Brief Facts
- The FIR was registered stating that the dead body of the prosecutrix was found floating in the Nala, in close proximity of her house. She had been sexually assaulted and killed by an unidentified person. Pursuant to investigation the appellant was charged for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 376, 377, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court convicted Appellant and awarded capital punishment and it was later affirmed by the High Court.
- It is a case of circumstantial evidence, as none has witnessed the crime for which the Appellant charged for. The prosecution case is primarily based, not on ocular evidence but on the confessional statement of the Appellant leading to the recovery of incriminating articles and through scientific analysis establishing his guilt. The sheet-anchor of the case being the DNA analysis report stating the semen of the appellant found on the undergarments of the prosecutrix (nicker) and the vaginal smear slide of the prosecutrix.
Issues
- Whether non-recording of a disclosure statement of the Appellant in the language in which it is made and recording of the same in a language totally unknown to the Appellant, contents whereof are also not read over and explained to him, can be said to have caused any prejudice to the cause of justice?
- Whether DNA evidence can form the solitary basis in determining the guilt of the Appellant?
- Whether the delay in sending samples to FSL and failure in maintaining the chain of custody can make the DNA report unreliable?
- Whether the circumstances as identified and relied on by the prosecution indeed point to the guilt only of the appellant, closing out any and all other possibilities of any other person?
Held
- Apex Court ordered for acquittal of the Appellant.
- None of the witnesses have deposed that it was at the instance of the appellant that the prosecutrix left the house, nor has anyone deposed to the effect of having seen the appellant and the prosecutrix together at any point in time; Appellant was not even a visitor to the house of PW 1. Although argued before us, the Trial Court has correctly not considered the same to be a circumstance of consequence, in either direction.
Language for recording disclosure statement - From a perusal of material on record, we find that the Appellant did not know how to read and write in Marathi. This being the position, this Court has highlighted the importance of the appellant being able to understand the case of the prosecution against him. Inability to do so, by virtue of a language barrier causes prejudice to the case of the appellant. There is nothing on record to show that it was not practicable to record evidence of the appellant as well as others, whose vernacular was not Marathi, but Hindi. The original testimony, from which the text, tenor and true import of their testimony may be gauged, is not part of the record. Therefore, it is apparent that statutory safeguards in reference to language have not been complied with, causing prejudice to the appellant in terms of Syed Qasim Rizvi (1953 SCR 589). Here only taking note of the decision of this Court rendered in Siju Kurian v. State of Karnataka 2023 SCC OnLine 429, we clarify the said decision to have been taken, given the attending facts where the appellant was provided with the assistance of interpreter and his disclosure statement leading to discovery of a fact, unlike the instant case not linking the recovery to the appellant with the crime.
Circumstances of Scientific examination - Perusal of documents reveals that samples of the blood and semen of the appellant were sent for forensic analysis. Importantly though, there is nothing on record to establish as to who took such samples, on what date, on how many occasions and why were they not sent all at once, we notice that none of the police officials have testified to the formalities of keeping the samples safe and secure being complied with.
- There is only one document (Ext.79) on record, indicating the appellant to have been medically examined. But even this document does not reveal sample of the body part being drawn. In any event, the doctor who conducted such examination, has not stepped into the witness box to testify the correctness of the contents thereof. Additionally, the document does not fall true to the statutory requirements imposed under Section 53A Cr.P.C.
- Delay in sending the samples to Forensic Lab is unexplained and therefore, the possibility of contamination and the concomitant prosects of diminishment in value cannot be reasonably ruled out. Chain of Custody document was not placed on record. In such circumstance DNA report cannot be so dependable to send someone to the gallows on this basis.
Summary of circumstances warranting acquittal - In the instant case, the reasons why the investigation officers were changed time and again from PW 6 to PW 12 and then to PW 13, is surprising and unexplained. As we have already pointed out, no reason stands given for having decided that there was no need to comply with the provisions of Section 53A, Cr.P.C.; there is unexplained delay in sending the samples collected for analysis; a premises already searched was searched again, the reason for which is not borne from record; lock panchnama is not prepared; no samples of blood and semen of the appellant can be said to have been drawn by any medical or para medical staff; allegedly an additional sample is taken from the appellant more than a month after the arrest; alleged disclosure statement of the appellant was never read over and explained to the appellant in his vernacular language; the appellant was not residing alone at the place alleged to be his residence; and what was the basis of appellant being a suspect at the first instance, remains a mystery; persons who may have shed light on essential aspects- Ganesh Bheema and Munna Saroj went unexamined etc., such multitudinous lapses have compromised the quest to punish the doer of such a barbaric act in absolute peril.
Relevant Para No.
- 30, 45, 54, 56, 61,77