RAJESH @ SARKARI & ANR versus STATE OF HARYANA

RAJESH @ SARKARI & ANR versus STATE OF HARYANA

Given substantial doubts as to whether PW4 and PW5 were present at the scene, significant discrepancies and infirmities in the ballistics/FSL material including misattribution and non-analysis of weapon W/1, and the prosecution's failure to examine FSL authors to explain those discrepancies, the prosecution failed...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: RAJESH @ SARKARI; Appellant: AJAY HOODA; Respondent: STATE OF HARYANA; Co Accused: Pehlad Singh alias Harpal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; appellants acquitted
Legal Topics
Murder, Test Identification Parade, Ballistics Evidence, Benefit of Doubt
Criminal Law Evidence Forensic Science Murder Test Identification Parade Ballistics Evidence Benefit of Doubt

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RAJESH @ SARKARI

Appellant

AJAY HOODA

Appellant

STATE OF HARYANA

Respondent

Pehlad Singh alias Harpal

Co Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether PW4 and PW5 were eyewitnesses to the occurrence
  2. 2 Weight and reliability of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports and ballistics evidence given non-examination of FSL examiners
  3. 3 Whether an adverse inference can be drawn from the appellants' refusal to undergo a Test Identification Parade (TIP)

Ratio Decidendi

Given substantial doubts as to whether PW4 and PW5 were present at the scene, significant discrepancies and infirmities in the ballistics/FSL material including misattribution and non-analysis of weapon W/1, and the prosecution's failure to examine FSL authors to explain those discrepancies, the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the appellants are therefore entitled to benefit of doubt and acquitted. The appellants' refusal to undergo a TIP was of secondary importance and could not sustain conviction independently.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; appellants acquitted

Orders

  • Appellants Rajesh @ Sarkari and Ajay Hooda acquitted of the offence
  • Appellants to be released and their bail bonds cancelled unless wanted in connection with any other case