Open Access Research Article
RANDEEP SINGH @ RANA & ANR. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
Published Paper
Article Details
RANDEEP SINGH @ RANA & ANR. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.[1]
AUTHORED BY - SHREELAKSHMI BHAT P
|
CITATION
|
2024 INSC
887
|
|
DATE OF JUDGMENT
|
November
22, 2024
|
|
NATURE
|
Criminal Appeal
|
|
COURT
|
Honorable
Supreme Court of India
|
|
JUDGES
|
Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Augustine George Masih.
|
|
COUNSELS
|
Mr. Vinay
Navare (Appellants)
|
|
FINAL DECISION
|
Appeal allowed
|
INTRODUCTION
This is a criminal case that re-establishes the most common, but very
important principles to be followed in the Criminal Procedure. The
case of the Prosecution focused on the abduction and murder of the deceased,
while the case of the Appellants centered on the lack of evidence. This case is an appeal made by the accused
against the judgment of the High Court after the conviction given by the
Sessions Court was confirmed. The judgment of this case depicts the importance
of following the established standards of evidence in criminal trials and the protection of the rights of the Accused.
FACTS
1. On 8th July 2013, the deceased Gurpal Singh
left his house
in his Ford Fiesta car to meet his sister- Paramjeet Kaur. When the deceased
was returning to his house, a few unknown
persons traveling in a white car stopped the car of the deceased and abducted
him, put him in the car of the Accused, and took away the car of the deceased.
2. Jagpreet
Singh, son of Gurpal Singh filed an FIR when he failed to locate his father. On 9th July 2013, the torso with other
body parts of the deceased was recovered from a canal.
3. Testimony of the eyewitness (sister of the deceased): On
8th July 2013 at about 06:45
pm, the deceased had come to her house, left at 07:15 pm and she went
to see him off. Her brother had parked his car in the open plot in front of her house. The deceased
sat in his car and left, and
she and her husband went towards that side. A white Maruti car chased the
deceased and stopped in front of his car. Seven to eight boys came out of that Maruti car and cordoned off the car
of the deceased. She walked in that direction, heard cries from her brother for
help. These boys forcibly threw her brother in the car; some boys sat in her
brother's car and ran away.
4. The
Appellants faced charges for offenses related to Sections 364 (kidnapping), 302
(murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 212 (harboring an offender),
and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
5. The
Sessions Court convicted all eight accused, including the Appellants,
sentencing them to life imprisonment for offenses under Sections 364, 302, and
120-B IPC, and three years rigorous
imprisonment under Section 201 IPC.
6. Upon appeal,
the High Court acquitted the other accused but upheld the convictions of
Randeep Singh and the other Appellant, who have approached the Supreme Court
with this appeal.
ISSUES
1)
Whether the testimony of the eyewitness (sister of the
deceased) is credible under the circumstances?
2)
What is the evidentiary value of the CCTV Footage
without a certificate under Section 65B of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
3)
Whether the chain of evidence
that needs to be established in a case relying on circumstantial evidence is proved by
the Prosecution?
4)
Whether there has been any oversight in the investigation process and the process in which evidence was collected?
5) Does the
confession of the accused in police custody have evidentiary value?
CONTENTIONS
FROM THE SIDE OF THE APPELLANT
? The discrepancy in the CCTV evidence: The
Prosecution relied on CCTV Evidence procured from a Bank near which the offence
was allegedly committed. The Appellant argued that the testimony of the Senior
Bank Manager and the CCTV Engineer does not
prove that the CD produced on record contained what is recorded in the CCTV
cameras installed by the Bank, in the absence of a certificate under
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
? Omissions in the eyewitness testimony: The deceased's
Sister was the eyewitness, but the Appellants claim that her
testimony cannot be relied upon as the material part of her evidence is an
omission.
? Lack of testimony from the brother-in-law of the
deceased: The husband of the primary witness, who was also stated to be an eyewitness has not testified.
? Inadmissibility of confessions in custody: The
Appellant argued that his confession of guilt in custody has been highlighted
and used by the Trial Court in his conviction.
CONTENTIONS
FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDENT
? Testimony of the Sister of the deceased is valid: The State
of Haryana submitted that the sister was a natural
eye-witness, she had identified the Accused in the court,
and there was no reason to
discredit her testimony.
? Value of CCTV evidence as circumstantial evidence: The CCTV
footage proves the complicity of the accused.
? Brutal nature of the offence to be noted: Since this
case involves a very gruesome offence, the concurrent convictions by the lower
courts should be upheld.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE EVIDENCE
LAW
Section 25[2]: No
confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
Section 26[3]: No
confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer
is admissible unless there is the immediate presence of a Magistrate.
Section 27[4]: When
a fact is discovered after receiving information from an accused in police
custody, only the portion of the statement that relates to the fact discovered
is admissible.
Section 65B[5]:
Admissibility of electronic records as evidence requires
that the electronic records must be accompanied by a certificate of authenticity
that is issued by a person in control of the electronic device, and is stating
the manner of production and details to confirm integrity.
RATIONALE
Gaps in the testimony of
Prosecution eyewitness: There was a difference in the statement given to the police and the testimony given in the court. The material part of the testimony of the
sister of the deceased, who is the primary and only eyewitness contains a lot
of omissions and cannot be admitted.
The other eyewitness was the husband of the sister, and according to the
statement of his wife he had accompanied his wife to the police station,
but she claimed that she was
not aware whether a statement was taken from her husband. An adverse
inference was drawn by the Court against the Prosecution for withholding
evidence of an eyewitness.
Significant omissions in the
testimony of the eyewitness: The evidence given by her was held
to be unreliable. The stark difference in the statements given
to the police and in the Court was noted, and the Court held that these
omissions amount to contradictions, and this testimony should be kept out of
consideration.
Failure of the Prosecution to
examine other witnesses: The husband of the sister of the deceased was allegedly an eyewitness as well, but his statement
was never produced. The Court drew
an adverse
inference for this withholding of evidence. Since there is no admissible evidence from the eyewitnesses, this case
depends on circumstantial evidence.
CCTV evidence was held to be
inadmissible: The CCTV footage was produced by the Bank Manager, and an
engineer employed by the bank; however, neither of them had verified
the footage to confirm its authenticity, and both admitted that it
could have been tampered with. Furthermore, the absence of the certificate
required under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872, broke
the chain of circumstantial evidence and rendered the evidence inadmissible.
Guilt not established beyond a
reasonable doubt: In cases relying on circumstantial evidence, failure to establish even one circumstance breaks the chain
of evidence. The Honorable Supreme Court referred to the decision
made in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, a landmark
precedent for cases that rely on circumstantial evidence, and noted the five
facts that need to be established in cases like these-
1. The
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established, with emphasis on
“should”.
2. The facts
so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
3. The
circumstances should be conclusive.
4. They should
exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
5. There must
be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave
any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with
the innocence of the accused.
Violation of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence
Act by the Trial Judge: Confessions made in custody were
admitted. The Supreme Court highlighted this as a grave oversight.
Evidence recovered by the
statement of the accused: Recovery of the body of the Accused was done with
the information given by a 3rd party, and not at the instance of the Accused.
The only evidence recovered by the statement of
the Accused is 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.
Evidence from the Investigation
Officer is unreliable: The Court stated the inadmissibility of confessions of guilt made in police custody
according to Section 25 and Section 26 of the Indian
Evidence Act. The evidence by the Investigation Officer highlights the
statements by the Accused about his guilt, rather than focusing on the discovery
of facts, as is the rule in Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, of
1872.
The brutality of the offence does
not dispense with the legal
requirement of proof
beyond a reasonable doubt: The Court relied upon the case of Subhash Chand v. State of Rajasthan[6] and said that Though the offence is gruesome and revolts
the human conscience but an accused can be convicted only on legal evidence and
if only a chain of circumstantial evidence has been so forged as to rule out
the possibility of any other reasonable hypothesis excepting the guilt
of the accused.
The Supreme Court held that: The
Prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The
appeal was allowed, and the accused were acquitted.
DEFECTS
OF LAW
Defects by the Prosecution and in
the Investigation Procedure:
1.
Mistake in the collection of CCTV evidence- no label
or marking, no instructions to check the footage.
2.
A certificate under Section 65B was not obtained,
making the digital evidence inadmissible.
3.
Body recovered from the information of a third party,
and not front the confession of the Accused.
4.
Incorrect application of Section 27 by highlighting
confessions and not discoveries.
5.
Lack of taking testimony from brother-in-law.
Defects by the Trial Judge: The
learned Trial Judge has ignored Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and has
allowed the Prosecution to prove the confessions allegedly made by the Accused
while they were in police custody.
Defects of the Counsel for the
Appellant: The deficiencies in the evidence should have been uncovered
in the trial stage, or at the High Court.
Defects of the eyewitness: There
is a need for the common man to give truthful and complete testimony to the
police, and not mislead the court.
INFERENCE
This case underscores the critical need for a clear and unbroken chain of
events when a conviction relies on circumstantial evidence. The importance of
discovering and recording the statements from all relevant individuals in every case,
particularly eyewitnesses is understood by this case, as such testimonies form
the backbone of the case. An astonishing amount of accused are
acquitted due to lack of evidence in India, hence there is a need for the Prosecution to work more
diligently to meet the burden of proof. In this particular case, we can see
that most discrepancies in this case are due to a lack of diligence. The rules regarding inadmissibility of
confessions in police custody have been established for decades, but even today
we see Courts not following the procedure for investigation, which violates the fundamental right against
self-incrimination along with the Evidence Law.
[1] Randeep Singh @ Rana and
Anr. v. State of Haryana and Others. 2024 INSC 887
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/51279/51279_2023_5_1502_57415_Judgement_22-Nov-2024.pdf
[2] Section 23(1) of the
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
[3] Section 23(2) of the Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
[4] Proviso to Section 23 of the
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
[5] Section 63 of the Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
[6] Subhash Chand vs State Of
Rajasthan, 2002 (1) SCC 702
Article Information
RANDEEP SINGH @ RANA & ANR. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
Authors: SHREELAKSHMI BHAT P
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2025/03/15
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.