New Delhi, Oct 8 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the conviction and death sentence of a man who was found guilty by the trial court and the Madras High Court for the rape and murder of a seven-year-old girl in 2017.

A three-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Vikram Nath, held that the trial was “conducted in a lopsided manner and without due deference to the principles of fair trial”, adding that both the trial court and the Madras High Court glossed over these patent infirmities and loopholes in the prosecution’s case.

The bench, also comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, observed that from the stage of framing charges to recording evidence, “the mandatory requirements were totally bypassed/violated by the trial Court while conducting the proceedings”.

In its judgment, the apex court noted that the accused was not represented by a defence lawyer or legal aid counsel when charges were framed, and that crucial documents were not supplied in time, thereby denying him a fair opportunity to defend himself.

“The constitutional right afforded to an accused charged with an offence to defend himself is not illusory or imaginary. For the trial to be fair and reasonable, an effective opportunity to defend must be provided to the accused and representation by counsel of choice is an important component of this guarantee,” it said.

The Justice Vikram Nath-led Bench rejected the prosecution’s reliance on the “last seen together” theory, finding the testimony of a key witness to be a “sheer concoction, bereft of credibility”.

“Apparently, thus, the theory put forth in the evidence of Murugan that he had seen the victim in the company of the appellant on 5th February, 2017, i.e., the date of the incident, is nothing but a sheer concoction, bereft of credibility,” it said.

The top court also rejected the prosecution’s claim regarding CCTV footage allegedly showing the accused’s suspicious movements, stating that “the primary evidence of the so-called CCTV footage is not available on record” and that the investigation agency “failed to collect the data from the Digital Video Recorder (DVR)”.

“It seems that the Investigation Officers were intentionally trying to screen the truth from being brought on record and wash their hands off the matter, by making the appellant a scapegoat,” the bench observed.

It described the prosecution’s reliance on the “so-called” CCTV footage “nothing but a figment of imagination”, saying: “Rather, this Court is compelled to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution for withholding a vital piece of evidence, i.e., the CCTV footage.”

Similarly, the Justice Vikram Nath-headed bench found the prosecution’s reliance on confessional statements and recoveries to be contrived.

“The entire confessional statement of the appellant was allowed to be reproduced in the deposition of the Investigation Officer by the trial court, which is in clear contravention to the mandate of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,” it said.

The apex court added that the police had already informed the complainant regarding the location where the body of the victim had been disposed of, which “is itself sufficient to discard the theory of the prosecution that all the incriminating discoveries were made in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the appellant.”

“The theory of confessional/disclosure statement of the appellant leading to the discoveries is nothing but a creation of the Investigating Officer,” it concluded.

The Supreme Court also criticised the trial court’s approach to sentencing, noting that the death penalty was awarded on the same day as the conviction, without any report of mitigating and aggravating circumstances or psychological evaluation.

“Evidently, the manner in which the trial Court proceeded to pass the sentencing order indicates hot haste, leaving much to be desired and would vitiate the death sentence awarded to the appellant,” the bench observed.

Holding that “prejudice and denial of opportunity of effective defence to the accused are writ large on the face of the record”, the apex court acquitted the appellant.

“The conviction of the appellant and the sentences awarded to him, by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court are also set aside,” it ordered.

–IANS

pds/vd