In Criminal Appeal No. 793 of 2022 -SC- Supreme Court expresses concern over ‘disappointing standards of police investigation’; Acquits three men in murder case
Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice Sanjay Kumar [21-09-2023]

Read Order: Rajesh & Anr v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, September 25, 2023: In a significant decision, the Supreme Court has acquitted three individuals who had been convicted for murder, with two of them facing the death penalty. The Top Court found that the prosecution's case was riddled with discrepancies and that the police had conducted a shoddy investigation.

In this case, a 15-year-old boy named Ajit Pal, was brutally killed in the last week of July 2013. The accused in the case included a neighbour named Om Prakash Yadav, along with his brother Raja Yadav, and son Rajesh, also known as Rakesh Yadav. They were tried for the murder of Ajit Pal and related offenses. On 29.12.2016, the Additional Sessions Judge found all three of them guilty of various charges. Dissatisfied with the verdict, all three convicts appealed to the Madhya Pradesh High Court. However, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld their convictions and the sentences, including the death penalty imposed on Raja Yadav and Rajesh Yadav.

A three-judge bench of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sanjay Kumar identified significant discrepancies in the foundational aspects of the case.

The bench pointed out that there was a lack of clarity regarding the time when Ajit Pal went missing. The 'missing person' report, marked as Ex. P1, mentioned that Ajit Pal left home at 9 o'clock and went somewhere, and despite a search, he could not be located. Importantly, the report did not specify whether this incident occurred at 9 am or 9 pm. Furthermore, the bench highlighted that the prosecution's case included various inconsistent figures for the ransom amount. Given that the alleged motive for the offense was to collect ransom, it raised doubts about why the kidnappers would be so unclear about their demand.

The bench further observed that it was unclear why sniffer/tracking dogs would be deployed after the police had already discovered the dead body, the murder weapon, and other relevant evidence. The bench found it puzzling that the Investigating Officer (PW-16) did not make any mention of the use of sniffer/tracking dogs during the course of the investigation. It was held that this omission, regardless of the reason behind it, casted a negative light on the prosecution's case.

Additionally, the bench pointed out that even though the call data statement was enough to establish a connection between Om Prakash Yadav and the ransom calls, the police chose to label the accused as 'Unknown' in the FIR. Moreover, if Ex. P31's statement indeed implicated Om Prakash Yadav, as asserted by the Investigating Officer (PW-16), there was no clear explanation provided as to why the police initially arrested Rajesh Yadav.

The bench emphasized that under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it was crucial that the individual in question must be ‘accused of an offence’ and in the ‘custody of a police officer’. Only in such a situation can information leading to the discovery of a fact be admissible, and so much of that information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, which distinctly relates to the fact discovered, may be used as evidence against the accused. Therefore, both elements, being in ‘the custody of a police officer’ and being ‘accused of an offence’, were essential prerequisites for making a confession to the police admissible to a limited extent under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The bench determined that in the said case, Rajesh Yadav couldn't be considered to be in 'police custody' until he was arrested at 18:30 hours on 29.03.2013, as he was not named as an 'accused' in the FIR and was not 'accused of any offence' until his arrest. Consequently, any confession made by him before his arrest and prior to being 'accused of any offence' would be governed by Section 26 of the Evidence Act, rendering it inadmissible. Therefore, the purported discovery of the dead body, the murder weapon, and other material objects, even if they were made at Rajesh Yadav's behest, cannot be proven against him because he was not 'accused of any offence' and was not in 'police custody' at the time of the alleged confession. The same would apply to Raja Yadav and Om Prakash Yadav, as they were also not named as 'accused' in the FIR and were not 'accused of any offence' until they were arrested and taken into 'police custody,' well after the recording of their confessions and the alleged seizures based on those confessions.

Before concluding the case, the bench expressed profound concern over the disappointing standards of police investigation. The bench criticized the way the police conducted their investigation, highlighting their indifference to essential investigative norms, their failure to follow important leads, and their tendency to ignore evidence that didn't fit their preconceived narrative.

“It is high time, perhaps, that a consistent and dependable code of investigation is devised with a mandatory and detailed procedure for the police to implement and abide by during the course of their investigation…..,” said the court.

In its concluding remarks, the bench expressed perplexity at the fact that despite the numerous weaknesses and loopholes in the prosecution's case, both the Trial Court and the High Court not only accepted it without question but also imposed and upheld the death penalty for Rajesh Yadav and Raja Yadav. The bench noted that no valid and convincing reasons were provided to justify why this case should be considered as the ‘rarest of rare cases’, necessitating such a severe punishment.

Based on the above analysis, the court allowed the appeals and overturned the convictions and sentences of all three appellants on all charges.