NDLI: Rahul Vs. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	1860 – ss. 365 376(2)(g) 302 367 201 & 34 Penal Code
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
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 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.
Judge	Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 1176
Petitioner	Rahul
Respondent	State Of Delhi Ministry Of Home Affairs & Anr.
SCR	[2022] 9 S.C.R. 1129
Judgement Date	2022-11-07
Case Number	611

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Rahul Vs. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

State of Rajasthan Vs. Hanif Khan & Anr.

Ramnaresh & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Arjun Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Devendra Singh

Ravi Mandal Vs. State of Uttarakhand

Amit Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Rathinam @ Rathinan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.

Suresh Sakharam Nangare Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Lochan Shrivas Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh

Rahul Vs. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr.

Rahul Vs. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

State of Rajasthan Vs. Hanif Khan & Anr.

Ramnaresh & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Arjun Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Devendra Singh

Ravi Mandal Vs. State of Uttarakhand

Amit Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Rathinam @ Rathinan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.

Suresh Sakharam Nangare Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Lochan Shrivas Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh

Rahul Vs. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr.