New Delhi: Flagging critical lapses including lack of legal representation, tampering of forensic evidence, inadmissible DNA evidence and distorted trial procedure, the Supreme Court has set aside death sentence in a rape-cum-murder case of a minor.
The judgment came in an appeal filed by the death row convict, who was sentenced by the Uttarakhand High Court in January 2017 for the murder of a minor on the intervening night of 25 and 26 June, 2016 at a jagran programme. He has been in jail since 28 June, 2016.
There was judicial scolding for a flawed trial process in a case involving the gravest of charges.
A three-judge bench led by Justice Vikram Nath highlighted the loopholes in the probe by the police, and the possibility of forensic samples being manipulated and tainted.
The apex court also brought up the lacunae and gaps in the procedure of collecting and forwarding DNA samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, pointing out the lopsided manner in which the trial was handled and carried out.
He was convicted under the Indian Penal Code’s Sections 302 (punishment for murder), 376A (punishment for causing death or a persistent vegetative state of the victim during the commission of rape), 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing a woman to compel her into marriage), 201 (act of destroying evidence of a crime or giving false information to protect the offender).
He was also found guilty under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012—Section 5 (penetrative sexual assault amounting to aggravated penetrative sexual assault) and 6 (punishment for Section 5).
Also Read: SC stays parts of Allahabad HC order which states ‘grabbing woman’s breast’ does not amount to rape
Denial of effective legal representation & its impact on fair trial rights
The Supreme Court took note of the fact that the appellant remained without legal representation throughout the initial stages of the trial, and the trial court failed to ensure that he was provided legal aid, despite being aware of his representation status. No legal aid counsel was appointed during crucial proceedings, such as the framing of charges and summoning of witnesses. When a counsel was finally assigned, they withdrew at the stage of cross-examination.
Another lawyer, Neeraj Ranjan, was abruptly appointed in their place, but given no opportunity to study the case or prepare, and was compelled to proceed with the cross-examination the same day. This lack of adequate legal representation seriously undermined the appellant’s right to a fair trial, the top court noted.
Doubts over sample integrity & possibility of tampering
The three-judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “Evidently, there is not even a semblance of evidence on record to satisfy the court that the samples/articles collected from the dead body of the child-victim and those collected from the appellant, which were later forwarded to the FSL, were properly sealed or that the same remained in a self-same condition right from the time of the seizure till they reached the FSL.”
The Bench added, “Hence, there is every possibility of the samples being tampered/manipulated by the police officers so as to achieve a favourable result from the FSL, thereby, inculpating the appellant in the crime.”
The judgment also mentioned that the medical officer vaguely stated that all collected samples were given to the policeman who brought the appellant to the hospital, but failed to identify the officer, confirm whether the samples were sealed and secured, or mention any documentation or receipt confirming the handover.
Inadmissibility of DNA evidence due to lack of expert testimony
The Supreme Court, pointing out the prosecution’s flaw, emphasised that the DNA report used in the case could not be considered valid evidence because the prosecution failed to call the scientific expert, who conducted the DNA profiling to testify in court. This omission violated Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, which requires expert opinion to be properly examined and validated in court.
The court referred to its earlier judgment in Rahul vs. State of Delhi (2023) 1 SCC 83, where it clarified that DNA reports cannot automatically be accepted as evidence under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (which allows certain reports to be used without the expert being present).
Instead, the prosecution must prove that the DNA profiling techniques used were scientifically sound and correctly applied, which can only be done by having the expert testify and explain their methodology.
Precisely, unless the expert who prepared the DNA report appears in court and is examined, the report cannot be relied upon as evidence, because its accuracy and reliability haven’t been properly tested.
Distorted & unlawful trial process
The court came down heavily on the nature and conduct of the trial being unlawful and improper. It observed, “The lopsided manner in which trial was conducted is fortified from the evidence of Sub-Inspector Prahlad Singh (PW-12) who was allowed to narrate the entire confession of the appellant, in his examination-in-chief. This procedure adopted by the trial court in permitting a police officer to verbatim narrate the confession made by an accused during investigation is grossly illegal and contrary to the mandate of Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872”.
It added, “Not only this, the trial court even allowed the confessional statement of the appellant, to be exhibited in the evidence of the witness, which further establishes that the trial was conducted in a totally distorted manner.”
This is a serious breach of legal procedure, the court noted, viewing it as a sign that the trial was deeply flawed and conducted in a distorted, biased manner, undermining the fairness and legality of the entire process.
The top court further noted that the Investigating Officer’s testimony made no mention of depositing the samples or articles in the police station’s malkhana (evidence storage room), nor did it explain how and in what manner they were transported from the police station to the Forensic Science Laboratory.
In terms of the aforesaid, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders convicting the appellant.
Ruchi Bhattar is an intern with ThePrint.
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)
Also Read: As HC quashes rape complaint by woman already married, a look at consent & its various forms in law