'Numerous Lapses In Investigation' : Supreme Court Frees Man Awarded Death Penalty In Case For Rape & Murder Of 6 Year Old Girl

The Supreme Court recently set aside the death sentence and life imprisonment imposed on a convict under Section 302 and 376 of IPC for allegedly raping and killing a six year old minor girl, on the ground that there were yawning gaps in the chain of circumstances establishing to the guilt of the accused and there were several irregularities and illegalities on the part of the agencies examining the case.The bench comprising Justice B. R. Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Karol observed:“The charges mentioned above, although serious and grievous in nature, cannot be said to have been met against the present appellant. The factum of the commission of the crime against the six-year-old innocent child is not in dispute and cannot be deprecated enough even in the most severe terms. However, as the above discussion has laid out clearly, the 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 the sentence of being put to death.”Factual MatrixAs per the FIR dated June 12, 2010, the appellant was charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 376 (Punishment for rape), Section 377 (Unnatural offences), Section 302 (Punishment for murder) and Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender) of IPC for allegedly sexually assaulting a minor girl (aged six years) and putting her to death. It was further alleged that in an attempt to destroy the evidence, the appellant threw the deceased into a ‘nala’ (drain) and concealed material evidence of crime.The Trial Court vide judgement dated November 27, 2014 convicted the accused-appellant in connection with all the above mentioned offences and imposed capital punishment for the charge under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment for the charge under Sections 376, 377 of IPC and imprisonment of 7 years under Section 201 of IPC.Such findings of fact and conviction of the Trial Court, including that of the death sentence imposed were affirmed by the High Court of Bombay vide common judgment dated October 13-14, 2015. Hence, the appellant filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court.Court’s ObservationThe Apex Court framed following issues for consideration: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?Whether DNA evidence can form the solitary basis in determining the guilt of the appellant?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 Court observed that the prosecution relied upon the following circumstances to establish the guilt of the appellant:The appellant was residing in the same chawl as that of the prosecutrix.Appellant was found near the scene of the crime.The appellant made disclosure statements dated June 16, 2010 and June 17, 2010 which led to the recovery of incriminating articles from the house of the appellant and another place where he had allegedly hidden the clothes belonging to him and the prosecutrix. The DNA reports prepared on scientific analysis by an expert, establishing the blood of the prosecutrix on banian of the appellant and his semen on the clothes of prosecutrix and her vaginal smear slide.The Court observed that PW1 (father of the prosecutrix) and PW2 (mother of the prosecutrix) stated that the appellant resided in the very same chawl as they, although they did not identify his house. It was further pointed by the Court that there is no other evidence of appellant residing in the same chawl as that of the prosecutrix. The Court noted:“The appellant was not found at the place where the alleged crime took place or the place from where the body was recovered. The prosecution has not been able to establish the distance between the two places - that of the crime and the place where the appellant was spotted in the morning hours. There is no spot map or any ocular evidence to this effect. As noted above, what led these witnesses to discover the appellant of having committed the crime has gone unstated.”It was further highlighted by the Court that none of the witnesses have deposed that it was at the instance of the appellant that the prosecutrix left the house, nor has anyone deposed to the effect of having seen the appellant and the prosecutrix together at any point in time. The Court observed that neither investigating officer (PW13) nor anyone else has deposed the fact of medical examination of the appellant, as is stipulated under Section 53A CrPC. “Further, whether his communication for medical examination of the appellant...

'Numerous Lapses In Investigation' : Supreme Court Frees Man Awarded Death Penalty In Case For Rape & Murder Of 6 Year Old Girl

Udit Singh

Tags