Summary
A death sentence for the murder of a young couple and rape of the woman at Suruli Falls, resting wholly on circumstantial evidence, was set aside and the appellant acquitted: the star witness's six-day silence was not the conduct of a reasonable man, the arrest had no recorded basis, the police confessions were unreliable, the recovered articles were never forensically linked to the crime, the DNA evidence failed for an unexplained 41-day delay and a broken chain of custody, and the test identification parade was vitiated because the witness had seen the accused and been told by the police that he was the culprit. The Court issued binding directions on the collection, transport, storage and chain-of-custody documentation of DNA samples.
Issues
- Whether the circumstances relied on (arrival of the victims at the spot, last seen, arrest, confession and recovery, DNA evidence of rape, motive and test identification parade) formed a complete chain proving the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the last-seen evidence of PW-5, who stayed silent for six days, and of a forest guide who saw the appellant with a sickle, was reliable.
- Whether DNA evidence can be relied on where there is unexplained delay in sending samples to the laboratory and the chain of custody is not established.
- Whether a test identification parade is of any value where the witness saw the accused at the police station and was told by the police that he had committed the crime.
- What procedure investigating agencies must follow for the collection, transport, storage and custody of DNA samples.
Provisions considered
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872So much of a custodial statement as relates distinctly to the fact discovered is admissible, the fact discovered embracing the place from which the object is produced and the accused's knowledge of it (Pulukuri Kotayya; K. Chinnaswamy Reddy). The recoveries here were relevant on that footing, but to count as a circumstance against the accused the recovered objects must be verified and tested and shown to relate to the crime, which was not done; where the recovery does not inspire confidence as to its nexus with the offence, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused. (¶¶ 25, 25.1, 25.2, 26, 27, 28)
- Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Under the last-seen theory, when the deceased was last seen with the accused in proximity to the recovery of the body the accused is bound to explain, but the provision does not absolve the prosecution of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt; the theory applies only where the time gap makes it impossible for anyone else to be the author of the crime. (¶¶ 15.1, 15.2, 15.5)
- Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973No provision obliges the investigating authorities to hold a test identification parade; if one is held, the Court noted, it is this provision that governs. The parade is not substantive evidence and is only a check on the direction of the investigation. (¶¶ 38.1, 38.3)
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaReferring to observations in V. Senthil Balaji that a clean acquittal after long incarceration may violate Article 21 and give rise to a compensation claim, the Court noted the appellant's years in custody on a conviction without legs to stand on, surveyed the 277th Law Commission Report and foreign compensation regimes, and left the aspect for the legislature to consider. (¶ 46)
Held
- In a case of circumstantial evidence the circumstances must be fully established, be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, be conclusive, exclude every other hypothesis and form a complete chain (Hanumant; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda). None of the circumstances posited by the prosecution was conclusively proved and the chain did not point to the single hypothesis of the appellant's guilt. (¶¶ 10, 11, 11.1, 11.2, 45)
- That the two victims came to the spot on their own is a circumstance in name only and of no value against the accused, since the prosecution did not plead that he encouraged or furthered their coming there. (¶ 14)
- Last seen is a weak piece of evidence and cannot be the sole basis of conviction; the conduct of a witness is judged by the reasonable-man test. PW-5, who knew both victims, saw them being threatened with a sickle, found that the man did not answer his phone and learnt that the woman did not attend college, yet said nothing to anyone for six days and admitted being repeatedly questioned by all the investigating officers, was not a witness worthy of credence. A forest guide's evidence of seeing the appellant with a sickle carries no weight where the appellant was a coconut cutter who used such an instrument in his work. (¶¶ 15, 17, 18)
- An arrest said to have been made 'taking a cue' from a witness's statement, where the record is silent on the genesis of the suspicion, what processes were undertaken before arrest and with no independent witness present at the time of arrest, is itself cast in serious doubt. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21)
- Confessions to the police are wholly inadmissible; in any event an extra-judicial confession is weak evidence requiring corroboration and credible circumstances. The first confession was contradicted by the absence of blood on the sand and of the severed limbs it described, and the recording of a second confession more than a year later, while the appellant was already in custody and without any stated reason, was unjustified; both were unreliable. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24)
- Recoveries of a sickle not sent for forensic examination, clothes with no report of semen or blood, a jute bag, bag, box and book of unestablished ownership, and a gold chain of a design readily available in shops that came through the appellant's unexamined wife, none of which was identified by the victims' relatives except the chain, could not fasten guilt even if the parents' identification of the chain were accepted. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28)
- DNA evidence, though largely dependable, is only of probative value subject to proper collection, sealing, storage and handling inside and outside the laboratory. Where vaginal swabs reached the laboratory after an unexplained delay of 41 days, witnesses gave conflicting accounts of who kept them, the transfer between laboratories was unexplained, the analyst did not say when or in what condition he received them, and the custody of the accused's semen sample was equally unaccounted for, the DNA evidence had to be discarded (following Manoj, Rahul and Prakash Nishad). (¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 35)
- Motive of robbery could not be ascribed when the identity of the gold chain was not unquestionably established and the victims' ring and mobile phone were neither recovered from the appellant nor pleaded to have been disposed of by him. (¶¶ 36, 37)
- A test identification parade is not substantive evidence; the prosecution must prove it was conducted according to law and that the witness had no opportunity to see the accused, even by photograph, before the parade. Where PW-5 had seen the appellant at the police station and had been told by the police that he committed the crime, the parade held nine days after arrest was ineffective, and treating it as a circumstance against the accused was an error of elephantine proportions. (¶¶ 38, 38.2, 38.3, 38.6, 38.7, 39)
- Non-pursuit of four other suspects named by the father of the deceased, whose statements recorded by the CBCID were not placed on record, and the non-examination of the material witness Bhagyalakshmi, who linked PW-5 to the victims and was examined by the CBCID, are negative circumstances against the prosecution (Takhaji Hiraji). The investigation was faulty throughout, including post-mortems conducted at the open crime scene. Directions issued for all cases involving DNA evidence: documented collection signed by the medical professional, investigating officer and independent witnesses (or a record of efforts to secure them); the investigating officer to ensure samples reach the forensic laboratory within 48 hours, with any delay recorded in the case diary; no package to be opened, altered or resealed pending trial or appeal without the Trial Court's express authorisation on a qualified medical statement; and a Chain of Custody Register recording every movement with countersignatures, appended to the Trial Court record, the investigating officer being answerable for any lapse. Directors General of Police to prepare sample forms; copy of the judgment to all High Courts and DGPs, and State Police Academies to consider training. (¶¶ 40, 41, 42, 43, 44)
Result
Appeal allowed; conviction and death sentence vacated and the appellant directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case; directions on handling and chain of custody of DNA evidence issued to apply henceforth in all cases, with the Registry to send the judgment to all High Courts and Directors General of Police.