Back
Sets Six-Fold Test; Four Death Row Convicts
In a judgment that underscores the foundational principles of criminal justice, a Division Bench of the has four men who were sentenced to death for the gang rape and murder of two minor sisters. The court found the prosecution's case was built on a "fabricated" chain of evidence, critically lacking any DNA or connecting the accused to the crime.
The court did not merely overturn a ; it laid down a comprehensive "sextipartite" test to prevent the misuse of under .
A Story of Contradictory Accounts
The case centered on two sisters, aged 13 and 12, whom the court affectionately referred to as "Laado" and "Laadli." On , their mother brought them to a hospital in Delhi, stating they had been bitten by a snake. The younger sister was declared dead on arrival; the elder passed away hours later.
However, autopsies revealed no snakebite marks. Instead, they found extensive injuries consistent with brutal sexual assault. Toxicology reports later confirmed the presence of Pendimethalin, a herbicide, in their stomachs. Three days later, the mother filed a second complaint naming four neighbours—Arun, Phool Chand, Dukhan, and Ram Suhag—as the perpetrators.
At trial, the mother was declared a . She resiled from her earlier statements, denied knowing the accused, and insisted her daughters died of snakebite. Her two adult sons, also witnesses, similarly refused to support the prosecution.
The Collapse of Scientific Evidence
The court meticulously dismantled the prosecution's case. The DNA profiles of all four accused did not match any material from the victims' vaginal swabs or from a cloth allegedly bearing semen stains. A shawl recovered from the scene yielded only a female DNA profile.
Further, the medical examination of the accused, conducted six days after the incident, revealed only old scars—not fresh injuries. The trial court had erroneously interpreted these scars as injuries from a struggle. The High Court, quoting forensic medicine texts, clarified that a scar is a permanent healed mark, not evidence of a recent altercation.
A 'Sextipartite' Test for Section 27
The most significant legal contribution of the judgment is the formulation of a six-fold test—a "sextipartite" test—for the admissibility of under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The court held that to be admissible, a disclosure must meet all of the following conditions: 1. The information must be given by a person already arraigned as an accused. 2. The accused must be in police custody at the time. 3. The disclosure must be voluntary, without compulsion, coercion, or inducement. 4. The information must disclose a fact relevant to the crime. 5. The information must be distinctly connected to the fact discovered. 6. The fact discovered must NOT have already been known to the police.
Applying this test, the court found the prosecution's case failed on the sixth prong. The crime scene report, prepared a day before the alleged disclosure, already noted that a metallic container of poison had been taken into police possession. The subsequent
, claiming the accused would lead police to a plastic bottle they had "concealed," were therefore a sham. The court declared,
"There cannot be a 'discovery' of an already discovered fact!"
Judgment and Immediate Release
The High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish any legally connecting the four accused to the crimes .
"An analysis of the entire evidence not only creates doubt about the involvement of any of the accused but also indicates the absence of scientific evidence against them,"the court observed.
All convictions and were set aside, and the four men were of all charges. The court ordered their immediate release on personal bonds. The judgment sends a clear message: that the cannot be eroded by a desire for retribution, especially when the evidence is tainted or missing.
