# RAHUL v. STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR

- **Citation:** [2022] 9 S.C.R. 1129
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-11-07
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 611 of 2022
- **Bench:** Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, Bela M. Trivedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rahul-v-state-of-delhi-ministry-of-home-affairs-anr-36563
- **Pages:** 33

## Headnote

Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 365, 367, 376(2)(g), 302, 201 & 34 -
A girl was kidnapped when she was returning from her job along
with her friends - She was raped and killed later on and her body
was thrown in open field - FIR was registered against the accusedappellant u/s 365, 367, 376(2)(g), 302, 201 read with 34 of IPC -
Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record and material
recovered during investigation, convicted and sentenced them with
death penalty - The same was confirmed by the High Court in Death
Sentence Reference referred by the Session Court - On appeal,
held: Neither any T.I. Parade was conducted by the investigating
officer during the course of investigation for the identification of
the accused, nor any of the witnesses had identified the accused
during their respective depositions before the Court - The
circumstances under which the accused were arrested and the car
was seized have also raised serious doubts in the story put-forth by
the prosecution - None of the witnesses had seen the registration
number of the car in which the victim was kidnapped - The trial
Court had allowed the entire disclosure statements of the three
accused to be admitted in evidence, the said statements being in
nature of the confessions before the police were hit by s.25 of the
Evidence Act - Trial Court had committed gross error in exhibiting
the entire disclosure statements of the accused recorded - The
incriminating articles were sent to the CFSL for examination
however, no conclusive opinion was given by the CFSL to establish
their link with the accused - The call details record of the phone
being electronic record, was also not proved in terms of s.65B of
the Evidence Act - It has been noticed from the record that 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 - The
 [2022] 9 S.C.R. 1129
1129
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
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 - Judgments and orders of conviction and sentence
passed by the trial Court and the High Court set aside.
Evidence Act, 1872 - 27, 45 & 65B - Circumstantial Evidence
- 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 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.
Evidence Act, 1872 - s.165 - Section 165 of the Indian
Evidence Act confers unbridled powers upon the trial courts to put
any question at any stage to the witnesses to elicit the truth - The
Judge is not expected to be a passive umpire but is supposed to
actively participate in the trial, and to question the witnesses to
reach to a correct conclusion.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Neither any T.I. Parade was conducted by the
investigating officer during the course of investigation for the
identification of the accused, nor any of the witnesses had
identified the accused during their respective depositions before
the Court. Therefore, the very identity of the Appellants -accused
having not been duly established, the entire case of the
prosecution falls flat on the very first circumstance having not
been duly proved by any evidence much less clinching evidence,
against the Appellants-accused. [Para 20][1147-D-E]
1.2 As rega

## Text

_Characters 0–39,809 of 75,691. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39809 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1129
RAHUL
v.
STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 611 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 07, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI, S. RAVINDRA BHAT
 AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 365, 367, 376(2)(g), 302, 201 & 34 -
A girl was kidnapped when she was returning from her job along
with her friends - She was raped and killed later on and her body
was thrown in open field - FIR was registered against the accusedappellant u/s 365, 367, 376(2)(g), 302, 201 read with 34 of IPC -
Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record and material
recovered during investigation, convicted and sentenced them with
death penalty - The same was confirmed by the High Court in Death
Sentence Reference referred by the Session Court - On appeal,
held: Neither any T.I. Parade was conducted by the investigating
officer during the course of investigation for the identification of
the accused, nor any of the witnesses had identified the accused
during their respective depositions before the Court - The
circumstances under which the accused were arrested and the car
was seized have also raised serious doubts in the story put-forth by
the prosecution - None of the witnesses had seen the registration
number of the car in which the victim was kidnapped - The trial
Court had allowed the entire disclosure statements of the three
accused to be admitted in evidence, the said statements being in
nature of the confessions before the police were hit by s.25 of the
Evidence Act - Trial Court had committed gross error in exhibiting
the entire disclosure statements of the accused recorded - The
incriminating articles were sent to the CFSL for examination
however, no conclusive opinion was given by the CFSL to establish
their link with the accused - The call details record of the phone
being electronic record, was also not proved in terms of s.65B of
the Evidence Act - It has been noticed from the record that 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 - The
 [2022] 9 S.C.R. 1129
1129
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
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 - Judgments and orders of conviction and sentence
passed by the trial Court and the High Court set aside.
Evidence Act, 1872 - 27, 45 & 65B - Circumstantial Evidence
- 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 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.
Evidence Act, 1872 - s.165 - Section 165 of the Indian
Evidence Act confers unbridled powers upon the trial courts to put
any question at any stage to the witnesses to elicit the truth - The
Judge is not expected to be a passive umpire but is supposed to
actively participate in the trial, and to question the witnesses to
reach to a correct conclusion.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Neither any T.I. Parade was conducted by the
investigating officer during the course of investigation for the
identification of the accused, nor any of the witnesses had
identified the accused during their respective depositions before
the Court. Therefore, the very identity of the Appellants -accused
having not been duly established, the entire case of the
prosecution falls flat on the very first circumstance having not
been duly proved by any evidence much less clinching evidence,
against the Appellants-accused. [Para 20][1147-D-E]
1.2 As regards the arrest of the accused-R, PW-12 ASI had
stated before the Court that the accused-R was seen driving the
red Indica Car, and he looked perplexed; when he asked for the
documents of the said vehicle, the accused-R could not produce
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1131
them and therefore he (PW-12) apprehended 'R' and handed over
his custody to the SHO at P.S. Chhawla. The PW-12 ASI had tried
to explain that there was a message from the Control Room that
a girl was abducted in a red coloured Indica Car and the police
had to apprehend the said vehicle and to report to the concerned
SHO, and therefore he apprehended R. Thus, the accused R was
apprehended because he was driving one red Indica Car.
Pertinently, none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution
had identified the Indica Car which was allegedly being driven by
'R' on 13.02.2012. P.W-29, the complainant S had admitted in
her cross-examination that she could not say with certainty that
it was the same car in which the victim was kidnapped. None of
the witnesses had seen even the registration number of the car
in which the victim was kidnapped. [Para 22][1148-B-D]
1.3 It may be noted that the trial court had allowed the entire
disclosure statements of the three accused to be admitted in
evidence by exhibiting the same as Ex. PW-39/B, PW-41/B and
PW-41/C. The said statements were recorded by the PW-48, SG,
when they were in police custody. The said statements being in
nature of the confessions before the police were hit by Section
25 of the Evidence Act. The law in this regard is very clear that
the confession before the police officer by the accused when he
is in police custody, cannot be called an extra-judicial confession.
If a confession is made by the accused before the police, and a
portion of such confession leads to the recovery of any
incriminating material, such portion alone would be admissible
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and not the entire
confessional statements. In the instant case, therefore the trial
court had committed gross error in exhibiting the entire
disclosure statements of the accused recorded by the PW-48 P1,
for being read in evidence. Though, 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, but not the entire
disclosure statement in the nature of confession recorded by the
police officer. [Para 25][1149-F-H; 1150-A-B]
RAHUL v. STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS &
ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1132
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
1.4 The recovery of a strand of hair found from the body of
the deceased by ASI BS as per the Seizure Memo (Exhibit 34/A)
is also highly doubtful, inasmuch as the same was allegedly found
from the body of the deceased which was lying in the open field
for about three days and three nights. The PW-8 father of the
deceased and PW-3 and PW-7 neighbours of the deceased who
had identified the dead body of the victim had not stated anything
about the articles lying near the dead body. The learned advocates
for the appellants had also drawn the attention of the Court with
regard to number of inconsistencies and contradictions appearing
in the evidence of the Haryana Police, Delhi Police and also in
the testimonies of the formal witnesses, which render the entire
evidence with regard to the discovery and recovery as also seizure
of the incriminating articles, very unreliable. The seizure of the
articles like burnt ash, underwear of the deceased etc. on
14.02.2012 at the instance of the accused were also not duly
proved by the prosecution. The said articles were sent to the
CFSL for examination however, no conclusive opinion was given
by the CFSL to establish their link with the accused. [Para
27][1150-G-H; 1151-A-B]
1.5 In the instant case, the alleged incident of kidnapping
had taken place on 09.02.2012 and the dead body of the victim
was found on 13.02.2012. Hence, the time of death was also very
much significant, however in view of the state in which the dead
body was found, the Post-Mortem Report Ex.26/A is also not
clear about the timing as to when the death had occurred. The
Post-Mortem report stated the time of death to be 72 to 96 hours
i.e. between 10.02.2012 to 11.02.2012, as the post-mortem had
taken on 14.02.2012. However, as per the case of the prosecution,
death would have taken place on the intervening night of
09.02.2012 to 10.02.2012. The body of the deceased also did not
show any signs of putrefaction. It is highly unlikely that the dead
body would have remained in the field for three days without being
noticed by anybody. [Para 29][1151-E-G]
1.6 The Amicus Curiae has also assailed the forensic
evidence i.e., the report regarding the DNA Profiling dated
18.04.2012 (Exhibit P-23/1) giving incriminating findings. She
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1133
vehemently submitted that apart from the fact that the collection
of the samples sent for examination itself was very doubtful, the
said forensic evidence was neither scientifically nor legally proved
and could not have been used as a circumstance against the
Appellants-accused. The Court finds substance in the said
submissions made by the Amicus Curiae. The DNA evidence is
in the nature of opinion evidence as envisaged under Section 45
and like any other opinion evidence, its probative value varies
from case to case. It is true that PW-23, Senior Scientific Officer
(Biology) of CFSL, New Delhi had stepped into the witness box
and his report regarding DNA profiling was exhibited as Ex. PW23/A, however mere exhibiting a document, would not prove its
contents. The record shows that all the 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. 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 has 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. In absence of
such evidence on record, all the reports with regard to the DNA
profiling become highly vulnerable, more particularly when the
collection and sealing of the samples sent for examination were
also not free from suspicion. [Paras 31 & 32][1152-C-E; 1157-FH; 1158-A-B]
2. 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. 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 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
RAHUL v. STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS &
ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1134
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
but should be inconsistent with his innocence. As demonstrated
earlier, the evidence with regard to the arrest of the Appellantsaccused, 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. 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. Every case has to be decided by the Courts strictly on
merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by
any kind of outside moral pressures or otherwise. The Court is
constrained to make these observations as the Court has noticed
many glaring lapses having occurred during the course of the
trial. It has been noticed from the record that 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
may be reminded that Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act
confers unbridled powers upon the trial courts to put any question
at any stage to the witnesses to elicit the truth. As observed in
several decisions, the Judge is not expected to be a passive
umpire but is supposed to actively participate in the trial, and to
question the witnesses to reach to a correct conclusion. In the
instant case, material witnesses examined by the prosecution
having not been either cross-examined or adequately examined,
and the trial court also having acted as a passive umpire, it is
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1135
found 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. It is left to the wisdom and discretion
of the trial courts to exercise their powers under Section 165 of
the Indian Evidence Act for eliciting the truth in the cases before
them, howsoever heinous or otherwise they may be. [Paras 3335][1158-B-H; 1159-A-B; 1160-F-G]
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra
(1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88; Padala Veera
Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (1989) Suppl.
2 SCC 706; Navaneethakrishnan vs.State by Inspector
of Police (2018) 16 SCC 161 - relied on.
Manoj and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022)
SCC Online SC 677; State of Rajasthan vs. Ani alias
Hanif and Others (1997) 6 SCC 162 : [1997] 1 SCR
199 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1985] 1 SCR 88
relied on
Para 16
[1997] 1 SCR 199
referred to
Para 34
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.611 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.08.2014 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. A No.563/2014.
With
Criminal Appeal Nos.612-613 And 614-615 of 2022.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv.,/Amicus
Curiae, A. Sirajudeen, Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Advs., Ms. Shivani Misra,
Ms. Khushboo Aggarwal, Ms. Prerna Dhall, Simarjeet Singh Saluja,
Harinder Mohan Singh, Parnam Prabhakar, Karthik Vasan, Ms. Nidhi,
S.S. Ray, Prashant Singh, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Abhay Kumar, Sughosh
Subramanyam, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Dr. (Ms.) Charuwali Khanna,
Dharmendra Pal, Krishna Kumar, Ms. Nandani Gupta, Dr. (Ms.) Vipin
Gupta, Advs. for the appearing parties.
RAHUL v. STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS &
ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1136
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. All the appeals arise out of the common judgment and order
dated 26.08.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, in
the Death Sentence Reference No. 01/2014 with Criminal Appeal Nos.
563/2014, 726/2014 and 1036/2014, whereby the High Court while
affirming the sentence of death and other sentences imposed on the
Appellants-accused by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Fast Track
Court, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial
Court') in Sessions Case No. 91/2013 had dismissed the criminal appeals
filed by the Appellants-accused. The Trial Court vide the Order dated
19.02.2014 had convicted all the three Appellants-accused i.e., A1 Ravi
Kumar, A2 Vinod @ Chhotu and A3 Rahul for the offences punishable
under Sections 365/34, 367/34, 376(2)(g), 302/34 and 201/34 IPC,
however had acquitted all the three from the charge under Section 377/
34 IPC. The order of sentences imposed on the accused read as under:-
"1. To imprisonment for a period of five years alongwith a fine of
Rs.25,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 365/
34 IPC. The convicts shall undergo further imprisonment for a
period of six months each in case of default in payment of fine;
and
2. To imprisonment for a period of five years alongwith a fine of
Rs.25,000/- each for the offence punishable u/s. 367/34 IPC. The
convicts shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of six
months each in case of default in payment of fine; and
3. To imprisonment with a fine of Rs.50,000/- each for the offence
punishable u/s 376(2) (g) IPC. The convicts shall undergo further
imprisonment for a period of one year each in cases of nonpayment of fine; and
4. To death for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 IPC with a fine
of Rs.50,000/- each; and
5. To imprisonment for a period of three years with a fine of
Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable u/s201/34 IPC. The
convicts shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of six
months each in case of non-payment of fine."
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1137
2. The case of prosecution as emerging from the record and
proceedings of the Trial Court is that an information was received in the
Police Station Chhawla on 09.02.2012 at 09:18 PM from the police control
room that a girl was kidnapped in the red-coloured Tata Indica Car near
Hanuman Chowk, Qutub Vihar, Chhawla and the car had proceeded
towards Shyam Vihar. The information was recorded as DD No. 27 A,
and the investigation was entrusted to SI Prakash Chand. Accordingly,
SI Prakash Chand along with the constable Rakesh reached at the spot
near Hanuman Chowk, Qutub Vihar, where they met a girl named
Saraswati. On her statement being recorded to the effect that on
09.02.2012 at about 08:45 PM, when she was returning from her job at
DLF Gurgaon along with her friends Pooja, Sangeeta and the victim
Anamika (name is changed), and when they were walking near the
Hanuman Chowk, a red coloured Indica Car came from behind;the driver
suddenly applied breaks on reaching near to them; that a boy opened the
door of the car and pulled Anamika forcibly inside the car; that there
were other three or four boys sitting in the Indica Car. On the basis of
the said statement of the complainant Saraswati, an FIR was registered
under Section 363 of IPC. The investigation was commenced by the SI
Prakash Chand.
3. On 12.02.2012, the investigation of the case was transferred to
the special staff south-west New Delhi and was entrusted to SI Ashok
Kumar. On 13.02.2012, further investigation of the case was entrusted
to Inspector Sandeep Gupta. On thesame day ASI Rajender Singh
produced the accused Rahul and a red coloured Indica Car bearing
registration no. DL-3 CAF-4348 before the Inspector Sandeep Gupta,
stating that accused Rahul who was found perplexed and roaming in the
said car near Metro station, sector-9 Dwarka, New Delhi.
4. During the course of interrogation of the accused Rahul by the
Inspector Sandeep Gupta, Rahul confessed that he along with his brother
Ravi and one Vinod @ Chhotu had kidnapped a girl from Qutub Vihar;
hadcommitted rape on her, had killed her and hadthrown her dead body
in the fields ahead of Jhajjar. The said accused Rahul therefore was
arrested, and subsequently the accused Ravi and accused Vinod were
also arrested.The disclosure statements of the other two accused were
also recorded wherein they had admitted to have kidnapped, gang raped
and killed the victim.
RAHUL v. STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS &
ANR. [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1138
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
5. As per the further case of the prosecution, when the aforesaid
Tata Indica car was seized, mobile phones were recovered from the
personal search of the accused Rahul and the accused Ravi, and they
were also seized. Thereafter, inspector Sandeep Gupta alongwith his
staff and the two accused Ravi and Vinod left for the search of the dead
body of the victim, and found the same lying in the mustard fields, near
Karawara Morel, village Rodai, at the instance of the two accused.
Information about the same was conveyed to P.S. Rodai. Thereafter
ASI Balwan alongwith his Crime Team from P.S. Rodai also reached at
the spot. The Crime Team lifted some hair strands from the body of the
deceased as well as two plastic glasses, one empty pouch of snacks,
piece of earthenware pot, a broken piece of a red-coloured plastic bumper
and one wallet near the dead body. Thereafter ASI Balwan Singh sent
the dead body to Civil Hospital, Rewari for postmortem examination.
The two accused were brought to Delhi and were got medically examined.
During the course of further interrogation, the accused Rahul got
recovered the mobile phone of the deceased. The accused also got
recovered the panty of the deceased which she was wearing at the time
of incident and the steel Parat, in which they had burnt the articles
belonging to the deceased.
6. On 15.02.2012 further investigation of the case was entrusted
to Inspector Ranjeet Singh. He got the aforesaid Tata Indica Car inspected
by CFSL team. Hair strands found inside the car as well as in its seat
covers were seized. He obtained the opinion from the autopsy doctor
regarding the Jack and Pana, which were found in the Tata Indica Car
and it was opined by the doctor that the external injuries found on the
body of the deceased were possible by the said Jack and Pana. The hair
strands of the deceased which had been preserved by the autopsy doctor
were sent to Safdarjung Hospital for examination. All the articles lifted
from and near the dead body were sent to CFSL for examination. The
Tata Indica Car was also sent to CFSL for examination. The IO also
obtained the call details record of mobile no. 9540594640 of the deceased,
mobile no. 9968988533 of the accused Rahul and mobile no. 8802090923
of the accused Ravi. The DNA reports were also obtained on the articles
seized and sent to the CFSL, New Delhi.
7. After completion of the investigation, Charge Sheet was laid
before the concerned court. Upon the committal of the case to the court
of Sessions, Charges u/s 365/34 IPC, u/s 367/34, u/s 376(2)(g) IPC, u/s
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1139
377/34 IPC, u/s 302 IPC and u/s 201/34 IPC were framed against all the
three accused on 26.05.2012. Since the accused pleaded not guilty to
the said charges, trial was held.
8. The prosecution had examined 49 witnesses to bring home the
guilt of the accused. The accused were examined u/s. 313 Cr.PC on
27.11.2013 wherein all of them denied the incriminating facts and
circumstances put to them and claimed false implication. One witness
was examined on behalf of the accused Rahul and Ravi in their defence.
He was the Legal Assistant of 'Nav Bharat Times' and had brought the
issue dated 15.02.2012 of daily newspaper 'Nav Bharat Times' Ex.DW1/
A.
9. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record
adduced by the prosecution and by the accused, convicted and sentenced
them as stated hereinabove, which has been confirmed by the High
Court vide the impugned order.
10. The present appeals were filed by the accused through the
Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Considering the facts on
record, the Court vide order dated 05.12.2019 had requested learned
Senior Counsel Ms. Sonia Mathur to appear as an Amicus Curiae.
Accordingly learned Amicus Curiae Ms. Mathur and learned Senior
Advocate Mr. A. Sirajudeen, appearing for the Appellants-accused and
learned ASG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati appearing for the Respondent-state
were heard at length.
11. The learned Amicus Curiae Ms. Sonia Mathur and learned
Senior Advocate Mr. Sirajudeenfor the appellants broadly made the
following submissions:
(i)
The identity of any of the Appellants-accused in the alleged
abduction of the victim was not established.
(ii)
The circumstances under which the possession of red
coloured Tata Indica Car was recovered from the appellant
Rahul, and the circumstances under which all the three
accused were arrested, were not proved.
(iii)
The recoveries made from the scene of offence allegedly
at the instance of the appellants on 13.02.2021, were also
not proved.
(iv)
The recoveries of articles like broken piece of bumper, wallet
and hair strands allegedly recovered from the place where
RAHUL v. STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS &
ANR. [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1140
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
the body of the deceased victim was found, were highly
doubtful, as the same were not mentioned by the key
witnesses during the course of their respective depositions.
(v)
There were discrepancies with regard to the photography
and the videography done by the Delhi Police and Haryana
Police and with regard to the position of the arm, visibility
of the jeans lining and mud on the jeans of the deceased
and the presence of a wallet seen in the photographs, which
created a dent in the credibility of the investigation carried
by the prosecution.
(vi)
Recoveries of articles made on 14.02.2012 from the open
places which were easily accessible to the public was not
supported by any independent witnesses.
(vii)
The post-mortem report did not prove the time of the death
of the victim, in view of the state in which the body was
discovered.
(viii) The forensic evidence collected against the accused during
the course of investigation was not scientifically and legally
proved and therefore could not be used as a circumstance
against the appellants.
(ix)
The call details record of the accused Rahul and Ravi were
not proved to be incriminatory.
(x)
There was violation of fair trial rights of the accused, as
ten material witnesses were not cross-examined, and many
other crucial witnesses were not adequately examined by
the defence counsel during the course of the trial.
12. The learned ASG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati has made the following
submissions:
(i)
There being concurrent findings of the facts and convictions
recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court after fully
appreciating the evidence on record,this Court may not
disturb the same considering the gravity of the offences for
which the appellants were charged.
(ii)
The case against Rahul was proved by the prosecutionby
examining all material witnesses including the ASI Rajender
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1141
Singh who had apprehended him, while he was driving red
coloured Tata Indica Car in question.A jack and spanner
and a strand of hair were found in the said Tata Indica Car
and the jack was found to be stained with blood.
(iii)
DNA profile generated from jack and hair found in the car
and female fraction DNA obtained from the vaginal swab
of Anamika were consistent with each other.
(iv)
The injuries found on the victim Anamika were possible to
have been caused by the jack and spanner found in the car
(v)
A broken piece of bumper found near the dead body of
Anamika was opined to be the piece of bumper of red
coloured Indica Car being driven by Rahul.
(vi)
From the testimony of PW-10 Hari Om, it was established
that the car was with Rahul from 07:45 AM on January 9,
2012 till around 10:00AM of February 10, 2012, during the
period when the crime was allegedly committed.
(vii)
The semen of Rahul was detected on the seat cover of the
Indica Car.
(viii) A wallet containing two ATM cards, a driving licence,
photocopies of school leavingcertificates and PAN card,
was found near place where Anamika's dead body was
recovered and it was proved that it was the wallet of the
accused Rahul.
(ix)
The hair strand recovered from the dead body of Anamika
matched with the DNA extracted from the blood sample of
the accused Ravi.
(x)
The accused Ravi was carrying a mobile phone having
telephone no. 8802090923 when he was arrested, and the
call details records showed that during the period Anamika
was removed from Delhi and her body dumped in village
Rodai, the said phone was foundaround the area of village
Rodai.
(xi)
So far as the accused Vinod was concerned, the DNA
profile of the semen extracted from the vaginal swab of
Anamika matched with his DNA profile, and his semen
RAHUL v. STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS &
ANR. [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1142
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
was also detected from the seat cover of Tata India Car
driven by Rahul.
13. After the arguments on the issue of conviction were concluded,
certain directions were given by this Court to the Respondent-State to
place the report of the Probation Officer relating to the appellants, the
report of the Jail Administration about the nature of the work done by
the appellants in jail. Directions were also issued to the Director
VIMHANS to constitute a suitable team for the psychiatric evaluation
of the appellants and to place the report on record. Accordingly, all the
reports have been placed on record by the concerned authorities. The
father of the victim Kunwar Singh Negi had filed an application being
Crl.M.P. No. 5559 of 2015 seeking his impleadment as a party respondent
to enable him to participate in the proceedings. Another application was
also filed by one Yogita Bhayana to implead her as a party respondent
on the ground that she was a support person of the family of the deceasedvictim and activist working in the field of providing counselling and succour
to sexually abused children in Delhi as well as other states.
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in the light
of the evidence on record, it cannot be denied that the entire case of
prosecution rested on the circumstantial evidence, and that the victim
was raped and brutally murdered. The Trial Court relying upon the
following circumstances as"proved" convicted and sentenced the
Appellants-accused for the charged offences:
"(1) The deceased has been kidnapped in a red colour Tata Indica
car.
(2) The red colour Tata Indica car bearing registration No. DL
3C AF 4348 belonging to PW-10 was in the custody of accused
Rahul from 07.45 am on 9.2.2012 till 9 a.m. on 10.2.2012 and
from 11.2.2012 to 13.2.2012.
(3) The female hair strand was found on the rear seat of the
aforesaid Tata Indica car and DNA generated from it was found
similar to the DNA of the deceased implying that it was the hair
of the deceased.
(4) The DNA generated from the semen spots found on the seat
covers of the aforesaid Tata Indica car was similar to that of
accused Rahul.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1143
(5) The dead body of the deceased was recovered from the fields
of village Rodai at the instance of accused Ravi and Vinod on
13.2.2012.
(6) A red colour purse containing some cash, ATM cards as well
as PAN card and driving license in the name of Rahul were found
near the dead body of the deceased.
(7) The three accused had pointed out the spot, on which they
had smashed the head of the deceased with a 'Matka' in order to
kill her.
(8) A Jack and pana were recovered from the boot of the aforesaid
Tata Indica car bearing registration No. DL 3C AF 4348, which
was having blood spots and DNA generated from the blood spots
was found similar to that of the deceased implying that deceased
was hit by said Jack and Pana.
(9) The autopsy doctor (PW26) opined that the injuries found on
the dead body of 'Anamica' could be possible by aforesaid Jack
and Pana.
(10) A broken piece of bumper of the aforesaid Tata Indica car
bearing registration No. DL 3C AF 4348 was also recovered from
near the dead body of the deceased in the fields of village Rodai.
(11) The panty of the deceased was got recovered by accused
Vinod from a vacant plot adjacent to house No. RZ-54, Palam
Vihar, Sector-6, Dwarka, belonging to PW-11 where the three
accused were residing as a tenant.
(12) Accused Rahul had got recovered the broken mobile phone
of the deceased from amongst the bushes on the central verge in
front of the road near Karnal Cinema Hall, near Rajinder Dhaba,
Delhi.
(13) The vaginal swab of the deceased was found to have mixed
male DNA profile, which was similar to that of accused Vinod as
well as accused Ravi.
(14) The location of mobile phones of the accused Rahul, accused
Ravi and the deceased was around Jhajhar, Haryana in the night
intervening between 09.2.2012 and 10.2.2012 when the deceased
was kidnapped, raped and murdered."
RAHUL v. STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS &
ANR. [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
15. The High Court also believing the same set of circumstances
as"proved" further noted that the two incriminating circumstances of
the DNA of a strand of hair recovered from Anamica's dead body
matching DNA of Ravi and DNA generated from semen spots found on
seat cover of the Indica car matching DNA profile of Vinod were
overlooked by the Trial Court.
16. The law pertaining to the appreciation of circumstantial
evidence is quite well settled by this Court in catena of decisions. In
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra1, this Court
after taking note of earlier decisions had carved out five principles: -
"152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court
we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, character and
essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on
circumstantial evidence alone. The most fundamental and basic
decision of this Court is Hanumant v. State of Madhya
Pradesh [AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129]
. This case has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court
in a large number of later decisions up-to-date, for instance, the
cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1969)
3 SCC 198 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 55] and Ramgopal v. State of
Maharashtra [(1972) 4 SCC 625 : AIR 1972 SC 656] . It may be
useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant
case [AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129] :
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a
circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion
of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established,
and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances
should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be
such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be
proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far
complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such
as to show that within all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused."
153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following
conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can
be said to be fully established:
1 (1984) 4 SCC 116
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1145
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be"
established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction
between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as
was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 :
"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and
not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental
distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague
conjectures from sure conclusions."
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should
not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused
is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one
to be proved, and
(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 and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute
the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial
evidence."
17. In Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh &
Ors2 , it was observed as under:
"10.......... (1) the circumstances from which an inference of
guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly
pointing towards guilt of the accused;
2 (1989) Suppl. 2 SCC 706
RAHUL v. STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS &
ANR. [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1146
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
(3) 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
and none else; and
(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction 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. (See Gambhir v. State of
Maharashtra ."
18. The said principles have also been followed in
Navaneethakrishnan vs. State by Inspector of Police (2018) 16 SCC
161. Keeping in view the afore-stated principles, let us examine whether
the circumstances relied upon by the Trial Court and the High Court
cogently and firmly established the guilt of the Appellants-accused.
19. The first and foremost circumstance relied upon by the
prosecution was with regard to the victim having been kidnapped in a
red coloured Tata Indica Caron 09.02.2012 at about 8:45 p.m. In this
regard the prosecution has relied upon evidence of PW-1 Pooja Rawat,
PW-2 Vikas Singh Rawat, PW-4 Vikas, PW-29 Saraswati and PW-42
Sangeeta. As per the case of the prosecution, the victim along with PW1 Pooja Rawat, PW-29 Saraswati and PW-42 Sangeeta was returning
home and when she and her friends were walking through Hanuman
Chowk, a red-coloured Tata Indica car came from behind and suddenly
stopped near them. One boy thereafter came out of the car and pulled
the victim into the car. There were other three-four persons sitting in the
said car. At that time PW-4 Vikas tried to intervene, but the said boys in
the car started quarrelling with him and thereafter drove out the car
along with victim. Though the said story put forth by the prosecution to
an extent,is supported by the concerned witnesses viz. PW-1 Pooja
Rawat, PW-4 Vikas, PW-29 Saraswati, and PW-42 Sangeeta, none of
the said witnesses had identified the accused sitting in the Court during
the course of their respective depositions. Even the PW-4 Vikas, who
had some altercations with the boys attempting to kidnap the victimalso
could not identify any of the accused sitting in the Court during the course
of his deposition and say that the accused were the boys with whom he
hadthe altercations as they were kidnapping the victim.