Summary
The appellant was sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a six-year-old girl in Shravasti district on 'last seen' evidence and Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court acquitted him. The three witnesses contradicted one another on how the FIR was written, where the body was found and taken, when and where the inquest was held, and the victim's clothes, so they could not be relied on. Even prosecution witnesses supported the defence of false implication over a land dispute with the village Pradhan. The FIR reached the Magistrate five days late, and no one said who took it. The accused was never medically examined under Section 53A CrPC, and no forensic report was obtained. In a circumstantial case where the victim is dead, these lapses were fatal, and suspicion cannot replace proof.
Issues
- Whether the 'last seen' evidence of PWs 1 to 3 was trustworthy given major contradictions on the FIR, the recovery and movement of the body, the inquest and the victim's clothes.
- What effect an unexplained five-day delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate under Section 157(1) CrPC had, where the ocular evidence was unreliable.
- Whether failing to medically examine the accused under Section 53A CrPC and to obtain the forensic report was fatal in a circumstantial case of rape and murder.
Provisions considered
- Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The burden to explain arises only once the prosecution proves facts especially within the accused's knowledge, here that the victim was last seen with him. That foundation failed because the last-seen witnesses were unreliable. (¶¶ 14, 15, 57)
- Section 157(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sending the FIR 'forthwith' is an external check against manipulation. A long, unexplained delay with no record of who carried the FIR becomes significant, and here fatal, where the ocular evidence on the FIR's genesis is untrustworthy. (¶¶ 58, 61, 65, 66, 67, 68)
- Sections 53 and 53A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Medical examination of an accused of rape, including DNA profiling, gives crucial evidence. Where the victim is dead and the case circumstantial, failing to obtain it, together with the missing forensic report, leaves a gaping hole in the prosecution case. (¶¶ 72, 74, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81)
- Sections 302 and 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860The convictions and death sentence were set aside because the circumstantial chain was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 1, 85)
Held
- In a circumstantial case, the five Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles apply. PWs 1 to 3 gave conflicting versions on the lodging of the FIR, the place and handling of the body, the date, time and place of the inquest, and the colour and staining of the clothes. The courts below wrongly treated these as trivial. (¶¶ 9, 33, 42, 49, 54, 57)
- A delay in sending the FIR is not fatal in itself. But a five-day delay with no evidence of who took the FIR to court, coupled with contradictory evidence on its origin, was fatal on these facts. (¶¶ 61, 65, 66, 67, 68)
- Whether or not Section 53A is mandatory, failing to have the accused medically examined, and not obtaining the forensic report on the stained salwar, was fatal where the victim was dead and the ocular evidence untrustworthy (Krishan Kumar Malik, Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik). (¶¶ 69, 75, 78, 80, 81)
- Heinous offences call for higher scrutiny of evidence. A flawed investigation wronged both the victim's family and the accused, an indigent man who needed an amicus at trial, and he could not be made to pay for that injustice. (¶¶ 83, 84, 85)
Result
Appeals allowed. The convictions under Sections 302 and 376 IPC and the death sentence were set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be released unless required in another case.