Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Randeep Singh @ Rana and another appellant against their conviction for murder and related offences. The case arose from the abduction and murder of Gurpal Singh on 8 July 2013. The prosecution's case relied primarily on the testimony of PW-26, the deceased's sister, who claimed to have witnessed the abduction, and on CCTV footage from a nearby bank. The trial court and High Court convicted the appellants, but the Supreme Court found the evidence insufficient. The Court held that PW-26's testimony was unreliable because her police statement under Section 161 CrPC omitted material facts that she later testified to, making those omissions contradictions under Section 162 CrPC. Additionally, she did not identify the accused in her examination-in-chief and no test identification parade was conducted. The Court also noted that PW-26's husband, who was present at the scene, was not examined, warranting an adverse inference. Regarding the CCTV footage, the Court found that the CD was not accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, and the witnesses who produced it had no personal knowledge of its contents, rendering it inadmissible. The remaining circumstantial evidence, including discovery of the car and weapon under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, was insufficient to form a complete chain of circumstances excluding the innocence of the accused, as required by the principles in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Eyewitness Testimony - Omissions and Contradictions - Section 162 CrPC, Section 161 CrPC - The sole eyewitness (PW-26) made material omissions in her police statement regarding the core incident, which amount to contradictions under Section 162 CrPC; her identification of accused was doubtful without test identification parade; hence her evidence was excluded (Paras 5-7). B) Evidence Law - Electronic Evidence - Admissibility - Section 65B Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The prosecution failed to produce the mandatory certificate under Section 65B for the CCTV footage CD; the witnesses (PW-1 and PW-24) had no personal knowledge of the footage and did not mark the CD; hence the CD was inadmissible (Paras 9-11). C) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Principles - The five principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra require that circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive, exclude every other hypothesis, and form a complete chain; here, the inadmissible CCTV footage broke the chain, and the remaining evidence of discovery was insufficient to convict (Paras 12-14). D) Criminal Law - Adverse Inference - Withholding of Witness - Section 114(g) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The prosecution did not examine PW-26's husband, who was an alleged eyewitness and present in court; an adverse inference was drawn against the prosecution (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants based on the testimony of an eyewitness with material omissions and inadmissible CCTV footage is sustainable.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellants, and acquitted them of all charges.
Law Points
- Evidence of eyewitness with material omissions is unreliable
- CCTV footage without Section 65B certificate is inadmissible
- circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding innocence
- adverse inference for withholding material witness
