Summary
The stepfather of a six-year-old girl was convicted of her murder on circumstantial evidence: last seen together, recovery of bone remnants at his instance, and a DNA match. The Supreme Court acquitted him, holding that the last-seen theory collapsed on the record, that the recovery statement was not admissible under Section 27 because he was not in police custody and was usable only as conduct under Section 8, and that the remaining circumstances did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues
- Whether the last seen together theory was proved.
- Whether information given by the accused before he was in police custody, leading to recovery of bone remnants, was admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and if not, whether it could be used as conduct under Section 8.
- Whether the DNA match was properly put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC.
- Whether the established circumstances formed a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused.
Provisions considered
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Section 27 admits information received from an accused 'in the custody of a police-officer' that distinctly relates to a fact discovered. The memorandum was recorded and the recoveries made before the accused's arrest that night, and nothing showed he was then under any police restraint or even suspected, so the statement fell outside Section 27. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18)
- Section 8, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The investigating officer's evidence that the accused led the police to the field and canal where remains were found was admitted as conduct under Section 8. Such evidence is weak, shows only knowledge, can only corroborate, and cannot by itself found a conviction. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 18)
- Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Court found that questions 157 to 159 put the DNA matching to the accused, who gave a bare denial, and rejected the argument that this circumstance was not put to him. (¶ 17)
Held
- A faulty investigation does not by itself benefit the accused unless it causes serious prejudice and the evidence is insufficient to find guilt unequivocally; the Court therefore examined the trial evidence on its own terms. (¶ 6)
- The last seen together theory failed. The accused was in custody (on the State's own version) shortly after the child was said to have gone with him, no one made enquiries about the child or reported her missing for several days, the record gave a missing time after his arrest, and the neighbour came forward only about a week later. Interpolations in the arrest memo also raised a reasonable doubt about when the accused was first arrested. (¶¶ 6, 8, 9)
- Section 27 applies only to information from an accused in police custody; custody need not be formal and includes surveillance or restraint, but where the accused was not shown to be under any restraint or suspicion when he gave the information, the statement is outside Section 27. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
- Even so, evidence that the accused led the police to the place of recovery is admissible as conduct under Section 8. It shows only his knowledge, is a weak link in the chain, can serve only as corroboration, and his connection with the crime must be proved otherwise. (¶¶ 14, 15, 18)
- The DNA match of the vertebrae and teeth with the biological parents established only the death of the child; the skull and the remains from the field did not match, the saree wrapping the bones was not put to the mother for identification, and with no corpus delicti the time of death was unknown. (¶¶ 16, 18)
- With only the accused's knowledge of the place of recovery and a partial DNA match, together with doubts over his earlier arrest and the unexplained delay in reporting the child missing, the circumstances did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt. (¶ 18)
Result
Appeal allowed; conviction by the Trial Court and its affirmation by the High Court set aside; the accused to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.