SC acquits 3 men on death row in 2012 Chhawla murder-gangrape case [Read Order]

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has on Monday set free three men on death row in the 2012 murder and gangrape of a 19-year-old woman in Delhi's Chhawla area, giving them a benefit of doubt due to glaring lapses during the investigation and trial of the "heinous" case.

A bench led by Chief Justice U U Lalit and comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi said, “the prosecution has to bring home the charges levelled against them beyond reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do in the instant case, resultantly, the court is left with no alternative but to acquit the accused, though involved in a very heinous crime”.

The top court set aside the judgement and orders of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and the High Court.

Even after noting that it is a death sentence case, the bench said, “Every case has to be decided by the courts strictly on merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by any kind of outside moral pressures or otherwise.”

The appellants-accused are acquitted from the charges levelled against them by giving them a benefit of doubt, and they are directed to be set free forthwith if not required in any other case. The appeals deserve to be allowed accordingly, the bench said.

“It may be true that if the accused involved in the heinous crime go unpunished or are acquitted, a kind of agony and frustration may be caused to the society in general and to the family of the victim in particular. However, the law does not permit the courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone,” the bench noted.

Justice Trivedi, who authored the judgement on behalf of the bench, said 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.

“The court is constrained to make these observations as it has noticed many glaring lapses having occurred during the course of the trial. 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 bench said.

In the 40-page judgment, Justice Trivedi said, “we find that 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. We leave it to the wisdom and discretion of the trial courts to exercise their powers under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act for eliciting the truth in the cases before them, howsoever heinous or otherwise they may be”.  

Among others, the defence counsel proved that the call detail record (CDR) data of the accused and the deceased at relevant times were found to be at different locations.

The autopsy of the victim had revealed that she was attacked with car tools, glass bottles, metal objects, and other weapons.

According to the police, one of the accused allegedly took revenge after the woman turned down his proposal.

The prosecution had submitted that the woman, who belonged to Uttarakhand and worked in Gurugram's Cyber City area, was abducted by the three accused from near her home while she was returning from her workplace.

The prosecution claimed, the woman's mutilated and decomposed body was found in a village in Haryana's Rewari.

Since the three accused were poor, their appeal before the Supreme Court was taken up by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, which assigned the case to senior advocate A Sirajudeen.

The top court had also appointed senior advocate Sonia Mathur to assist in the matter as amicus curiae, while the prosecution was represented by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati.

[Read Order]