Rajesh @ Sarkari & Anr. v. State of Haryana

Case Details

• Case Title:Rajesh @ Sarkari & Anr. v. State of Haryana
• Court:Supreme Court of India
• Equivalent Citations:AIR 2020 SC 5561; (2021) 1 SCC 118; 2020 INSC 628, among others
• Criminal Appeal No.:1648 of 2019
• Judgement Date:3 November 2020
• Bench:Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Indu Malhotra, and Justice Indira Banerjee
• Petitioners:Rajesh @ Sarkari and Ajay Hooda
• Respondent:State of Haryana
• Acts and Provisions Involved:
  1. Indian Penal Code, 1860– Sections 302, 34
  2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872– Section 9
  3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973– Section 162 (relevant to TIP)
  4. Arms Act, 1959– Section 25

I. INTRODUCTION

An important ruling in Indian criminal law was rendered by the Supreme Court on November 3, 2020, in the case of Rajesh @ Sarkari & Anr. v. State of Haryana. The case looked at the Test Identification Parade (TIP), forensic scientific laboratory (FSL) reports, and eyewitness testimony as evidence.
The ruling emphasizes the need for proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal convictions and the need for courts to closely examine inconsistencies in forensic evidence and witness statements. Additionally, it clarified how accused individuals’ refusal to undergo TIP should be assessed and established significant guidelines regarding the evidentiary weight of TIP.

II.FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In Rajesh @ Sarikari and Others v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court of India rendered a landmark decision regarding the standards of evidence in criminal trials, specifically concerning eyewitness testimony, forensic inconsistencies, and the Test Identification Parade’s (TIP) evidentiary value. The ruling emphasizes that convictions for crimes must be supported by reliable, convincing, and verified evidence. In the end, the accused was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the court. This case sets a crucial precedent for how inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence and the omission of crucial expert witnesses can compromise the case as a whole.

III. Trial and High Court Proceedings

a)Prosecution Evidence

The prosecution called 24 witnesses to testify in court, with PW4 and PW5, the father, and the brother who claimed to be the eyewitnesses, among them. In addition to this, several forensic science laboratory (FSL) reports, which were the prosecution’s main forensic evidence, were presented.

b)Defence Case

The defence maintained its position that PW4 and PW5 had not been present at the scene. They supported their case by calling the defence witnesses (DW4 and DW5) Parveen and Sikandar, who purportedly were the ones to take the deceased to the hospital. This was in conflict with the prosecution’s assertion that PW4 and PW5 were the ones who took him to the hospital. Moreover, the defence pointed out a lot of inconsistencies in the FSL reports and brought up the case of the pistols marked as W/1 and W/2 and the cartridges that were supposedly matched to them.

c)Lower Court Findings

The accused were convicted by the Sessions Court for murder and conspiracy to commit murder under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC, and given life sentences.³ The Punjab and Haryana High Court confirmed the conviction in 2019. After that, the accused went for the supreme court’s appeal.

IV. Issues before the Supreme Court

• The credibility and presence of PW4 and PW5 as eyewitnesses at the crime scene.
• The degree of damage done to the prosecution’s case by the inconsistencies in several FSL reports.
• What is the impact of the accused’s refusal to participate in a Test Identification Parade (TIP) on the evidence.

1. Arguments Presented
2. Appellants’ Arguments
3. Eyewitness Absence

The appellants maintained that the FIR along with the hospital records disclosed that the deceased was transported to the hospital by Parveen and Sikandar—not by the couple of PW4 and PW5. This established a reasonable doubt over their being at the scene of the shooting.⁴

V. Contradictory Testimonies

 The statements of PW4 and PW5 were not in agreement regarding the manner in which the deceased was taken to the hospital.

• Forensic Contradictions

The three FSL reports presented different findings. The report stated that pistol W/1 was recovered from Rajesh and W/2 from Ajay in one case while another just opposite the report. The final report mentioned that only one pistol was examined. The ballistics expert was never called to testify. The appellants cited cases that declared the unexamined experts’ reports as having only a very low evidentiary value.⁵

• TIP Refusal Not Adverse

Since the eyewitnesses were apparently acquainted with the accused, TIP refusal should not be taken or interpreted as an adverse inference.

• Respondent State’s Arguments

The actions of PW4 and PW5 right away attested to the fact that they were there, one such action being PW5 giving the victim’s tracksuit to the police.

The tiny discrepancies in the FSL reports were not of such magnitude that they would lead to the conviction being set aside.

The negative response to the TIP was an indication of the suspect feeling guilty.

 The evaluation of evidence by the lower courts should remain undisturbed.

VI. Supreme Court’s Analysis

1. Presence and Credibility of Eyewitnesses (PW4 and PW5)

The Supreme Court took a close look at the credibility of PW4 and PW5 and found some significant inconsistencies:

The hospital record (ruqqa) indicated that Parveen was the one who brought the victim to the hospital, which goes against what PW4 and PW5 claimed.PW4 and PW5 also contradicted each other on key details.Interestingly, the prosecution didn’t examine independent witnesses (Parveen and Sikandar), even though their names were listed in the official medical records.Considering these issues, the Court determined that the presence of PW4 and PW5 at the scene was “highly doubtful.”

1. Forensic Evidence and FSL Contradictions

The Court pointed out some significant contradictions in the FSL reports:

• There was confusion over which pistol (W/1 or W/2) was linked to which accused individual.
• Only one firearm was actually examined in the final report.
• The prosecution didn’t bother to consult the ballistics expert.

The Court referenced previous cases like:

• Mohinder Singh v State (1950) – which highlighted the importance of having expert testimony in firearms-related cases.⁶
• Sukhwant Singh v State of Punjab (1995) – where it was determined that not examining a ballistics expert is a serious issue when firearm evidence is crucial.
• Gurucharan Singh v State of Punjab (2020).

In conclusion, the Court found that these forensic contradictions raised significant reasonable doubt.

1. Test Identification Parade (TIP)

The Court laid out some key points about TIP:

TIP isn’t a legal requirement. Its purpose is to evaluate how trustworthy eyewitnesses are. If someone refuses to participate in TIP, it might lead to a negative inference, but that doesn’t make it definitive. When eyewitnesses themselves have doubts, a refusal to undergo TIP won’t bolster the prosecution’s case. Given that the credibility of PW4 and PW5 was already under scrutiny, the accused’s refusal to participate in TIP couldn’t be used as a reliable factor.

VII. Judgment

1 Supreme Court’s Overall Approach

The Supreme Court made it clear that in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to build a solid chain of circumstances that unmistakably point to the accused’s guilt while eliminating any other possible explanations. If there’s even one missing link in that chain, the accused deserves to be acquitted. Unfortunately, this standard wasn’t met in this case.

2 Evaluation of Witness Testimony

The Court noted significant contradictions in the statements from key prosecution witnesses. Their accounts varied on several crucial points, including:

– When the deceased was last seen

– Where they claimed to have spotted the accused

– The details surrounding the quarrel or animosity

These inconsistencies struck at the core of the prosecution’s argument. The Court stressed that testimony filled with contradictions can’t serve as a foundation for a conviction, especially when there’s no independent evidence to back it up.                                                                                                                                                                                      

Additionally, some behaviors described by the witnesses seemed unnatural, raising questions about whether they truly witnessed the events they claimed to have seen.

3 “Last Seen Together” Theory

The High Court had placed significant weight on this theory. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the “last seen” circumstance can only contribute to circumstantial evidence if the time gap between the last sighting and the death is minimal. In this instance, the estimated time gap was much larger, which weakened the inference.

The Court concluded that without any corroborating evidence—like recovered items linked to the accused, CCTV footage, or phone records—the “last seen” theory couldn’t stand on its own.

4 Failure to Establish Motive

The prosecution tried to show that there was bad blood stemming from past disputes. However, the evidence regarding motive was all over the place—sometimes exaggerated and often lacking support. Different witnesses shared conflicting accounts about the supposed argument.⁹

While motive isn’t always essential, its absence becomes crucial when the case relies entirely on circumstantial evidence. The Court concluded that the prosecution didn’t manage to prove motive to a legally acceptable standard.

5 Medical and Forensic Analysis

The medical evidence didn’t convincingly back up the prosecution’s timeline.¹⁰ Forensic tests failed to connect the weapon or clothing to the accused. Plus, the recovery memos were missing independent witnesses, which raised a lot of red flags for the Court.

The Court emphasized that recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act needs to be credible, voluntary, and independently verified. In this case, none of those requirements were properly met.

VIII. Conclusion

The ruling reinforces some key principles of criminal law:

• Circumstantial evidence needs to create a complete and unbroken chain.
• “Last seen” evidence can’t stand on its own without some backup.
• The credibility of witnesses is crucial; any contradictions can weaken the prosecution’s case. When there’s a reasonable alternative explanation, the benefit of the doubt should go to the accused.

This judgment makes sure that courts stay alert in safeguarding individual freedom and preventing wrongful convictions that stem from weak or incomplete evidence.

Bibliography

Cases

• Rajesh @ Sarkari & Anr. v State of Haryana (2020) SC ___
• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116
• Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v State of MP AIR 1952 SC 343
• Padala Veera Reddy v State of AP 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706
• Kali Ram v State of Himachal Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 808

Statutes

• Indian Evidence Act 1872
• Indian Penal Code 1860
• Code of Criminal Procedure 1973

Books and Articles

• Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence (LexisNexis)
• K N Chandrasekharan Pillai (ed), Essays on Criminal Jurisprudence (Eastern Book Company)