When a skeleton is recovered at the instance of the accused in a murder trial, the prosecution must prove the identity of the remains (e.g., via DNA profiling) to establish the corpus delicti and homicidal death, failing which the benefit of doubt goes to the accused.

Judgment on Board

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

(1) Invoking criminal appellate jurisdiction of this Court, appellants herein have preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.04.2015, passed in Session Case No.07/2014 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Bhawan Singh and others) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (CG), whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as under:

[Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently]

(2) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 02.06.2013, at about 07:00 PM, at Village Dhhummatola, which comes within the ambit of Police Station Marwahi, District Bilaspur (CG), the accused-appellants herein, in furtherance of their common intention, firstly committed murder of Kamta Prasad Pathak @ Gannu (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) and, therefore, in order to screen themselves from the legal punishment, hide the dead-body of the deceased by covering it by means of soil and stones and, thereby, said to have committed the aforesaid offence.

(3) It is further case of the prosecution that initially a missing person report of the deceased was lodged 31.07.2013, which was registered vide Ex.P/01 and, during the course of investigation, memorandum statements of the appellants herein were recorded vide Ex.P/02 to Ex.P/04. On the basis of memorandum statements of the appellants herein, on 11.08.2013, bones/skeleton of the deceased were recovered vide Ex.P/08 from Kehra Nala Bandh. Thereafter, dehati merg intimation and FIR were registered vide Ex.P/15 & Ex.P/14 respectively. The said bones/skeleton was subjected to postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. KK Dhruv (PW-07) and, as per his PM Report (Ex.P/09), it has been opined that cause of death could not ascertained, however, skeleton is preserved for biochemcial analysis. Thereafter, when the said skeleton was sent for chemical examination, Dr. R.K. Singh (not examined) vide FSL report (Ex.P/21) opined that morphologically bones show human bones’ characters, however, cause of death and duration could not be determined, therefore, bones were further preserved for diatom test and for DNA profiling. But, neither diatom test nor DNA profiling has been conducted in the present case for the reasons best known to the prosecution. Further, from the possession of the appellants, lathi and tangi were seized vide Ex.P05 to Ex.P/07 and same were also sent for query and Query reports are Ex.P/11 & Ex.P/12. After statements of witnesses were recorded and due investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellants in the competent criminal court having jurisdiction and, thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which the appellants/accused abjured their guilt and entered into defence by stating that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.

(4) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 08 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents, wherea