In the Sessions Trial, six accused persons were tried for dacoity and the murder of four people. The Trial Court convicted Accused No. 1, Hari Om, and sentenced him to death. The other accused persons were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld the death sentence for Hari Om, affirmed the life imprisonment sentences for Accused Sanjay@Sonu and Saurabh@Sanju, and acquitted the remaining three accused persons.
The four key circumstances against the accused were:
Testimony of PW 5, the lone survivor and five-year-old son of the deceased.
Recovery of a knife at the instance of Accused Hari Om.
Testimony of a prosecution witness who claimed to have seen Hari Om near a red Tavera vehicle in the neighborhood.
Fingerprints lifted from a glass inside the house matched those of Sanjay@Sonu and Saurabh@Sanju.
The Court acquitted all the accused and held:
The testimony of the child witness, who was about five years old at the time of the incident, was deemed unreliable and not safe to rely upon.
With the child witness's testimony being untrustworthy, the remaining evidence consisted of the recovery of a knife and the statement of a prosecution witness who claimed to have seen Hari Om near a red Tavera vehicle. The prosecution failed to link the call received by the deceased to Accused Hari Om, and there were discrepancies between the witness’s testimony and the time of the call. These inconsistencies led the Court to conclude that there was insufficient evidence to convict Hari Om under Section 396 IPC, and he was entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
Regarding Sanjay@Sonu and Saurabh@Sanju, the Supreme Court found the fingerprint evidence insufficient. The procedure for lifting fingerprints from the glass was not specified, and there was no record of the method used or whether the constable who conducted the procedure was an expert. Additionally, the constable was not examined, and there was no evidence of the procedure used to analyze the fingerprints. Since Sanjay@Sonu and Saurabh@Sanju were unknown to the child and had not undergone Test Identification, and their identification in court was their first appearance, the fingerprint evidence alone was inadequate to support their conviction. As a result, they were granted the benefit of the doubt.
This case is notable for highlighting the importance of proper procedures in fingerprint evidence collection and handling.