Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta
Introduction
The Supreme Court, in this significant judgment, set aside the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant in a child rape and murder case. The Court found grave procedural irregularities during the trial, including the illegal admission of confessional statements and lapses in the handling and proof of DNA evidence. The ruling reaffirms the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards, especially in cases involving capital punishment.
- Indian Penal Code (IPC): Sections 376A, 302, 366, 363, 201 (Now Section 66,108,87,137(2),238 of BNS, 2023)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO): Sections 5/6
- Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): Sections 164, 293 (Now Section 183, 314 of BNSS,2023)
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Sections 24, 25, 26, 45 (Now Section 22,23,39 of BSA, 2023)
Facts of the Case
The appellant was accused of kidnapping, raping, and murdering a minor girl.
He was tried and convicted under:
- Sections 376A, 302, 366, 363, 201 IPC and
- Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act.
He was sentenced to death by the trial court. During the trial, the investigating officer (IO) narrated the accused’s confession made during the investigation, and the trial court admitted this as evidence. Additionally, the DNA evidence relied upon was not supported by the testimony of the scientific expert who conducted the profiling.
Issues Before the Court
- Whether the trial court erred in admitting the accused’s confession through the testimony of the investigating officer?
- Whether the DNA evidence could be relied upon in the absence of examination of the expert who conducted the profiling?
- Whether the procedural irregularities vitiated the appellant's right to a fair trial and warranted setting aside the conviction?
Contentions of the Petitioner
The confessional statements were illegally admitted as they were narrated by the police officer and not recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. The prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the forensic samples. The DNA evidence was inadmissible as the scientific expert was not examined, and the report was not proven in accordance with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The conviction and death sentence were based on inadmissible and unreliable evidence, violating the appellant’s constitutional right to a fair trial.
Contentions of the Respondent
The confessional statements were part of the investigation and relevant to the case. The DNA report linked the appellant to the crime and was part of the prosecution’s scientific evidence. Procedural irregularities, if any, were not significant enough to overturn the conviction in a heinous crime involving a minor.
Court’s Analysis
- On Confessional Statements:
- The Court held that under Sections 24, 25, and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible.
- Only a confession recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC is admissible.
- The trial judge illegally permitted the IO to narrate the confession and even allowed it to be exhibited in evidence—a procedure deemed “grossly illegal.”
- This rendered the trial “lopsided and distorted.”
- On DNA Evidence:
- The scientific expert who conducted the DNA profiling was not examined, violating Section 45 of the Evidence Act.
- Citing Rahul v. State of Delhi, (2023) 1 SCC 83, the Court reiterated that DNA reports are not automatically admissible under Section 293 CrPC.
- There was no evidence to prove:
- Proper sealing of the samples.
- Maintenance of chain of custody.
- That the samples reached the FSL in a sealed and untampered condition.
- Hence, the DNA evidence was inadmissible and unreliable.
Conclusion
- The Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
- The conviction and death sentence were set aside due to:
- Illegal admission of confessional statements.
- Failure to prove admissibility and reliability of DNA evidence.
- Procedural irregularities that violated the appellant's right to a fair trial.
