CAUSE TITLE:
Veerendra Vs State of Madhya Pradesh
DATE OF ORDER:
13 May 2022
JUDGE(S):
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
The Hon’ble Mr. JusticeC.T. Ravikumar
PARTIES:
Appellant(s): Veerendra
Respondent(s): State of Madhya Pradesh
SUBJECT
In an appeal before the Supreme Court, one of the accused's arguments was that no DNA test was undertaken to connect the appellant to the samples found on the deceased's body, thereby violating Section 53A Cr.P.C.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter as Cr.P.C.]
Section 53: Examination of person accused of rape by medical practitioner.
OVERVIEW
- The appellant, who was the victim's mother's cousin brother, was found to have undressed, stupefied, and strangled the victim to death.
- Following the conclusion of the trial before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge for offences punishable under Sections 364A, 376A, 376(2)(i), 302 and 201 of the IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (for short, "POCSO Act"), conviction was recorded against him for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 376A, 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. As a result, he was sentenced to death, subject to confirmation by the High Court.
- The appellant then filed a Criminal Appeal against his conviction for the aforementioned offences. The High Court granted the appeal in part. His conviction under Section 376A of the IPC was overturned on technical grounds, but his conviction and sentencing under Sections 376(2)(i) and 302 of the IPC, as well as Section 6 of the POCSO Act, were upheld. The death sentence imposed under Section 302 of the IPC was confirmed.
- As a result, he filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
- Whether the appellant's conviction for the stated offences and the punishments imposed thereof deserved interference by the Hon’ble Supreme Court?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- It was argued that the appellant's conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, and that a review of the documents on file and the circumstances relied on for his conviction would indicate that the chain of circumstances was not complete. Furthermore, even a cursory examination of the evidence and materials relied on revealed that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. There was no medical evidence pointing to the accused's presence at the scene of the crime. Despite the fact that blood and sperm were discovered on the appellant's clothes, the FSL report was inconclusive and did not link the appellant to the blood and sperm discovered on the deceased's clothes. It was also argued that no independent witness was called to prove the recovery of the deceased's body and clothes at the request of the appellant. It was further argued that the appellant's clothes reportedly collected from his house were not sealed, and so the appellant's inability to explain the presence of human blood and sperm on his clothes recovered from his residence could not have been used against him. It was also claimed that no DNA test was performed to link the appellant to the samples found on the deceased's body, so violating Section 53A Cr.P.C. The crux of the arguments was that, in light of the facts, appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and the conviction and sentence were liable to be overturned, and he was entitled to be acquitted.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The learned Counsel for the State sought upheld the decision, arguing that the concurrent findings and reasons assigned were the result of proper analysis and appreciation/re-appreciation of evidence on record by the Trial Court and the High Court. The learned counsel contended that the contention based on failure to comply with Section 53A Cr.P.C. lacked any basis or merit because, after correctly construing the position of law under Section 53A Cr.P.C., the High Court had properly appreciated the remaining evidence to reach the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing a complete chain of circumstances pointing to the appellant's guilt alone. Despite the fact that two witnesses for the appellant were exhaustively cross-examined, nothing could be elicited to refute their story that they had last seen the dead in the presence of the appellant. As a result, the 'last seen theory' was correctly implemented. Regarding the appellant's contention of non-examination of an independent witness to prove the recovery of the deceased's body and clothes from the scene of the crime, the learned counsel submitted that their recovery was rightly taken, and his being the deceased's maternal grandfather was no reason to raise such a contention. The Counsel also drew the Court's attention to the other circumstantial evidence relied on by the Trial Court and the High Court to argue that all of those circumstances, taken together, would form a complete chain pointing to the fact that the appellant alone was the culprit and that they were incompatible with any hypothesis of his innocence. In brief, the Counsel for the State contended that the appellant's arguments do not receive serious consideration and that the appeal should be dismissed.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The court concurred with the contention that failure to conduct DNA profiling in accordance with Section 53A Cr.P.C. constituted a flaw in the inquiry. However, it went on to evaluate whether the appellant's conviction for the aforementioned offences should be overturned only on that basis. Referring to previous judgements, the court stated, In light of the nature of the provision under Section 53A Cr.P.C. the Court was of the considered opinion that the failure or omission (purposeful or otherwise) to carry out DNA profiling, by itself, cannot be permitted to decide the fate of a trial for the offence of rape, particularly when it was combined with the commission of the offence of murder. The consequence of this discussion was that even if such a flaw happened in the investigation, the Court still had a duty to examine whether the materials and evidence on record before it were sufficient and coherent to support the prosecution's case. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the Court must assess whether, despite such a gap, the numerous links in the chain of circumstances create a full chain pointing to the accused's guilt alone, to the exclusion of all hypotheses of innocence in his favour. According to the decision in Sunil vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2017) 4 SCC 393], a positive DNA test result would be conclusive evidence against the accused. However, the failure of a prosecution case would not and could not result from a negative result of a DNA test or DNA profiling. As a result, even in such circumstances, the Court has a duty to assess the other materials and evidence on record in order to reach a decision, which was exactly what the Trial Court and ultimately the High Court did in this case.
CONCLUSION
- In the circumstances, the appeals were partly allowed as follows:
- The appellant's conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 376(2)(i), IPC, as well as his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, were upheld, and the sentences awarded to him for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC; were confirmed,
- However, the appellant's death sentence for an offence punishable under Section 300 and Section 302, IPC was commuted to life imprisonment with the proviso that he shall not be entitled to premature release or remission before serving thirty years of real imprisonment.
- The remaining provisions of the appellant's sentencing, including the fine amount and default stipulations, were confirmed. All of the substantive sentences imposed on the appellant would be served consecutively.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
