Rajesh @ Sarkari & Anr. v. State of Haryana (2020)

The Supreme Court judgement in Rajesh @ Sarkari & Anr. v. State of Haryana delivered on 3 November 2020 is a significant decision in Indian criminal law. The case examined the evidentiary value of eyewitness testimonies, forensic scientific laboratory (FSL) reports, and the Test Identification Parade (TIP).

The decision underscores the principle that criminal conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt and that courts must carefully scrutinise contradictions in witness statements and forensic evidence. It also laid down important principles on the evidentiary weight of TIP and clarified how refusal by accused persons to undergo TIP should be evaluated.

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:
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34
  • Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 9
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 162 (relevant to TIP)
  • Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25

Facts of Rajesh @ Sarkari & Anr. v. State of Haryana Case

The Incident

On 26 December 2006, Sandeep Hooda, a law student at Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, was attacked and shot at by assailants while at the university. His father, Azad Singh (PW4), and brother, Sunil Singh (PW5), claimed to have witnessed the attack. The assailants were said to have fled the spot on a Pulsar motorcycle.

Sandeep suffered multiple bullet injuries and was taken to the PGIMS, Rohtak, where he succumbed to his injuries. The FIR was lodged by his father.

Investigation

The investigation led to the arrest of three accused persons – Rajesh alias Sarkari, Ajay Hooda, and Pehlad. Weapons, including pistols, were allegedly recovered from their residences, and other materials such as empty cartridges, bullets, and blood-stained soil were collected from the scene.

Trial Proceedings

• The prosecution relied on 24 witnesses including the father and brother of the deceased, along with forensic evidence.
• The defence produced five witnesses to show that PW4 and PW5 were not present at the crime scene. They also questioned the authenticity of the forensic reports and the recovery of weapons.
• The Sessions Court convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 34 IPC, awarding life imprisonment.
• The High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld the conviction in January 2019.
• The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues Raised

1. Whether PW4 and PW5 (father and brother of the deceased) were present at the crime scene and whether their testimonies could be relied upon.
2. Whether contradictions in the Forensic Scientific Laboratory (FSL) reports affected the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
3. What is the evidentiary value of refusal by the accused to undergo Test Identification Parade (TIP)?

Arguments in Rajesh @ Sarkari & Anr. v. State of Haryana

Appellants (Rajesh and Ajay)

• Absence of eyewitnesses: PW4 and PW5 were not present at the crime scene. The FIR and hospital records showed that Parveen (DW4) and Sikandar (DW5) had taken the deceased to the hospital, not PW4 and PW5.
• Contradictory statements: PW4 and PW5 gave inconsistent statements regarding how the victim was taken to hospital.
• Forensic discrepancies: Multiple FSL reports contained contradictions in the description of cartridges, weapons (W/1 and W/2), and analysis. The ballistics examiner was not examined, which weakened the prosecution’s case.
• TIP refusal irrelevant: Since PW4 and PW5 were not credible witnesses and already knew the accused, refusal to undergo TIP should not weigh against the accused.

Respondent (State of Haryana)

• Presence of PW4 and PW5: Their testimonies, coupled with medical evidence, proved they were present. PW5 even handed over the victim’s tracksuit to the police.
• FSL reports reliable: Even with minor contradictions, the recovery of weapons from the accused’s residences and the forensic results supported their guilt.
• TIP refusal indicates guilt: The refusal to undergo TIP suggested that the accused wanted to avoid identification.
• Conviction valid: The Sessions Court and High Court had rightly relied on the evidence, and no grounds existed to overturn the findings.

Court’s Analysis in Rajesh @ Sarkari & Anr. v. State of Haryana

Presence of PW4 and PW5

The Court examined the reliability of PW4 and PW5:

• Hospital records (ruqqa) mentioned Parveen as the person who brought the victim to PGIMS.
• Contradictions existed between PW4 and PW5 regarding how the victim was taken to hospital.
• Their claim of being eyewitnesses was doubtful as independent witnesses (Parveen and Sikandar) were not examined by the prosecution.
• The Court concluded that serious doubts existed about their presence at the crime scene.

FSL Reports and Forensic Evidence

• The Court found major discrepancies across three FSL reports.
  
• One report stated that pistol W/1 was seized from Rajesh’s house and W/2 from Ajay’s, but another report reversed this description.
• Only one of the weapons was evaluated in the final report, and the ballistics examiner was not examined.
• Relying on precedents such as Mohinder Singh v. State (1950), Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995), and Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab (2020), the Court held that the absence of expert testimony in the backdrop of contradictions undermined the prosecution’s case.

Test Identification Parade (TIP)

The Court summarised 12 principles regarding TIP, including:

• TIP is not mandatory under law but helps test witness credibility.
• TIP should be held soon after arrest.
• Witness identification is substantive evidence but usually requires corroboration.
• Refusal to undergo TIP can lead to adverse inference, but it is not conclusive proof of guilt.

In this case, since the witnesses were unreliable and other evidence was doubtful, refusal to undergo TIP could not be a decisive factor against the accused.

Rajesh @ Sarkari & Anr. v. State of Haryana Judgement

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellants.

• The testimonies of PW4 and PW5 were found unreliable.
• Contradictions in FSL reports and the absence of a ballistics expert created reasonable doubt.
• Refusal of TIP by the accused could not, in itself, justify conviction.
• The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court cancelled all bail bonds and directed the release of the appellants, ending their 12-year imprisonment.

Key Legal Principles Established

1. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the cornerstone of criminal trials. Conviction cannot rest on contradictory or doubtful evidence.
   
2. Eyewitness testimony must be credible and corroborated.  Where contradictions exist, courts must approach with caution.
3. Forensic evidence must be consistent and supported by expert testimony. Failure to examine a ballistics expert in cases with contradictory forensic reports weakens the prosecution’s case.
4. Refusal of Test Identification Parade is not conclusive. It may allow adverse inference but cannot solely form the basis of conviction.
5. Application of precedents is contextual. The Court applied earlier rulings on TIP and expert evidence but tailored their use to the facts of this case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajesh @ Sarkari & Anr. v. State of Haryana (2020) is a landmark decision that reiterates the need for credible, consistent, and corroborated evidence in criminal cases. The judgement sets out clear principles on the evidentiary weight of eyewitness testimony, the handling of forensic reports, and the proper approach towards Test Identification Parade.