Previous 2 / 36 Next

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 Wednesday, February 22, 2023 Printed For: Saloni Ambastha, National Law University, Dwarka SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com © 2023 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of this judgment is protected by the law declared by the Supreme Court in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Rahul

CASE BRIEF

Jurisdiction

India

Nationalities

Indian

Case Title: Rahul and Ors v. State of Delhi

Gender: Male

Religious Group at Offence: Hindu

Jurisdiction - Geolocation

Latitude: 20.5937

Longitude: 78.9629

Jurisdiction - Geolocation (linked CASE BRIEF): India

Contributing TRP Partner

The Square Circle Clinic (India)

Latest Country's Death Penalty Status

Retentionist

Case Current Status: Closed: Acquitted

Rights Allegedly Violated

Fair Trial and Due Process: Fair investigation & fair disclosure

Nature of Offences for Death Penalty

Sexual Violence: Child Rape
Murder: Single Victim

Expert Evidence

Forensic/Medical evidence: Autopsy/Post mortem
Forensic/Medical evidence: DNA/Serology/Biology
Forensic/Medical evidence: Mobile/Computer/Digital evidence

Case Background (300 words max): The three accused were convicted for the kidnapping, gang rape and murder of a woman in Delhi on 09.02.2012. Rahul is the first accused. They were convicted and sentenced to death u/s. 302 r/w 34 of the IPC. The Delhi High Court confirmed the conviction and death sentence on 26.08.2014. A criminal appeal against this decision was filed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court acquitted them in its decision dated 07.11.2022.

Defence Arguments (200 words max.)

Circumstances under which the car was recovered (in which the accused allegedly abducted, raped and killed victim) not proved.
Recovery of incriminating material not proved and conducted in highly doubtful manner.
discrepancies with respect to photos and videos of crime scene between Delhi and Haryana police investigations.
Forensic evidence not legally or scientifically collected, stored
CDR records do not incriminate Rahul (or Ravi)
Failure to cross examine crucial witnesses violates fair trial rights of accused.

Judgement with Headnotes (200 words max)

The Supreme Court acquitted all three accused for the following grounds-

Out of 49 witnesses, 10 witnesses failed to be cross examined by the trial court
delay by police in sending DNA samples to the lab (of 13 days); improper collection and sealing techniques- does not meet legal and scientific requirements for admissibility- possibility of tampering of evidence
disclosure statements of accused over incriminating material took place in police custody and is hence precluded by s. 25 Evidence Act
accused were not identified by witnesses in the police test identification parade or in court during trial

Legal Representation Received

Appeal: Pro bono

Special Procedures Used

Amicus Curiae / "Watching Brief"

Legislation Related to the Offence(s)

Indian Penal Code 1860

s. 302
S. 365
s. 367
s. 376(2)(g)
s. 201 r/w s. 34

Language of Case Materials

English

Primary Documents

Rahul v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 1 SCC 83.pdf
English
Download View

Death Penalty Defence - Asia

Select target paragraph3

Rahul

Primary Documents

Notifications