Scientific Evidence Is Itself Riddled With Deficiencies: Supreme Court Acquits Two Men In 2014 Minor’s Rape Case
The Supreme Court said that the alleged theory of DNA found on the body of the victim girl matching with the DNA of the first accused, is ex facie doubtful and unworthy of credence.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has acquitted two men who were accused of raping a minor girl in the year 2014. One of the two accused was awarded death sentence by the Trial Court.
The accused persons filed Criminal Appeals against the common Judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court, which partially upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the Special Judge.
The three-Judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “Firstly, as regards ‘motive’, the prosecution has merely alleged that the accused-appellants were driven by lust. However, no independent or credible evidence has been adduced to substantiate such a motive. A bald assertion without corroboration cannot by itself form a safe basis for conviction. Secondly, the ‘last seen theory’ relied upon by the prosecution suffers from serious infirmities. The prosecution has failed to prove the proximity of time and place so as to shift the burden onto the accused. Thirdly, the scientific evidence is itself riddled with deficiencies.”
The Bench added that the alleged theory of DNA found on the body of the victim girl matching with the DNA of the first accused, is ex facie doubtful and unworthy of credence.
Advocate Manisha Bhandari appeared on behalf of the Appellants/Accused while AOR Vanshaja Shukla appeared on behalf of the Respondent/State.
Facts of the Case
As per the prosecution case, in November 2014, the victim’s father (informant) lodged a report alleging that he and his family had travelled from Pithoragarh to Haldwani to attend the wedding of a relative and during the ceremony, his daughter along with other children was playing in the pandal (venue). When the victim was called for a group photograph, she could not be found and appeared to have gone missing. Hence, a missing complaint was registered but the victim was not found. Four days later, Station House Officer (SHO), received a phone call from an individual, who informed that the dead body of the victim girl was lying near Gaula River in a forest. The dead body was identified and confirmed to be that of the informant’s daughter. The post-mortem examination revealed that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage resulting from injuries to the vaginal and perianal region caused by sexual assault and blunt force trauma, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It was alleged that the Appellants along with another consumed whisky (alcohol) together and at that time the victim came out of the wedding pandal.
Allegedly, three of them threatened the victim with a country-made pistol, took her to a nearby forest, wrapped her in a blanket, and committed sexual assault on her. It was also alleged that when the girl became unconscious, they abandoned her body, after covering it with leaves, and left the scene. The Trial Court acquitted third accused on the ground of insufficient evidence against him. The first accused-Appellant No.1 was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376A, 363, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and Section 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). The second accused-Appellant No.2 was convicted under Section 212 of the IPC and Section 66C of the IT Act; however, he was acquitted of the charges under Sections 363, 201, 120-B, and 376A of the IPC and Sections 16, 17 read with Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 of the POCSO Act. The High Court partially upheld their conviction and sentence and this was under challenge before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, said, “In our opinion, the entire process of collection and examination of samples and the consequent matching of the DNA becomes suspicious and wholly unreliable. We are thus convinced that the DNA report cannot be treated as a reliable piece of evidence. Once the said document is eschewed from consideration, there remains no evidence whatsoever on record of the case so as to connect the accused-appellant No.1 Akhtar Ali with the crime.”
The Court remarked that the credentials and qualifications of the doctor who conducted the DNA examination and issued the DNA report, are highly doubtful to place him in the category of a DNA expert.
“The said witness admitted in his cross examination that his qualifications are M.Sc. in Botany and Ph.D., which apparently do not equip him with expertise in the field of human DNA profiling, which is neither a core subject nor an ancillary subject in Botany. The witness (PW-34) denied the suggestion of the defence that human DNA is not part of the subject of Botany”, it added.
The Court noted that Botany has nothing to do with DNA profiling, particularly that of human beings.
“Thus, the very qualifications of a witness as a DNA expert are under grave doubt. However, we are not discarding the DNA report solely on this ground, as there are several other factors, discussed above, which convince us that the same is unreliable”, it further said.
The Court was of the opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the complete and unbroken chain of circumstances necessary to bring home the guilt of the accused-Appellants.
“It must be borne in mind that the present case involves the imposition of the ultimate punishment of death. The law is well settled that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be firmly and conclusively established, leaving no room for doubt. Where two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted”, it reiterated.
The Court observed that the prosecution failed to prove motive, the last seen theory stands contradicted, and the alleged scientific evidence is marred by inconsistencies and serious loopholes.
“In such circumstances, it would be wholly unsafe to uphold a conviction, much less the extreme penalty of death. … Trial Courts, as well as High Courts, are required to exercise the highest degree of circumspection before awarding the death penalty. The irreversible nature of capital punishment demands that it be imposed only in the “rarest of rare” cases”, it emphasised.
The Court also noted that even the slightest doubt or infirmity in the prosecution’s case must weigh against the imposition of such a sentence and any hasty or mechanical application of the death penalty, without ensuring the highest standards of proof and procedural fairness, not only undermines the rule of law but risks the gravest miscarriage of justice by extinguishing a human life irretrievably.
Conclusion
Moreover, the Court said that unless the prosecution’s evidence forms an unbroken and reliable chain of circumstances pointing only to the guilt of the accused, the extreme penalty cannot be justified.
“Since the prosecution has failed to establish the chain of circumstances against accused appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali, the very foundation of the case against accused-appellant No. 2-Prem Pal Verma is also destroyed. … Given the above infirmities, the so-called links in the chain of circumstances stand broken. The prosecution has, therefore, failed to prove the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond a reasonable doubt”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals, set aside the impugned Judgment, and acquitted the accused persons.
Cause Title- Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v. State of Uttarakhand (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1097)
