The Supreme Court held that the DNA evidence in the form of a report was available, but its reliability was not infallible, especially considering that the uncompromised nature of such evidence could not be established. Furthermore, it was held that there was a lack of cogent evidence supporting the Prosecution's case. Unfortunately, the lower Courts assumed the guilt of the Appellant without examining all the aspects of the case. They heavily relied on the testimony of the doctor who conducted the post-mortem and provided medical and DNA evidence, without considering the contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and the credibility of the witnesses.
The Trial Court's judgment was influenced by the High Court's findings, which characterized the alleged crime as heart-breaking, horrific, and depraved, leading to the confirmation of the death sentence. Additionally, there were various irregularities and illegalities in the investigation process. Hence, the conviction was set aside.
Brief Facts:
Following the FIR registered at Thane, Maharashtra, the Appellant Prakash Nishad, also known as Kewat Zinak Nishad, was accused of committing offences punishable under Sections 376, 377, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). The Trial Court, in its judgment, convicted the accused for all the offences, sentencing him to capital punishment for the charge under Section 302 IPC and imprisonment for the other offences. The High Court of Bombay affirmed these findings and the death sentence. Both the lower Courts concurred in finding the prosecution establishing the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Hence, the present appeal.
Observations of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the DNA evidence in the form of a report was available, but its reliability was not infallible, especially considering that the uncompromised nature of such evidence could not be established. Furthermore, it was held that there was a lack of cogent evidence supporting the Prosecution's case. Unfortunately, the lower Courts assumed the guilt of the Appellant without examining all the aspects of the case. They heavily relied on the testimony of the doctor who conducted the post-mortem and provided medical and DNA evidence, without considering the contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and the credibility of the witnesses.
The Trial Court's judgment was influenced by the High Court's findings, which characterized the alleged crime as heart-breaking, horrific, and depraved, leading to the confirmation of the death sentence. Although the crime was indeed tragic, the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish the Appellant's guilt, and there were significant gaps in the chain of circumstances. Additionally, there were various irregularities and illegalities in the investigation process.
The Bench emphasized that the authorities had a legal and moral duty to protect citizens and conduct a fair investigation, but they did not fulfil this obligation. The changing of investigation officers without explanation, non-compliance with procedural requirements, delayed sample analysis, repeated searches without justification, failure to prepare the necessary documentation, and other lapses compromised the pursuit of justice for the barbaric act committed.
Although the charges against the appellant were serious, the circumstances did not conclusively prove his involvement in the crime, especially not to the extent of imposing the death penalty. Therefore, the charges against the Appellant were not proven. The Court expounded the responsibilities of investigating authorities, which were not properly fulfilled in this case. Considering the severity of the crime, it was ruled that the police should have taken extra precautions and measures to ensure a thorough and reliable investigation.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned reasonings, the Supreme Court quashed the conviction order and the order of the death sentence against the Appellant.
Case Title: Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad v State of Maharashtra
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1636 & 1637 of 2023
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 509 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon’ble Mr.
Justice Vikram Nath
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, Mr. Rishad Ahmed Chowdhury, Ms. Pratiksha Basarkar, Mr. Avinash Kumar Saurabh, Ms. Stuti Rai, Ms. Anuja Mishra
Advocates for Respondent: Advs. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Mr. Bharat Bagla, Ms. Shreya Saxena, Ms. Yamini Singh, and Mr. Sourav Singh,
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
