'numerous Gaps In Investigation': Supreme Court Releases Man Convicted Of Rape And Murder Of A 6-year-old Girl

CAUSE TITLE:

Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad  V State of Maharashtra

DATE OF ORDER:  

19-05-2023

JUDGE(S):

B.R.GAVAI,VIKRAM NATH,SANJAY KAROL

SUBJECT

The Supreme Court overturned a convict's death sentence and life sentence under Sections 302 and 376 of the IPC for allegedly raping and killing a six-year-old minor girl on the grounds that there were glaring gaps in the chain of events proving the accused's guilt as well as numerous irregularities and illegalities on the part of the agencies investigating the case.

BRIEF FACTS

According to the FIR dated June 12, 2010, the appellant was accused of sexually abusing a young girl (aged six years old) before killing her, which is punishable under Sections 376 (Punishment for rape), 377 (Unnatural offences), 302 (Punishment for murder), and 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender) of the IPC. The appellant allegedly pushed the deceased into a "nala" (drain) and hid substantial criminal evidence in an effort to obliterate the evidence.The Trial Court found the accused-appellant guilty of all of the aforementioned offences in a judgement dated November 27, 2014, and it sentenced him to death for the charge under Section 302 IPC, life in prison for the charge under Sections 376 and 377 of IPC, and seven years in prison for the charge under Section 201 of IPC.

The High Court of Bombay confirmed these factual conclusions and the Trial Court's conviction, along with the imposition of the death penalty, in a single judgement dated October 13–14, 2015.

As a result, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court and launched the current appeal.

COURT’S OBSERVATION

• The following topics were put forth for discussion by the Apex Court:
• Is there any way to say that the appellant's disclosure statement wasn't recorded in the language in which it was made or that it was recorded in a language he had no idea even existed and whose contents hadn't even been read to him or explained?
• Can the appellant's guilt be established only on the basis of DNA evidence?
• Does the evidence presented by the prosecution conclusively prove that the appellant is the sole person guilty of the crime, ruling out all other possibilities?
• The court noted that the prosecution had used the following evidence to prove the appellant's guilt:
• In the same chawl as the prosecutrix, the appellant was a resident.The appellant was discovered close to the crime scene.Incriminating items were found at the appellant's home and another location where he is said to have hidden the prosecutrix and him's clothing after the appellant gave disclosure statements dated June 16, 2010 and June 17, 2010.The prosecutor's blood was found on the appellant's banian, and his sperm was found on the prosecutor's garments and her vaginal smear slide, according to DNA reports created after scientific examination by an expert.
• The Court noted that although PW1 (the prosecutor's father) and PW2 (her mother) did not name the appellant's home, they both claimed to live in the same chawl as them. The Court additionally emphasised that there is no other proof that the appellant lives in the same chawl as the prosecutrix.
• The Court noted:"Neither the scene of the alleged crime nor the location where the deceased was found contained the appellant. The distance between the crime scene and the location where the appellant was seen early one morning has not been determined by the prosecution. There is no spot map or other visual proof of this. As was already mentioned, it is unclear what made these witnesses believe the appellant had committed the offence.
• The Court further called attention to the fact that none of the witnesses have testified that the prosecutor left the residence on the appellant's orders or that they ever saw the two of them together.
• The Court noted that, as required by Section 53A CrPC, neither the investigating officer (PW13) nor anyone else had sworn to the appellant's medical assessment.
• "Furthermore, it is unknown whether his request for the appellant's medical evaluation was ever followed up in any way. Additionally, its resulting effects. If someone took the appellant's body part samples, it is unknown who. According to the Court, the record "does not disclose such facts."
• The house where the items were seized on June 17, 2010, according to the Investigating Officer's admission, belonged to a third person who was never questioned in the matter and was neither owned by the appellant nor in his or her sole ownership.
• The Court drew attention to the fact that the appellant did not speak Marathi, the language in which his disclosure statements were recorded, and that the investigating officer had never read or explained the statements' contents to him in the appellant's native tongue.
• The Court remarked:"However, a review of the aforementioned disclosure statements (Ext.47 & Ext.50) discloses that they were written in Marathi, and the investigating officer never read them to the appellant or explained their contents to him in his own tongue. As a result, there is uncertainty over the accuracy of the statement that was given and the statement that the police recorded.
• The court further observed that the prosecution sought to rely on a communication from June 16, 2010, in which PW 13 (Investigating Officer) forwarded specific items to the director of the forensic laboratory in Maharashtra for investigation in order to produce conclusive evidence against the appellant.
• The Court did note that there was nothing in the record to determine who took the samples, when, how often, or why they weren't given all at once.
• The Court further noted that as there was no apparent reason for the delay in transmitting the tests, contamination and the ensuing risk of value dilution cannot be ruled out with reasonable certainty.
• The Court commented, "We notice that none of the police officials have testified as to the formalities of keeping the samples safe and secure being complied."
• The Court noted:"A young child, only six years old, was viciously attacked and killed here. The appellant was detained on grounds that he might have committed the offence. How can it be said that, at the time when such a positive call was required to be made by the authorities, reasonable grounds did not exist for Section 53A compliance to be required when the police proceeded in accordance with that and were supposed to have discovered things based on the statements made by the appellant in custody?This Court believes that there was a conspicuous oversight in the investigation of the offence because a six-year-old girl was sexually molested in both of her private areas. An examination by a doctor would have shown evidence of the assault on the appellant.
• The Trial Court and High Court, according to the Court, relied on the post-mortem doctor's (PW4) testimony as well as "the clinching medical evidence" and "clinching DNA report."
• The Court noted that despite material contradictions belying the prosecution case and the veracity of the testimony of witnesses, undermining their credibility, the courts convicted the appellant based on the aforementioned medical evidence without recording any findings regarding the circumstances being uncontested.
• The Court further noted that the Trial Court and the High Court placed a strong emphasis on the alleged crime's nature.
• The Court stated:"Before we conclude this subject, it is important to highlight how the investigation into this heinous act was conducted. The entire map has numerous errors on it. We have already discussed numerous examples where the sequence of events was disrupted, with the overall result being that the offender, whoever they may have been, is still at large without being punished.
• The following errors in the prosecution's case were discovered by the court:It is strange and mysterious why PW 6 was repeatedly replaced by PW 12, and finally PW 13 as the investigating officers.No justification is given for the decision to disregard the requirements of Section 53A of the CrPC.The process of submitting the collected samples for analysis has been delayed inexplicably.A previously searched location was searched again, however the rationale is not supported by the records.Panchnama lock is not ready.No medical or paramedical personnel can be said to have obtained samples of the appellant's blood or sperm; nonetheless, it is claimed that another sample was taken from him more than a month after the arrest.
• The appellant's purported disclosure statement was never read to him and never gave an explanation in his native tongue.At the location that was allegedly his domicile, the appellant was not living alone.It is still unclear what led to the appellant being considered a suspect in the first place.
• People who could have provided important information were not questioned.The Court declared that these numerous errors have put the effort to punish the perpetrator of such a horrific conduct in grave danger.As a result, the Court released the appellant after overturning his conviction and the death and life sentences he had received.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement