Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
New Delhi, Oct 8 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the conviction and death sentence of a man who was found guilty by the trial court and the Madras High Court for the rape and murder of a seven-year-old girl in 2017.
A three-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Vikram Nath, said the trial was “conducted in a fair manner and in a manner consistent with the principles of fair trial”, adding that both the trial court and the Madras High Court glossed over these patent infirmities and flaws in the prosecution’s case.
The bench, also comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, observed that “mandatory requirements were completely bypassed/violated by the trial court while conducting the proceedings”, for recording evidence leading to recording of charges.
In its judgment, the top court said that the accused was not represented by a defense lawyer or a legal aid lawyer when the charges were filed, and that crucial documents were not supplied on time, denying him a fair opportunity to defend himself.
“The alleged constitutional right for an accused to defend himself is not illusory or imaginary. For the trial to be fair and reasonable, the accused must be provided an effective opportunity to defend himself and representation by counsel of choice is an important component of this guarantee,” it said.
The bench led by Justice Vikram Nath rejected the prosecution’s reliance on the “last seen” theory, finding the testimony of a key witness to be “sheer fabrication, bereft of credibility”.
“Apparently, thus, the theory stated in the evidence of Murugan that he had seen the victim in the company of the Appellant on February 5, 2017, i.e., the date of the incident, is nothing but a sheer fabrication, lacking credibility,” it said.
The top court also rejected the prosecution’s claim about the CCTV footage, which allegedly showed suspicious movements of the accused, saying “primary evidence of the so-called CCTV footage is not available on record” and the investigating agency “failed to collect data from the digital video recorder (DVR)”.
“It appears that the investigating officer was deliberately trying to conceal the truth from the record and wash their hands of the case by making the appellant a scapegoat,” the bench said.
It described the prosecution’s reliance on “so-called” CCTV footage as “nothing but a figment of the imagination”, adding: “Rather, this court is forced to draw adverse inferences against the prosecution for withholding a vital piece of evidence, i.e., the CCTV footage.”
Similarly, the Justice Vikram Nath-headed bench found reliance on the prosecution’s statements and recovery.
“The entire confessional statement of the appellant was allowed to be reproduced by the trial court in the statement of the investigating officer, which is in clear violation of the mandate of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,” it said.
The top court said that the police had already informed the complainant about the place where the victim’s body was disposed of, which is “sufficient to abandon the prosecution’s theory that all the false searches were conducted in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the appellant.”
“The principle of the confessional/disclosure statement of the appellant leading to the searches is nothing but a fabrication of the investigating officer,” it concluded.
The Supreme Court also criticized the trial court’s sentencing approach, noting that the death sentence was imposed on the same day as the sentencing, without any report on mitigating circumstances or psychological evaluation.
The bench said, “Apparently, the manner in which the trial court proceeded in passing the sentence order indicates hot haste, leaving much to be desired and the death sentence awarded to the appellant would be in danger.”
“Prejudice and denial of opportunity to the accused for effective defense are writ large on the face of the record”, the top court acquitted the appellant.
“The conviction and sentence of the Appellant by the Trial Court is set aside, and confirmed by the High Court,” it is also ordered.
,
PDS/VD