No Credence Can Be Placed On Recovery Evidence: Kerala High Court Acquits Man Awarded With Death Penalty In 60-Yr-Old Woman’s Rape & Murder Case
The Kerala High Court said that the scientific evidence does not render any assistance to the prosecution to prove the involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime rather, it tends to help the accused in establishing his innocence.
Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Justice Jobin Sebastian, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has acquitted a man who was awarded death sentence in a case involving rape and murder of 60-year-old elderly woman, in the year 2018.
A Death Reference and a Criminal Appeal arose from the Judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), by which the accused was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 449, 376A, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian observed, “… the evidence of PW4, upon which the prosecution heavily relies to prove the occurrence of the incident, has to be excluded from consideration since PW4 is found to be incompetent to testify. Furthermore, the prosecution’s reliance on the alleged extrajudicial confession is also misplaced as it is rendered inadmissible in evidence by virtue of Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, having been made while the accused was in Police custody. We have already found that no credence can be placed on the recovery evidence, as there are sufficient circumstances to suggest that the recovery was not effected solely on the strength of the information furnished by the accused.”
The Bench said that the scientific evidence does not render any assistance to the prosecution to prove the involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime rather, it tends to help the accused in establishing his innocence.
Advocate Mitha Sudhindran represented the Appellant/Accused, while Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Ambika Devi S. represented the Respondent/State.
Brief Facts
As per the prosecution case, the deceased was a widow aged 60 years, who was residing with her intellectually disabled son in a house. The Appellant-accused who was a migrant labourer from Assam, was residing with a few other such labourers in the rooms adjacent to the deceased’s house on a rental basis. The deceased was the landlady of the said house. One day, the accused allegedly with the intent to commit rape and murder, collected a granite stone from the courtyard of the deceased’s house and carrying the same, knocked at the front door of her house. When the deceased opened the front door, the accused allegedly trespassed into the hall and, with the intention to render her unconscious before killing her, he struck her on the left side of the neck, causing serious injuries. It was alleged that upon hearing the commotion when the deceased’s intellectually disabled son came to the hall, the accused intimidated him and thereby persuaded him to remain inside the room.
It was further alleged that thereafter, the accused dragged the deceased, who was in an exhausted state due to the injury inflicted on her, towards the dining room of the said house and committed rape. It was also alleged that when the deceased attempted to resist, the accused hit her on the head repeatedly and covered her mouth using his hand, causing suffocation, and thereby murdered her. Allegedly, the accused then with the intention to ensure the death of the deceased, dragged her to one of the bedrooms of the said house and wrapped a cloth around her neck, forcefully tightened it, and ensured her death. He also allegedly smeared blood on the T-shirt of the deceased’s intellectually disabled son to mislead the investigation. The Trial Court convicted the accused and awarded death sentence along with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. Hence, the case was before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above regard, reiterated, “It is trite that an extrajudicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, and it has to be examined by the court with a great degree of care and caution. The court must be satisfied that it was made voluntarily and truthfully, and it should inspire the confidence of the court. The confession should be made voluntarily, and the person to whom the confession is made should be unbiased and not inimical to the accused. Such a confession will attain greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence.”
The Court noted that in the report of the Assistant Chemical Examiner, it is specifically stated that on examination of the vaginal smears and swabs of the deceased, human semen and spermatozoa were detected, however, in the FSL report, it is stated that the seminal stains found in the vaginal swabs were insufficient for DNA typing.
“Therefore, it cannot be said that the human spermatozoa and semen detected in the vaginal swab and smears were those of the accused. … no serological examination was conducted to find out whether any blood stains were present on MO5 pant. On the other hand, in the FSL report, while describing item No.40, the description in the forwarding note that “black colour pants of the accused with blood-stain worn by the accused at the time of the assault seized after washing by the accused” has been mechanically reproduced without conducting a serological examination”, it added.
The Court said that neither the DNA of the accused nor his epithelial cells were detected in the nail clippings of the deceased and vice versa and more curiously, although another shirt was allegedly found tied around the neck of the deceased, no investigation, whatsoever, was conducted to ascertain to whom that shirt belonged.
“Therefore, the scientific evidence adduced in this case will in no way help the prosecution to prove the complicity of the accused in the commission of the offence; rather, it lends support to a hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused. … The other circumstances projected by the prosecution have also not been proved in a manner that excludes every reasonable hypothesis except that of the guilt of the accused”, it observed.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Criminal Appeal, set aside the impugned Judgment, and acquitted the accused of all the charges.
Cause Title- Parimal Sahu v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:82014)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Mitha Sudhindran, Shreya Rastogi, Nadia Shalin, Moulika Diwakar, Riji Rajendran, and Bhairavi S.N.
Respondent: SPP Ambika Devi S.
