The Supreme Court issued an order on Monday acquitting the three men accused in the 2012 Chhawla Gang Rape Case. The Delhi High Court and the trial court had previously sentenced the three accused to death.

The bench of Chief Justice U. U. Lalit and Justices Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi overturned the Delhi High Court's conviction of the three men for the rape and murder of a 19-year-old girl.

On February 9, 2012, the 19-year-old victim, who worked for a private company in Gurugram's Cyber City, was on her way home from work and had just de-boarded a bus in southwest Delhi's Qutub Vihar, just a 10-minute walk from her home in Chhawla Camp, when she was abducted. Days later, the woman's body was discovered in a field in Rodhai village, Rewari district, Haryana, with multiple injuries and burn marks. She was attacked with car tools, glass bottles, and sharp metal objects, according to an autopsy.

On February 19, 2014, a Gurugram city court convicted and sentenced to death three alleged accused: Rahul, Ravi, and Vinod. On August 26, the same year, the Delhi high court upheld the trial court's decision, noting the brutal manner in which the body was mutilated before and after the woman was kidnapped and raped, and referring to the accused as "trained bloodhounds picking out a scent."

The Supreme Court pronounced its decision after hearing arguments from Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, who sought to uphold the death penalty, and amicus curiae Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur, who sought to overturn it.

The Court enunciated that "material witnesses examined by the prosecution having not been either cross-examined or adequately examined, and the trial court also having acted as a passive umpire, we find that the Appellants-accused were deprived of their rights to have a fair trial, apart from the fact that the truth also could not be elicited by the trial court. We leave it to the wisdom and discretion of the trial courts to exercise their powers under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act for eliciting the truth in the cases before them, howsoever heinous or otherwise they may be."

The Court raised its concerned on the conduct of trial while saying that the Judge is not expected to be a passive umpire but is supposed to actively participate in the trial, and to question the witnesses to reach to a correct conclusion.

The Bench of Supreme Court held that "As per the settled legal position, in order to sustain conviction, the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused only and none else. The circumstantial evidence must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.

Considering the lacunas of trial, the Apex Court held that "The prosecution has to bring home the charges levelled against them beyond reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do in the instant case, resultantly, the Court is left with no alternative but to acquit the accused, though involved in a very heinous crime. It may be true that if the accused involved in the heinous crime go unpunished or are acquitted, a kind of agony and frustration may be caused to the society in general and to the family of the victim in particular, however the law does not permit the Courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. No conviction should be based merely on the apprehension of indictment or condemnation over the decision rendered. Every case has to be decided by the Courts strictly on merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by any kind of outside moral pressures or otherwise."

Case Details

Rahul Versus The State Of Delhi Ministry Of Home Affairs And Anr. 

Crl A No. 611/2022

 Read the complete judgment on the following Link:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2015/870/870_2015_1_1504_39620_Judgement_07-Nov-2022.pdf