Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark case of NARESH @ NEHRU v. THE STATE OF HARYANA (2023 INSC 889), addressed critical issues pertaining to the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the admissibility of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, and the application of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding the common object within an unlawful assembly. The appellants, Naresh @ Nehru and others, were initially convicted for offences under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC by the Sessions Court, a decision which was subsequently upheld by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. This commentary delves into the Supreme Court's comprehensive analysis that ultimately led to the acquittal of the appellants, setting significant precedents in criminal jurisprudence.

Summary of the Judgment

The case originated from an incident on April 22, 2016, where Ajay and Suraj were allegedly attacked by a group of individuals using motorcycles. Based on the testimony of Mohit @ Kala (PW-9) and physical evidence such as firearms and motorcycles, six accused were charged, with three appellants (Nos.4-6) being convicted. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court meticulously examined the prosecution's evidence, highlighting inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts, the unreliable nature of the CCTV footage presented, and the inadmissibility of confessional statements obtained in custody without adhering to the procedural safeguards prescribed under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitting the appellants due to the prosecution's failure to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references pivotal Supreme Court decisions to underpin its reasoning:

• Rai Sandeep @ Deepu alias Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21 - Emphasized the necessity for eyewitness testimony to be of "sterling" quality, free from inconsistencies, and corroborated by other evidence.
• Mehboob Ali & Another Vs. State of Rajasthan (2016) 14 SCC 640 - Clarified the admissibility of confessional statements under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, stressing that such confessions are inadmissible unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.
• Roy Fernandes v. State Of Goa and Others (2012) 3 SCC 221 - Discussed the application of Section 149 IPC, outlining the requirements to establish a common object within an unlawful assembly.
• Lalji v. State of U.P. [(1989) 1 SCC 437] and Dharam Pal v. State of U.P. [(1975) 2 SCC 596] - Provided insights into deducing the common object from the nature of the assembly, the behavior of its members, and the circumstances surrounding the incident.
• Indra Dalal v. State of Haryana (2015) 11 SCC 31 - Reinforced the stance on inadmissibility of confessions made to police officers.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court's analysis centered on the reliability and admissibility of the prosecution's evidence:

• Eyewitness Testimony: The Court scrutinized PW-9's testimony, highlighting inconsistencies between his statements made during the initial investigation and those presented in court. The failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and the absence of clear identification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act further undermined the credibility of the eyewitness.
• CCTV Footage: The reliance on CCTV evidence was critically evaluated. The Court pointed out procedural lapses, including the lack of forwarding the footage to the Forensic Science Laboratory, potential tampering risks, and the inability to clearly identify the faces of the accused, rendering the footage unreliable.
• Confessional Statements: The Supreme Court emphasized that confessions made to police officers without the presence of a Magistrate are inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. The appellants' confessions were obtained in custody without adhering to these safeguards, nullifying their probative value.
• Common Object under Section 149 IPC: The Court dissected the application of Section 149 IPC, asserting that mere association with an unlawful assembly does not suffice for conviction. There must be clear evidence that the appellants shared a common object with the assembly, which the prosecution failed to establish.

Impact

This judgment reinforces stringent standards for the admissibility and reliability of evidence in criminal proceedings. It underscores the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding the rights of the accused by ensuring that convictions are predicated on incontrovertible evidence. The clear articulation of the requirements for establishing a common object within an unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC sets a benchmark for future cases, compelling courts to meticulously examine the nexus between accused individuals and their alleged collective intent.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 149 IPC - Common Object Doctrine

Definition: Section 149 of the IPC deals with the concept of vicarious liability within an unlawful assembly. If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in pursuit of a common object, every member present at the time of the offence is presumed guilty.

Simplified: If a group (unlawful assembly) has a collective goal (common object) and one member commits a crime to achieve that goal, all members present are held responsible, regardless of their direct involvement in the offence.

Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act

Section 25: Confessions made to police officers are inadmissible in court.

Section 26: Any confession made by an accused while in police custody is only admissible if made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.

Simplified: Statements or confessions made to police without a Magistrate present cannot be used as evidence against the accused in court.

Test Identification Parade (TIP)

Definition: TIP is a procedure where the accused is presented to the victim or eyewitnesses to confirm their identity among other individuals.

Simplified: It's a lineup to help witnesses accurately identify the person who committed the crime.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in NARESH @ NEHRU v. THE STATE OF HARYANA serves as a pivotal reminder of the judiciary's role in upholding the sanctity of the criminal justice system. By meticulously dissecting the prosecution's evidence and reaffirming the stringent standards for admissibility and reliability, the Court reinforced the fundamental principles of fair trial and due process. This judgment not only acquits the appellants based on the insufficiency and unreliability of evidence but also sets a robust precedent ensuring that future convictions are built on unequivocal and corroborated evidence, thereby safeguarding the rights of the accused and maintaining public confidence in the legal system.