Details
Court – Supreme Court of India
Bench-Justice Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Indu Malhotra, and Justice Indira Banerjee
Petitioners – Rajesh @ Sarkari & Anr.
Respondents – State of Haryana
Judgment Date – November 03, 2020
Introduction
The ruling of this case is quite significant. The matter sets a precedent for both the evidentiary and factual analyses that follow. It covers a number of topics related to the Indian Evidence Act and the Indian Penal Code. It outlined the Test Identification Procedure’s evidential value and set guiding principles for it. The purpose of the Test Identification Parade is to evaluate the witnesses’ memory and see if they are able to recognize the offender without assistance from a third party. It will act as a roadmap for future judicial decisions.
Facts of the case
At Maharishi Dayanand University in Rohtak, Sandeep Hooda, the son of Azad Singh Hooda, was pursuing his legal studies. He visited his university’s legal division on December 26, 2006, in order to be ready for his legal exams. When his brother, Sunil Singh, and father, Azad Singh, were unable to get through to him over the phone, they went to meet him that same day. Upon reaching the campus at 2:30 pm, they witnessed six individuals beneath the tin sheds, with a few of them opening fire on Sandeep. When the three suspects arrived at the location, the father and son saw them go on a silver-coloured Pulsar motorbike in the direction of the Delhi road. After that, Sandeep Hooda passed out on the ground and began to bleed from his left temple, right foot, arm, and abdomen. Azad Singh and Sunil Singh, the eyewitnesses, both told the police that even if they hadn’t seen the attackers’ license plate on the bike, they could still recognize the suspect if they were brought in.
Sandeep passed away from his wounds while being transported to the Pandit Bhagwat Dayal Sharma Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences hospital in Rohtak. The police then started their investigation once the FIR was filed. According to the complaint, Sandeep Hooda, the claimant’s son, had strained relationships with some individuals and believed they might be the ones capable of killing him. Following an investigation, three people were taken into custody: Rajesh, also known as Sarkari, Ajay Hooda, and Pehlad. Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were the charges brought against the accused person. The Sessions Court trial against Rajesh, Ajay, and Pehlad began in 2005. The prosecution presented 24 witnesses and a report from the Forensic Scientific Laboratory. The Sessions Judge found the defendants guilty of murder and imposed a life sentence. The High Court affirmed the verdict in 2019. Following that, the accused filed an appeal with the Honourable Supreme Court.
Issues Raised
- Whether the refusal of the appellants to participate in Test Identification Parade, as governed by Section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is significant?
- Whether PW4 and PW5 present at the crime scene on December 26, 2006, when the murder was committed, and did they witness the entire event?
Arguments from Appellant’s side
- The appellant’s attorney contends that PW4 and PW5, the victim’s father and son, were not at the murder scene and did not accompany the victim to the hospital. Their testimony is therefore fraudulent and incorrect.
- The FIR records show that Parveen drove Sandeep in Sandeep’s car to the hospital, which runs counter to PW4 and PW5’s claims that they had gone with the victim.
- The claims stated in the FIR are supported by responses from DW4, Parveen, and DW5, Sikandar. Further information from DW4 and DW5’s statements indicated that PW4 and PW5 were not at the crime site and that other deceased relatives arrived at the hospital ten to fifteen minutes after they did.
- Furthermore, the data provided by PGIMS, Rohtak’s casualty medical officer demonstrates that the victim was taken to the hospital by Parveen, Zile Singh’s son. However, Sandeep Lehri, the son of Zile Singh, was wrongly mentioned in the document instead of Parveen, the son of Zile Singh.
- The attorney also cited the State of Rajasthan v. Daud Khan (2015) judgment to support their claim that the victim may have been in close proximity to the murder weapon if the wound had become black. This would lead one to believe that the killer stood extremely close to the victim, holding the murder weapon indicating that PW4 and PW5, who were outside the gate and distant from the victim and the murder weapon, were not in a position to witness the crime as intended.
- They also contended that there were discrepancies in Forensic Scientific Laboratory reports claiming that the Pistol W/2 was not examined, No ballistics examiner was called to testify. There was no explanation for differences between reports and also the Inscription on empty shells differs from FSL reports
Arguments from Respondent’s Side
- The primary eyewitnesses at the crime site who assisted in getting the victim to the hospital were PW4 and PW5. By giving the police the victim’s tracksuit, PW5 demonstrated his presence at the scene. They had to move the body in DW1’s car to the hospital since they had arrived on a motorcycle and couldn’t have lifted it.
- Their testimonies are convincing because of the extensive cross-examination and the consistent claims supported by medical data. Medical evidence supported the witnesses’ accurate account of the usage of a firearm and bullets. The seized killing tools and witness testimony should hold the accused accountable for murder, regardless of any mistakes or omissions.
- The fact that the accused declined to take part in a test identification parade proves their guilt. The ballistics expert was not able to be examined due to a procedural delay, however witness testimony were heard before the FSL report was submitted. Regarding blackening of injuries, the defence cited Mohan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) where the court noted that the victim’s proximity to the weapon was not the only circumstance contributing to the blackening of the injury.
Rationale for the decision
In this instance, the court analysed Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act to include significant circumstances proving the accused’s identity. This clause clarifies essential facts and how it is presented. It defines significant facts as those that strengthen an assertion or other fact that refute an assertion, establish the identity of an object or person, or illustrate the connection between two people.
In the present matter, the defendants were found guilty of murder under Section 302 and sentenced to life in prison. Analyzing the accused’s guilt in light of Section 302, which specifies the penalty for murder, was the main question put before the SC.
In accordance with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Rajesh, Ajay Hooda, and Pehlad were all charged with the same charge of murder. Crimes committed by several persons with the same goal are covered by Section 34. A criminal conduct carried out in support of the common intention, the presence of two or more people, and a common intention are all required under this provision.
The court’s ruling in this instance established that Section 162 of the CrPC, which addresses responses made by police witnesses during an inquiry, will apply to identification parades. It establishes the witness statements’ evidentiary value in addition to stating that they do not need to be signed.
Judgment of the court
- Presence of PW4 and PW5
The father and son, PW4 and PW5, stated that they had gone to the police station to inquire about the whereabouts of the slain victim, Sandeep, before riding off on a bike to look for him. But according to the FIR, it was Parveen (DW4) and another boy—not PW4 and PW5—who drove the victim to the hospital.
The father and son agreed on certain points during the prosecution’s witness chief and cross-examination, including as their attendance at the crime site, their ability to recognize the accused if they were placed before them, and their ability to see the whole incident. In contrast to PW5, PW4 states in his examination that a third person in the Santro assisted in removing the body.
Only “Sandeep Lehri” was identified in the written intimation as the person who transported the victim to the hospital, neither PW4 or PW5. PW5’s tracksuit, which they gave to the police, was not thought to be enough evidence of their presence at the crime site.
The court also drew attention to their inconsistent claims and unclear claims regarding their involvement in the carrying out of the crime. Furthermore, PW4, who was a surety for Sandeep in a case, refuted that Sandeep had any cases or had ever appeared in court with accused 1. In the end, the court determined that PW4 and PW5’s claims were questionable.
- Forensic Lab Report
Three FSL reports were examined by the Supreme Court in a murder case. The third report was lacking information and did not include one of the purportedly found murder weapons (W/1). The first two reports were written by separate specialists. In addition, the report refuted the second FSL report’s claim that the sole recovered weapon (W/2) was taken from Accused 1’s residence, indicating instead that it was taken from Ajay’s. The court discovered this anomaly and pointed out that the third report only examined one weapon. The prosecution argued that the defence supplied the FSL reports. However, the court cited a number of cases, including State of Punjab v. Jugraj Singh (2002), Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995), Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab (2020), and Mohinder Singh v. The State (1950), and came to the conclusion that a ballistics examination was required because there were various discrepancies concerning the murder weapon. The examination was required because there was no direct evidence of injuries, hence it is highly unlikely that the ballistics examiner was not questioned.
- Principles of Test Identification Parade
In order to ascertain the Test Identification Parade’s purpose, evidentiary value, weight, and method, the Supreme Court examined the rejection of TIP and examined eight prior rulings. The court came to the conclusion that the accused’s unwillingness to undergo TIP takes on less significance when compared to other inconsistencies, such as the uncertainty surrounding the existence of eyewitnesses and the disparate FSL findings. The accused’s 12-year sentence was lifted when they were declared not guilty.
Inference
The complex nature of the Indian legal system, in which the accused is deemed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, is best illustrated by this particular case. According to common law norms, the prosecution is solely responsible for establishing the accused’s guilt, and they must provide substantial evidence to support their contention. The Supreme Court in this instance showed its ability in assessing the several forms of evidence put forth and differentiating between primary and secondary evidence. In addition, the SC established the Test Identification Parade’s evidentiary value and set down important guidelines for evaluating eyewitness reliability. This case also emphasizes the need of evaluating precedents case-by-case and doing a careful contextual examination of the evidence in order to reach a fair and reasonable decision.
Submitted by – Diya
College – Delhi Metropolitan Education affiliated with GGSIPU, Noida