Three accused persons in the Chhawla gang rape and murder case were acquitted by the top court

Case: Rahul v. Delhi, MHA & anr

Bench: Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit and Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi 

Last week, the Apex Court acquitted three death row convicts in the 2012 Chhawla gang rape and murder case that took place in Delhi's Dwarka.

According to the Bench, the trial court remained a passive umpire when it came to an improper examination of prosecution witnesses and forensic evidence.

The court said even though the crime was heinous, however, there is no alternative but to acquit the accused persons, as it cannot be influenced by outside moral pressures.

BACKGROUND

On February 9, 2012, the police received a complaint from the victim's friend that the victim was kidnapped and put inside a red-colored Tata Indica at Chhawla. Later, the girl's body was found in the fields of Rodai village. Subsequently, finding one of the three accused perplexed and allegedly operating the car in question, the police arrested them all.

In February 2014, a trial court convicted them of gang rape, murder, and causing the disappearance of evidence. Further, the accused persons filed an appeal before the Delhi HC against the trial court's death sentence order. The Delhi HC later that year dismissed the appeals, leading to the present plea before the SC.

In the context of the courts below relying on DNA evidence similar to that of the accused, the SC stated that the circumstantial evidence on record supports the claim that the victim was raped and brutally murdered, and that the case was based solely on circumstantial evidence.

The Court objected to the fact that no witnesses identified any of the accused during the deposition phase, and no police identification parade was conducted. The beat constables who claimed that the accused were found driving were also not cross-examined.

The top court stated that this piece of evidence was not reliable because even the friend of the murdered girl (whose statement formed the basis for the FIR) could not be certain that it was the same car in which her friend was kidnapped. In addition, the accused claimed that the car was seized only after they were arrested at home. 10 material witnesses out of the 49 prosecution witnesses were not cross-examined.

Moreover, the apex court ruled that the electronic call records, forensic examination of evidence found at the alleged crime scene, and DNA sample evidence did not establish a clinching link between the accused and the crime.

Moreover, the police failed to mention that the accused's possessions were found inside the car in their seizure memo, despite the accused's assertion that they had been taken from them at the police station.

The judges noted that they were constrained to point out the inadequacies of the trial and the police investigation as "glaring lapses."

It was clarified by the Court that the parents of the victim were entitled to compensation under Section 357(A).