Rape Conviction Cannot Rest On Suspicion; Chain Of Custody Defects Undermine Forensic Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court held that “a conviction must rest on legally proved evidence and not suspicion, however strong”, and that in the absence of a duly established chain of custody, forensic evidence loses its evidentiary value and cannot be treated as conclusive. Applying this principle, the Court set aside the convictions of the appellants-accused for offences under Sections 376(2)(l) and 376-D IPC, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

A Division Bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani and Justice Ashish Naithani partly allowed two connected criminal appeals arising from a common judgment convicting the appellants under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(l), and 376-D IPC.

The case arose from a missing person report dated 08.03.2018 concerning a girl initially stated to be about 13 years old and suffering from intellectual disability and speech impairment. She was recovered the next day in a frightened condition with blood-stained clothes and bodily marks, and indicated through gestures that she had been sexually assaulted.

The prosecution relied on CCTV footage showing the victim being led away by the first appellant, along with a medical examination conducted after about three days and forensic analysis of multiple exhibits, including the victim's clothing and biological samples.

The trial court convicted both accused for offences including gang rape, leading to the present appeals.

For the first appellant, it was contended that there was no scientific or medical evidence linking him to the alleged sexual assault. The absence of any DNA, semen, or blood trace was emphasised, and it was argued that mere presence with the victim could not establish participation in rape. It was further submitted that the medical evidence was inconclusive, with the supplementary report recording that no definite opinion regarding rape could be given.

Subsequently, the second appellant contended that the principal challenge was to the forensic evidence, specifically the failure to establish the chain of custody through proof of seizure, sealing, and transmission of exhibits, rendering the material unreliable.

The State relied on the cumulative circumstances, including the victim's recovery, her condition, CCTV footage, and forensic findings, particularly the alleged DNA linkage, to support the conviction.

The Court noted that the victim was unable to provide any history during the medical examination. While certain physical findings, such as lacerations and bleeding, and an absent hymen, suggesting sexual activity were noted, the medical opinion did not conclusively establish rape or identify the assailant. While the supplementary report expressly recorded that no definite opinion could be given.

On forensic evidence, the Court emphasised that its reliability depends on an intact chain of custody. “The foundational requirement of an unbroken and duly proved chain of custody of the incriminating exhibits has not been established. The record does not disclose any contemporaneous seizure memo, sealing certificate, or documentary proof demonstrating the safe custody, transmission, and handling of the material exhibits from the point of collection till their examination at the Forensic Science Laboratory. In the absence of such proof, the possibility of tampering, substitution, or contamination cannot be ruled out”, the Court held, establishing that the forensic material could not be treated as conclusive proof.

As regards the second appellant, the Court held that the prosecution's case rested substantially on forensic linkage, which, in view of custody defects, lacked evidentiary sanctity, entitling him to the benefit of doubt.

Further, in reference to the first appellant, the Court found that forensic evidence excluded him from the act of sexual assault. While evidence established that he had taken the victim away, attracting the offence of kidnapping, the “last seen” circumstance and proximity were insufficient to sustain a conviction for rape.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions of both appellants under Sections 376(2)(l) and 376-D IPC.

The second appellant was acquitted of the rape charges and directed to be released. While the first appellant was acquitted of all rape-related offences, though his conviction under Section 363 IPC was affirmed, having already undergone the sentence, he was directed to be released.

The appeals were accordingly partly allowed.

Case Name: Mool Chandra @ Mool v. State Uttarakhand with Bhup Singh @ Bhupali v. State of Uttarakhand

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2019

Click Here To Read/Download Order