2023 0 Supreme(SC) 552

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1636-1637 of 2023, SLP (Crl.) Nos. 11009-11010 of 2015
Decided On : 19-05-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Statutory safeguards in reference to language must be complied with.
(2) When a case is governed by circumstantial evidence, such evidence must point singularly to guilt of appellant, closing out possibility of all other hypotheses.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376, 377, 302 and 201 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 53A – Rape, sodomy, murder and disappearance of evidence – Minor girl victim – Death sentence – Circumstantial evidence – When a case is governed by such evidence, evidence must point singularly to guilt of appellant, closing out possibility of all other hypotheses – None of witnesses have deposed of having seen appellant and prosecutrix together at any point in time – Statutory safeguards in reference to language have not been complied with, causing prejudice to the appellant – No blood of appellant was found on any one of articles recovered by police – Only stains of semen were found on nicker belonging to prosecutrix and her vaginal swabs – Doctor who conducted such examination, has not stepped into witness box to testify correctness of contents of medical report – The document does not fall true to statutory requirements imposed under Section 53A Cr.P.C. – Appellant was arrested on suspicion of having committed crime – Delay in sending samples is unexplained and possibility of contamination and concomitant prospect of diminishment in value cannot be reasonably ruled out – Even though, DNA evidence by way of a report was present, its reliability is not infallible, especially not so in light of fact that uncompromised nature of such evidence cannot be established – Impugned Judgment quashed and set aside. (Paras 23, 30,45, 52, 56,58, 61, 66 and 81)

Facts of the case:

Points in issue are:

(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?

Findings of Court:

Factum of commission of the crime against six-year-old innocent child is not in dispute and cannot be deprecated enough even in the most severe terms. However, circumstances forming the chain of commission of this crime cannot and do not point conclusively to the appellant in a manner that he may be punished for the same much less, with sentence of being put to death.

Result : Appeals allowed.

Act Referred :
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.53(a)(2), S.53(a)
EVIDENCE ACT : S.27
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.376, S.377, S.302, S.201

Advocates appeared :
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rishad Ahmed Chowdhury, AOR Ms. Pratiksha Basarkar, Adv. Mr. Avinash Kumar Saurabh, Adv. Ms. Stuti Rai, Adv. Ms. Anuja Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Ms. Shreya Saxena, Adv. Ms. Yamini Singh, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document with a free account to LawCanvas