Penal Code (45 of 1860), Ss.365, 367, 376(2)(g), 302, 201, 34- Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.3-Kidnapping, gang rape and murder

2023 CRI. L. J. 1

AIROnline 2022 SC 841 (SUPREME COURT) 

(From: Delhi )*

Criminal Appeal No. 611 of 2022 with 612- 613 of 2022, 614-615 of 2022,

D/7-1 1-2022.

Rahul v. State of Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr.

WITH

Ravi Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi. 

WITH

Vinod alias Chhotu v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Home Affairs.

(A) Penal Code (45 of 1860), Ss.365, 367, 376(2)(g), 302, 201, 34- Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.3-Kidnapping, gang rape and murder - Identity of accused persons - Proof Accused persons kidnapped victim, committed gang rape on her, mur- dered her and thrown her dead body in fields Case of prosecution, that victim along with her witness friends was return- ing home and when she and her friends were walking through Chowk, a red- coloured Tata Indica car came from behind and suddenly stopped near them, one boy thereafter came out of car and pulled vic- tim into car and three-four persons were sitting in said car - No T.I. Parade was conducted by I.O. during course of inves- tigation for identification of accused Though case of prosecution to some ex- tent was supported by witnesses, but nei- ther of witnesses identified accused dur- ing their respective depositions before Court - Identity of accused in alleged abduction of victim not established.

Criminal Appeal Nos. 563 of 2014, 726 of 2014 and 1036 of 2014, D/- 26.08.2014 (Del), Reversed. (Paras 19, 20)

(B) Penal Code (45 of 1860), Ss.365, 367, 376(2)(g), 302, 201, 34. Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.3 Kidnapping, gang rape and murder-Arrest of accused with red Tata Indica car Proof-Accused was appre- hended because he was driving one red Indica Car None of prosecution wit- nesses identified Indica Car driven by ac- cused nor seen registration number of car in which victim was kidnapped-Com- plainant admitted that she was uncertain that it was same car in which victim was kidnapped - Case of prosecution, that accused gave disclosure statement before Inspector on basis of which other two co- accused were brought to police station by beat constables and they were also arrested and gave their disclosure statements be- fore Inspector- Non-examination of beat constables created doubt in arrests of ac- cused person - Accused stated that co- accused was lifted from his house, and when he reached police station in evening to enquire about co-accused, he was arrested and car was seized - Co-accused persons stated that they were picked up from their home-Hence, circumstances under which accused persons were arrested and car was seized, doubtful. (Paras 21, 22, 23)

(C) Penal Code (45 of 1860), Ss.365, 367, 376(2)(g), 302, 201, 34- Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.3-Kidnapping, gang rape and murder - Time of reaching place of inci- dent Proof Accused persons kid- napped victim, committed gang rape on her, murdered her and thrown her dead body in fields - Contradictions in respec- tive depositions of ASI and PI as to how and when they reached to spot where dead body of victim was found lying-Though said DD No. 24 was an extremely crucial piece of evidence, said document was not exhibited as evidence by prosecution Evidence regarding time as who reached to place of incident first where body of victim was lying, was not clear. (Para 24)

(D) Penal Code (45 of 1860), Ss.365,367, 376(2)(g), 302, 201, 34-Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Ss.25, 27, 8- Kidnapping, gang rape and murder - Disclosure statements of accused - Proof - Disclosure state- ments were recorded by PI, when accused persons were in police custody Said statements being in nature of confessions before police were hit by S.25 of Act Confession before police officer by accused when he is in police custody, cannot be called an extra-judicial confession Though, information furnished to I.O. leading to discovery of place of offence would be admissible to extent indicated in S.27 read with S.8 of Act, but not entire disclosure statement in nature of confes- sion recorded by Police officer - Trial court exhibiting entire disclosure statements of accused recorded by PI, for being read in evidence, erroneous. (Para 25)

(E) Penal Code (45 of 1860), Ss.365, 367, 376(2)(g), 302, 201, 34- Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.27 Kidnapping, gang rape and murder - Recovery of incriminating articles-Proof-No cogent evidence that incriminating articles were seized from accused Recovery of incriminating ma- terials, like broken piece of bumper, wal- let containing documents connecting ac- cused, strand of hair found from body of deceased and other articles, not proved.