Randeep Singh @ Rana & Anr. vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Held: Brutality of the offence does not dispense with the legal requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt – No legal evidence to prove the involvement of the accused – Courts can convict an accused only if his guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt on the basis of legally admissible evidence – There cannot be a moral conviction – Appellants’ guilt not established beyond a reasonable doubt – Material part of the testimony of eyewitness full of omissions – Identification of the accused by the eye-witness doubtful in the absence of the test identification parade – Thus, the evidence to be kept out of consideration – Also the husband of the eyewitness who, according to her, was an eyewitness, not examined by the Police – Thus, an adverse inference to be drawn against the prosecution for withholding evidence of an eyewitness – Prosecution failed to produce the certificate u/s. 65B of the Evidence Act concerning the CD prepared from the CCTV footage concerning the incident outside the premises of the bank – Neither the Bank Manager nor the CCTV engineer saw the CCTV footage downloaded on the CD – Thus, the evidence in the form of the CD to be kept out of consideration as it is not admissible in evidence – In view thereof, it is not possible to sustain the conviction of the accused only based on the evidence of recovery – Moreover, all the circumstances forming part of the chain not proved – Confessional statement made by the accused to a police officer while in custody not admissible in the evidence – Judgments passed by the trial court as well as the High Court quashed and set aside. [Paras 7-13, 16-18] Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.25-27 – Confession to police officer not to be proved – Confessions allegedly made by the accused to a police officer when they were in Police custody – Admissibility: Held: s.27 is an exception to ss.25 and 26 – It permits certain parts of the statement made by the accused to a police officer while in custody to be proved – U/s. 27 only that part of the statement made by the accused is admissible, which distinctly relates to the discovery – It becomes admissible when a fact is discovered as a consequence of the information received from the accused – What is admissible is only such information furnished by the accused as relates distinctly to the facts thereby discovered – No other part is admissible – Confessional statement made by the accused to a police officer while in custody is not admissible in the evidence except to the extent to which s.27 is applicable – If such inadmissible confessions are made part of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, then there is every possibility that the trial courts may get influenced by it. [Paras 16, 17]