Circumstantial evidence – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – ss.3 r/w 4, 5 r/w 6, 7 r/w 8 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.376A, 363, 212, 120-B and 201 – Case of the prosecution that the deceased-minor girl was raped and sodomised and the accused-appellants were seen in close proximity to her shortly before she went missing from a wedding function and was later found dead – Prosecution relied upon motive of lust; the last seen theory and the alleged scientific evidence – Appellant No.1 was convicted u/ss.376A, IPC and ss.16, 17 3 r/w 4-7, POCSO Act and ss.363, and 201, IPC and was awarded death sentence – While, the appellant No.2 was convicted additionally u/s.212, IPC also and was sentenced accordingly – Guilt of the appellants, if was proved beyond reasonable doubt: Held: 1.1 No – The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt – In cases resting on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be firmly and conclusively established, leaving no room for doubt – Where two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted. [Paras 53, 56]
1.2 As regards ‘motive’, the prosecution has merely alleged that the appellants were driven by lust – However, no independent or credible evidence has been adduced to substantiate such a motive – A bald assertion without corroboration cannot by itself form a safe basis for conviction. [Para 52]
1.3 The ‘last seen theory’ relied upon by the prosecution suffers from serious infirmities – The prosecution has failed to prove the proximity of time and place so as to shift the burden onto the accused – The entire prosecution case linking the accused-appellants to the crime through the ‘last seen theory’ rests upon the belated introduction of interested witnesses after the body was recovered, upon the information given by ‘NC’ (deceased victim’s cousin) – Despite being a close relative who first disclosed the situs of the victim girl’s dead body, he was never examined or interrogated by the investigating officers – This omission is of grave significance. [Paras 31, 32, 52]
1.4 The utter failure of the Investigating Officer to question him so as to find out the source of his knowledge about the dead body of the victim girl depicts gravely tainted and suspicious actions of the Investigating agencies – The Investigating Officer’s failure to record a statement of ‘NC’ during the investigation and the omission of the prosecution to present him for deposition at the trial deprived the Court of the most vital link in the chain of circumstances – This intentional and calculated omission not only undermines the ‘last seen theory’ but also causes serious prejudice, as it deprives the Court and the defence of the opportunity to test whether the knowledge of ‘NC’ was innocent or otherwise – In the absence of this crucial testimony, the last seen circumstance collapses completely – Non-examination of ‘NC’ compels the Court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution. [Para 32]
1.5 Furthermore, the scientific evidence also is itself riddled with deficiencies – The alleged theory of DNA found on the body of the victim girl matching with the DNA of appellant No. 1, is ex facie doubtful and unworthy of credence – Also, the prosecution’s claim that the appellant No.1’s location was traced through mobile surveillance is falsified by its own record, as the call detail records were procured much later and no evidence exists to link the appellant No.1 with the sim numbers in question – Likewise, the omission to examine crucial witnesses, including the subscribers of the relevant mobile numbers and most importantly ‘NC’ further weakens the case of the prosecution. [Para 52]
2.1 Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove motive, the last seen theory stands contradicted, and the alleged scientific evidence is marred by inconsistencies and serious loopholes – It is wholly unsafe to uphold a conviction, much less the extreme penalty of death – Since the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstances against appellant No.1, the very foundation of the case against appellant No. 2 is also destroyed as the same rests primarily on the alleged extra-judicial confession of accused-appellant No.1 inter alia stating that upon seeing the victim girl coming out of the wedding Pandal, he and his companions (appellant No.2 and the other accused) minds got vitiated by lust and thus decided to engage in carnal acts – Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against appellant No. 2 also, beyond a reasonable doubt and his conviction also cannot be sustained. [Paras 38, 53, 55]
2.2 Impugned common judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and the judgment of the Trial Court are set aside – Appellants acquitted. [Paras 57, 58]
Criminal Law – Award of death penalty – Duty of courts: Held: Trial Courts, as well as High Courts, are required to exercise the highest degree of circumspection before awarding the death penalty – The irreversible nature of capital punishment demands that it be imposed only in the “rarest of rare” cases and only when the prosecution has led unimpeachable, cogent, and convincing evidence that excludes every hypothesis of innocence – Even the slightest doubt or infirmity in the prosecution’s case must weigh against the imposition of such a sentence – Any hasty or mechanical application of the death penalty, without ensuring the highest standards of proof and procedural fairness, not only undermines the rule of law but risks the gravest miscarriage of justice by extinguishing a human life irretrievably – It is the duty of courts to consider mitigating circumstances and conduct a detailed sentence hearing before awarding the death penalty – Therefore, unless the prosecution’s evidence forms an unbroken and reliable chain of circumstances pointing only to the guilt of the accused, the extreme penalty cannot be justified. [Para 54] Evidence – Scientific/forensic evidence – DNA evidence – Reliance upon, when not justified – Circumstances surrounding the arrest of appellant No. 1 also examined, as the credibility of the DNA samples collected by the IOs was directly dependent upon the legality and authenticity of the arrest and subsequent seizure proceedings:
Held: On facts, in view of the various contradictions, omissions, and investigative lapses, the entire procedure of arrest and search of the person of the appellant No. 1 by PW-10 is gravely doubtful – The story projected in the evidence of the witness is something out of fiction and is ex facie unbelievable – Thus, there are many suspicious circumstances surrounding the theory of apprehension and arrest of the appellant No.1 – The very theory advanced by the prosecution, that accused was traced based on his mobile location, is false and without foundation – The manner in which the arrest of the appellant No.2 was projected by the prosecution is also seriously dubious – Thus, the very foundation on which the DNA evidence is sought to be projected is gravely compromised, for if the arrest itself was illegal and stage-managed, the process of drawing samples from the accused-appellants cannot be regarded as either voluntary or reliable. [Paras 35, 40, 41, 44, 45]
1.2 Various circumstances, starting from the so-called arrest of the appellant No. 1 from Ludhiana (Punjab) taken cumulatively, give rise to a strong inference of tampering with the forensic samples and planting of semen of the appellant No.1 on the samples, i.e., cervical swab, undershirt, and underwear of the victim girl, so as to establish his involvement in the crime – The entire process of collection and examination of samples and the consequent matching of the DNA is suspicious and wholly unreliable – The DNA report cannot be treated as a reliable piece of evidence – In absence thereof, there is no evidence on record to connect the appellant No.1 with the crime – Also, credentials and qualifications of the Doctor (PW-34), who conducted the DNA examination and issued the DNA Report are also highly doubtful to place him in the category of a DNA expert. [Paras 48, 49]
Circumstantial evidence – Conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence – Golden principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sharda, stated. [Para 10]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.