Summary
The Court set aside all convictions and the death sentence in a child sexual-assault and murder case because the circumstantial chain did not establish the appellant’s guilt. The alleged recoveries, untranslated disclosure statements, unexplained sampling and broken chain of custody undermined the DNA evidence. The gravity of the crime could not substitute for reliable proof identifying its perpetrator.
Issues
- Whether the circumstantial evidence excluded hypotheses consistent with the appellant’s innocence.
- Whether the disclosure statements and recoveries were reliable given language barriers and conflicting search evidence.
- Whether the DNA report could establish guilt despite unproved collection and custody of samples.
Provisions considered
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The alleged disclosures and recoveries did not reliably establish the discovery link: the recorded statement omitted the claimed concealment, its language was not understood or explained, and searches and possession were materially doubtful. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49)
- Section 53A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Reasonable grounds in this case required the examination and reporting safeguards. Unexplained non-compliance, unknown sample collection and an unproved medical document were significant investigative failures. (¶¶ 37, 38, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 77)
- Appendix XXIV, safeguards for scientific exhibits and control samples, Maharashtra Police ManualThe Court stressed separate packing, sealing, labelling and proof of continuity from seizure to laboratory examination, which had not been established here. (¶¶ 60, 61, 62, 63)
Held
- In a circumstantial case, every necessary link must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the combined chain must point only to guilt. Residence in the same chawl, the unexplained timing of suspicion and the mother’s account of providing a matchbox did not establish the appellant’s presence at the crime scene. No witness placed him with the child so as to invoke last-seen reasoning. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30)
- Recovery evidence contained material conflicts about the items’ location, timing and prior discovery. A thoroughly searched small room allegedly yielded further crucial articles later; sealing and identification of the premises were uncertain, shared occupancy was not investigated, and important occupants were not examined. Those deficiencies left the alleged discovery link unproved. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51)
- The appellant spoke Hindi and did not understand Marathi, but the disclosure statements were recorded in Marathi without being read over or explained in a language he understood. The resulting uncertainty about their actual content caused prejudice on these facts. The Court distinguished a case where an interpreter had assisted the accused. (¶¶ 41, 42, 43, 44, 45)
- The prosecution failed to establish who took the appellant’s samples, when and under what safeguards. The medical document was unproved, contained unexplained alterations and did not record the necessary sample details. Although Section 53A does not require an examination irrespective of circumstances, reasonable grounds plainly existed here and the omission was a serious lapse. (¶¶ 37, 38, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59)
- DNA evidence is opinion evidence whose weight depends on the case and on reliable collection, preservation and custody. Here the chain of custody and prompt dispatch safeguards were unproved, contamination could not reasonably be excluded, and other cogent connecting evidence was absent. The report could not safely sustain the conviction and death sentence. (¶¶ 54, 55, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66)
- Homicidal death and the grave assault were established, but the identity of the perpetrator still required proof. The courts below relied on the apparent force of medical and DNA material and the horrific crime without resolving the material contradictions and broken links. The prosecution did not prove these charges against the appellant. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80)
- The appeals were allowed and all convictions under Sections 302, 376, 377 and 201 IPC, together with the sentences, were set aside. The appellant was directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case. (¶¶ 81, 82)
Result
Appeals allowed; trial and High Court convictions and sentences under Sections 302, 376, 377 and 201 IPC set aside. Appellant to be released forthwith unless required in another case. Pending applications disposed of.