JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The following issues arise for consideration in the present appeals:

(1) Whether non-recording of a disclosure statement of the appellant in the language in which it is made and recording of the same in a language totally unknown to the appellant, contents whereof are also not read over and explained to him, can be said to have caused any prejudice to the cause of justice?

(2) Whether DNA evidence can form the solitary basis in determining the guilt of the appellant?

(3) Whether the circumstances as identified and relied on by the prosecution indeed point to the guilt only of the appellant, closing out any and all other possibilities of any other person?

The Factual Prism

3. Pursuant to FIR No. 109/2010 dated 12.6.2010 registered at P.S. Bhayander (Thane, Maharashtra), the appellant Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad was charged for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 376, 377, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short). The Trial Court vide judgment dated 27.11.2014 rendered in Sessions Case No. 40