The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Liyakat Ali & Anr. vs State of NCT Delhi consisting of Justices Mukta Gupta and Poonam A. Bamba observed that merely based on the DNA analysis evidence that the dead body was of the biological daughter of the appellant, it could not be held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant of having committed the murder punishable under Section 302 IPC as also offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.
Facts:
The appellant was appealing against a judgment from the Trial Court on July 7, 2018. The appellant was found guilty of murdering his daughter Gulshama (“deceased”) and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹5,000 for the offense under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”). The appellant was also found guilty of another offense under Section 201 of the IPC and was sentenced to three years imprisonment with a fine of ₹2,000. Aashiq Ali, the accused, was acquitted of all charges.
On June 6, 2013, IO/Insp. Dalip Kumar received secret information that the appellant had murdered his daughter due to her illicit relationship with someone. The informant guided the IO and his team to the appellant's house. When questioned about his children, the appellant provided unsatisfactory answers, leading to his arrest and the recording of his confession statement. On June 7, 2013, the appellant led the police to the room where he killed his daughter and then to the location where he disposed of her body. The appellant also revealed that his son, Ashiq Ali, had helped him in disposing of the body. Blood samples were taken from the appellant and his wife and sent for DNA testing, which confirmed that the deceased was their biological child. After completing the investigation, charges were filed against the appellant for various offenses, while Ashiq Ali (since acquitted) was charged for his involvement in the disposal of the body.
Contentions Made:
Appellant: It was contended that the prosecution failed to provide evidence that the appellant had custody of the deceased on the day of the incident and that the deceased had an illicit relationship. It was also noted that the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution’s case and that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses.
Respondent: It was contended that the impugned judgment was based on a proper understanding of the facts and evidence against the defendant, leading to a rightful conviction. Therefore, the appeal should be rejected. The deceased had run away from her home on April 3, 2013, to be with her secret lover. Two people named Miterpal and Omprakash found her on her way and called the appellant, Ashiq Ali, who came and took her. The call records and evidence from witnesses confirmed this. The deceased’s body was later found wearing women’s clothes and the autopsy report showed that she was murdered. The DNA analysis showed that the bone sample belonged to a human female who was the biological child of the appellant and Shakeela.
Observations by the Court:
The Bench perused all the evidence thoroughly and noted that the prosecution's case relied on the supposed evidence that the appellant had the motive to be upset about the deceased's relationship with someone named Tehsin. However, neither Tehsin nor any other witnesses supported this claim. Two witnesses, Miterpal and his brother Om Prakash, stated that they saw a young girl on the night of April 3, 2013, and brought her to their family members. However, neither of these witnesses identified the appellant as the person who received the girl that night.
It also noted that the prosecution argued the appellant falsely claimed his daughter was missing on April 12, 2013, and later filed an application stating that she had returned on April 28, 2013. However, there was no evidence to show what happened to the deceased after April 4, 2013. The prosecution failed to prove a motive or that the appellant had custody of the deceased before her death. Therefore, the burden was not on the appellant to explain how the deceased died. Additionally, the exact time of death could not be proven, which was necessary to shift the burden of proof onto the appellant under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
It further noted that the family members could not identify the dead body and the only evidence linking it to the appellant’s daughter was DNA. However, there were doubts about the reliability of the DNA evidence because the diatom could not be detected in the femur bone. Additionally, the fibula bone, which was examined later, had already been available when the DNA analysis was done. It was unclear why the femur bone was not examined right away when the radius bone and tooth did not produce a DNA profile. It observed that the DNA evidence alone is not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of murdering Gulshama and attempting to hide the evidence.
Judgment:
The impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence was set aside. The appellant was directed to be released unless he was required in any other case.
Case: Liyakat Ali & Anr. vs State of NCT Delhi
Citation: CRL.A. 38/2019
Bench: Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Poonam A. Bamba
For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Chander Agrawal, Mr. Sandeep Dhanuka, Mr. Kartik Kumar Agarwal, Mr. Amar Nath, Advs.
For Respondent: Mr. Laksh Khanna, APP for State with Inspector Dalip Singh, PS Crime Branch.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
