A bench of Chief Justice of India U U Lalit and Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi acquitted the three males – Rahul, Ravi Kumar and Vinod alias Chhotu – stating that the prosecution, whose case rested on circumstantial proof, had didn’t show it.

As per the prosecution case, the trio kidnapped the lady in a purple Tata Indica automotive close to Hanuman Chowk, Qutub Vihar, Chhawla on February 9, 2012 earlier than raping and killing her. The physique was discovered three days later.

Highlighting a few of the flaws within the investigation and trial, the bench stated: “From the… evidence of the concerned witnesses, it clearly transpires that neither any T.I. (test identification) parade was conducted by the investigating officer during the course of investigation for the identification of the accused, nor any of the witnesses had identified the accused during their respective depositions before the court. Therefore, the very identity of the appellants-accused having not been duly established, the entire case of the prosecution falls flat on the very first circumstance having not been duly proved by any evidence, much less clinching evidence, against the appellants-accused.”

It stated: “As demonstrated… the evidence with regard to the arrest of the appellants-accused, their identification, discoveries and recoveries of the incriminating articles, identity of the Indica car, the seizures and sealing of the articles and collection of samples, the medical and scientific evidence, the report of DNA profiling, the evidence with regard to the CDRs (call data records) etc were not proved by the prosecution by leading, cogent, clinching and clear evidence, much less unerringly pointing the guilt of the accused.”

‘The prosecution has to carry dwelling the fees levelled in opposition to them past affordable doubt, which the prosecution has didn’t do within the on the spot case. Resultantly, the court docket is left with no various however to acquit the accused, although concerned in a really heinous crime,” it stated.

Writing for the bench, Justice Trivedi stated: “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.”

The SC added that it “is constrained to make these observations as the court has noticed many glaring lapses having occurred during the course of the trial”.

The ruling stated: “It has been noticed from the record that out of the 49 witnesses examined by the prosecution, 10 material witnesses were not cross-examined and many other important witnesses were not adequately cross-examined by the defence counsel.” Though Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act confers unbridled powers upon the trial courts to place any query at any stage to the witnesses to elicit the reality, “the trial court also… acted as a passive umpire”, it stated.

“In the instant case, 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,” the judgement stated.

The trial court docket had held them responsible in February 2014 and sentenced them to dying. This was upheld by the Delhi High Court in August 2014.