 1 SCC 67; (1971) 3 SCC 759; (2013) 10 SCC 421; (2015) 6 SCC 632 – Referred
(ae) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376(2)(g) r/w 302 – Instant a case of brutal gang-rape and murder of a young lady, involving most gruesome and barbaric acts – Committed in connivance and collusion of six on a notorious spree – Punishment should be befitting the crime reflecting public abhorrence of the crime – Crimes like the instant one cannot be looked with magnanimity – Factors like young age and poor background of the accused not mitigating circumstances – Likewise, post-crime remorse and post-crime good conduct of the accused, absence of criminal antecedents and their good conduct in prison, also not mitigating circumstances – Aggravating circumstances outweighing the mitigating circumstances – Case falls in the category of “rarest of rare cases” – Death sentence confirmed. (Para 140, 145, 146)
(2013) 2 SCC 713; (2015) 1 SCC 67; (2015) 6 SCC 652; (1999) 3 SCC 19 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
This is the ill famous Nirbhaya case.
The submission on behalf of appellants is that the whole exercise, namely, investigation and trial, has been carried out with the sole purpose for the survival of the prosecuting agency.
Sessions Judge convicted all the accused persons, namely, Akshay Kumar Singh @ Thakur, Vinay Sharma, Mukesh and Pawan Gupta @ Kaalu under Section 120B IPC for the offence of criminal conspiracy; under Section 365/366 IPC read with Section 120B IPC for abducting the victims with an intention to force the prosecutrix to illicit intercourse; under Section 307 IPC read with Section 120B IPC for attempting to kill PW-1, the informant; under Section 376(2)(g) IPC for committing gang rape with the prosecutrix in pursuance of their conspiracy; under Section 377 IPC read with Section 120B IPC for committing unnatural offence with the prosecutrix; under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120B IPC for committing murder of the helpless prosecutrix; under Section 395 IPC for conjointly committing dacoity in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy; under Section 397 IPC read with Section 120B IPC for the use of iron rods and for attempting to kill PW-1 at the time of committing robbery; under Section 201 IPC read with Section 120B IPC for destroying of evidence and under Section 412 IPC for the offence of being individually found in possession of the stolen property which they all knew was a stolen booty of dacoity committed by them.
Trial Judge imposed the following sentence:
“(a) The convicts, namely, convict Akshay Kumar Singh @ Thakur, convict Mukesh, convict Vinay Sharma and convict Pawan Gupta @ Kaalu are sentenced to death for offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the convicts to be hanged by neck till they are dead. Fine of Rs.10,000/-to each of the convict is also imposed and in default of payment of fine such convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
(b) for the offence under Section 120-B IPC I award the punishment of life imprisonment to each of the convict and fine of Rs.5000/-to each of them. In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month to such convict;
(c) for the offence under Section 365 IPC I award the punishment of seven years to each of the convict and fine of Rs.5000/-to each of them. In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month to such convict;
(d) for the offence under Section 366 IPC I award the punishment of seven years to each of the convict person and fine of Rs.5000/-to each of them. In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month to such convict;
(e) for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC I award the punishment of life imprisonment to each of the convict person with fine of Rs.5000/-to each of them. In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month to such convict;
(f) for the offence under Section 377 IPC
I award the punishment of ten years to each of the convict person and fine of Rs.5000/-to each of them. In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month to such convict;
(g) for the offence under Section 307 IPC I award the punishment of seven years to each of the convict person and fine of Rs.5000/-to each of them. In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month to such convict;
(h) for the offence under Section 201 IPC I award the punishment of seven years to each of the convict person and fine of Rs.5000/-to each of them. In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month to such convict;
(i) for the offence under Section 395 read with Section 397 IPC I award the punishment of ten years to each of the convict person and fine of Rs.5000/-to each of them. In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month to such convict;
(j) for the offence under Section 412 IPC I award the punishment of ten years to each of the convict person and fine of Rs.5000/-to each of them. In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month to such convict;”
Sentences under Sections 120B/365/366/376(2)(g)/ 377/201/395/397/412 IPC were directed to run concurrently and benefit under Section 428 CrPC was allowed wherever applicable. Trial court further recommended that appropriate compensation under Section 357A CrPC be awarded to the legal heirs of the prosecutrix. That apart, as death penalty was imposed, he referred the matter to the High Court for confirmation under Section 366 CrPC.
The High Court affirmed the conviction and confirmed the death penalty imposed upon the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The prosecution has proved the charges leveled against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
Result: Appeals dismissed. Death sentences confirmed.
Key Points: - The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and death sentences for Mukesh, Akshay Kumar Singh, Vinay Sharma, and Pawan Gupta in the Nirbhaya case for offences including criminal conspiracy, gang rape, murder, and dacoity (!) (!) . - Delay in FIR registration is condoned if no motive to falsely implicate accused exists; FIR is not an encyclopedia of facts (!) (!) . - Testimony of injured witness PW-1 and three consistent dying declarations of victim are reliable and corroborated by medical and scientific evidence (!) (!) (!) . - Recoveries under Section 27 Evidence Act from accused, including victim's belongings and iron rods with matching DNA, link them to crime (!) (!) . - DNA profiling, fingerprint analysis (matching Vinay's prints on bus), and bite mark odontology reports scientifically establish accused's involvement (!) (!) (!) . - Plea of alibi by accused fails against prosecution evidence; criminal conspiracy inferred from conduct and circumstances (!) (!) . - Case falls in 'rarest of rare' category due to brutal gang rape, use of iron rods causing fatal injuries, outweighing mitigating factors like young age and poor background (!) (!) .
Dipak Misra, J. [for himself and Ashok Bhushan, J.]
The cold evening of Delhi on 16th December, 2012 could not have even remotely planted the feeling in the twenty-three year old lady, a para-medical student, who had gone with her friend to watch a film at PVR Select City Walk Mall, Saket, that in the next few hours, the shattering cold night that was gradually stepping in would bring with it the devastating hour of darkness when she, alongwith her friend, would get into a bus at Munirka bus stand to be dropped at a particular place; and possibly could not have imagined that she would be a prey to the savage lust of a gang of six, face brutal assault and become a playful thing that could be tossed around at their wild whim and her private parts would be ruptured to give vent to their pervert sexual appetite, unthinkable and sadistic pleasure. What the victims had not conceived of, it all happened, as the chronology of events would unroll. The attitude, perception, the beastial proclivity, inconceivable self-obsession and individual centralism of the six made the young lady to suffer immense trauma and, in the ultimate eventuate, the life-spark that moves the bodily frame got extinguished in spite of availing of all the possible treatment that the medical world could provide. The death took place at a hospital in Singapore where she had been taken to with the hope that her life could be saved.
2. The friend of the girl survived in spite of being thrown outside the bus along with the girl and the attempt of the accused-appellants to run over them became futile as they, by their slight movement, could escape from being crushed under the bus, and the appellants left them thinking that they were no more alive. Lying naked, as the clothes were removed from their bodies, they shouted for help and as good fortune would have it, the night patrolling vehicle, a motor cycle, arrived and the said man, Raj Kumar, PW-72, gave the shirt to the boy and contacted the control room from which a Bolero patrol van came and they brought a bed sheet and tore it into two parts and gave a piece to each of the victims so that they could cover themselves and feel civil. The PCR van took the victims to the Safdarjung Hospital where treatment commenced.
3. The present case is one where there can be no denial that the narrative is long, the investigation has been cautious and to bring home the charge, modern and progressive scientific methods have been adopted. Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counsel for the respondent-State, has made indefatigable endeavour to project that the investigation is flawless and exemplary; and Mr. M.L. Sharma and Mr. A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, have severely criticized it as faulty on many a score and that it is completely biased; and Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned senior counsel, the friend of the Court, in his own way, has highlighted that the investigation is not only flawed but also unreliable which deserves chastisement and warrants rejection. Many facets of the investigation that pertain to recording of dying declaration, recording of statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the medical examination, holding of the test identification parade, the manner and method of search and seizure and the procedure of arrest have been seriously commented upon. That apart, criticism is advanced from many a spectrum to strengthen the stance that it does not meet the standard and test determined by law. Needless to say, the factual score and the investigation have to withstand the test of reliability and acceptability. The appreciation of evidence brought on record requires to be appositely scrutinized to adjudge the fact whether the appellants are guilty of their culpability or there has been public pressure, as alleged, to falsely implicate the appellants or
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
