Hari Om @ Hero v. State of U.P.
Background
In October 2008, four members of a family, a woman and her three children, were murdered in their home in Firozabad, UP, during what appeared to be a robbery. Six persons were put on trial; the trial court convicted Hari Om (sentencing him to death), along with four others (life imprisonment), while two were acquitted outright. On reference and appeal, the Allahabad High Court confirmed Hari Om's death sentence and the convictions of two others (Sanjay and Saurabh), while acquitting three others. Hari Om, Sanjay and Saurabh then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court scrutinised the forensic fingerprint evidence relied upon to convict Sanjay and Saurabh, finding that the constable who lifted the fingerprints was never examined as a witness, there was no evidence of his competence or of the chain of custody for the glasses on which the prints were found, and the record did not clearly establish the procedure followed, relying on precedents like Prakash v. State of Karnataka and Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, the Court held fingerprint evidence alone, without corroboration, is insufficient and unreliable here. It also noted the two accused were identified only once in court, with no prior test identification parade. Finding the entire chain of circumstantial evidence against all three appellants left reasonable doubt, the Court acquitted Hari Om, Sanjay and Saurabh of all charges and ordered their release.
Lesson Learnt
In cases built on circumstantial and forensic evidence (such as fingerprints), the prosecution must prove each link, including who collected the evidence, how it was preserved, and whether proper identification procedures were followed, and a failure to do so can entitle even an accused convicted twice below (including one sentenced to death) to the benefit of the doubt and acquittal.