Based on Inadmissible Evidence, the Supreme Court of India Overturns The Conviction.

The Supreme Court of India overturned the conviction of the appellant for abduction and murder since the prosecution had to rest its case substantially on circumstantial evidence, including CCTV footage and a solitary eyewitness account. The appellants thus assailed their conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court while meticulously examining the evidence presented, particularly scrutinizing the admissibility and reliability of the CCTV footage and the eyewitness testimony. Cited the landmark judgment of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra(Click to Download), and reiterated the five principles for establishing guilt based on circumstantial evidence. The court also held that the prosecution did not bring the requisite certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act to establish the veracity of the CCTV footage, and hence, it was inadmissible. Secondly, the court noticed that significant omissions and discrepancies were present in eyewitness testimony, thus testing its veracity.

Circumstantial Evidence and Eyewitness Testimony: The prosecution presented their key pieces of evidences included CCTV footage purportedly showing the accused and the vehicle used in the crime, and the testimony of the deceased's sister, who claimed to have witnessed the abduction. However, the Supreme Court after carefully examining the evidence found significant flaws that rendered it unreliable.

Inadmissible CCTV Footage: The Apex Court pointed out that the prosecution failed to submit the essential certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act to authenticate the CCTV footage. The said certificate is needed to establish that the footage was genuine and it had not been tampered with and without the 65B certificate, the footage was deemed inadmissible as evidence.

Unreliable Eyewitness: The Court also raised concerns about the eyewitness's testimony as the witness, while she claimed to have seen the abduction, omitted crucial details in her initial statement to the police, only revealing them later during the trial. According to the Court these omissions, amounted to contradictions and raised serious doubts about the reliability of eyewitness's testimony and reliablity.

Confessions to Police and the Limits of Section 27: The Court chided the Trial Court for admitting the appellant's confessions, which was allegedly made to a police officer while in custody. The Court held that confessions before the police officers are absolutely barred from being used as evidence under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. While Section 27 of the Evidence Act contains an exception, allowing the use of information leading to the discovery of a fact, the Court said that only that portion of the statement which directly relates to the discovery is admissible.

The Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases: Ultimately, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, emphasizing the fundamental principle that a conviction can only be secured when guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on legally admissible evidence.

The Supreme Court also greatly disapproved of the trial court order for receiving as evidence confessions made by the appellants to a police officer while in custody, which contravened Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. Relying upon the Privy Council decision in Pulukuri Kotayya & Ors. v. King-Emperor and the Supreme Court precedent in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P(Click to Download)., the court emphasized that only the portion of a confession that directly relates to the discovery of a fact is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The Court acknowledged the heinous nature of the crime, nonetheless, cautioned that emotional responses should not replace the requirement of solid evidence. The Court's judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of following the due process of Law and the need to ensure that convictions must be based on reliable and admissible evidence.

The Supreme Court ultimately acquitted the appellants, holding that the prosecution failed to prove appellants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the admissible evidence. And the court underscored the principle that while the brutality of an offense might evoke strong moral convictions, however, a conviction can only be secured through legally admissible evidence that establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Coram: Justice C.T. RaviKumar, Justice Sanjay Karol.
Between: Randeep Singh @ Rana & Anr Vs State Of Haryana & Ors
Date of Judgment: 22-11-2024