LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a conviction can be upheld solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence and DNA evidence when the investigation is flawed and the accused’s disclosure statement is not properly recorded.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law – Homicide, Sexual Assault
Case Name: Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad vs. State of Maharashtra
Judgment Date: 19th May 2023
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 19th May 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 561
Judges: B.R. Gavai J., Vikram Nath J., Sanjay Karol J.
Can a person be convicted of a heinous crime based on circumstantial evidence and DNA reports alone, especially when the investigation is riddled with irregularities? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the sexual assault and murder of a six-year-old girl. The court examined whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the guilt of the accused, considering the lapses in the investigation and the manner in which evidence was collected and presented. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, and Sanjay Karol, with Justice Sanjay Karol authoring the opinion.
Case Background
On June 12, 2010, the dead body of a six-year-old girl was discovered in a drain near her home in Thane, Maharashtra. The girl, who was later identified as the prosecutrix, had been sexually assaulted and murdered. The First Information Report (FIR) was registered on the same day, noting that the body was found in a “nala” (drain) near her house. The FIR stated that an “unidentified person” had committed the crime and thrown the body into the drain to destroy evidence. Initially, no one was suspected of the crime.
The investigation was conducted by three different officers. The first investigating officer recovered the body and sent it for post-mortem. The second officer arrested the appellant, Prakash Nishad, on June 13, 2010, based on undisclosed inputs and searched his house, recovering some items. The third officer conducted further searches on June 16 and 17, 2010, based on the appellant’s disclosure statements, leading to the recovery of more incriminating articles. DNA analysis later revealed the presence of the appellant’s semen on the victim’s undergarments and vaginal smear slide, as well as the victim’s blood on the appellant’s vest.
The Trial Court convicted Prakash Nishad of offenses under Sections 376, 377, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to death for murder and life imprisonment for other offenses. The High Court of Bombay upheld the conviction and death sentence. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| June 11, 2010 | The prosecutrix, aged six, leaves home after dinner and does not return. |
| June 12, 2010 | The prosecutrix’s dead body is found in a drain near her home. FIR No.109/2010 is registered at P.S. Bhayander. |
| June 13, 2010 | Prakash Nishad is arrested. His house is searched, and certain articles are recovered. |
| June 16, 2010 | Further searches are conducted based on Prakash Nishad’s disclosure statement, leading to the recovery of more articles. |
| June 17, 2010 | Additional searches are conducted based on another disclosure statement by Prakash Nishad. |
| November 27, 2014 | The Trial Court convicts Prakash Nishad and imposes capital punishment. |
| October 13-14, 2015 | The High Court of Bombay affirms the Trial Court’s judgment. |
| May 19, 2023 | The Supreme Court of India allows the appeal and sets aside the conviction. |
Legal Framework
The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The relevant sections of the IPC are:
- Section 376, IPC: Deals with the offense of rape, which in this case was the sexual assault of the minor girl.
- Section 377, IPC: Addresses unnatural offenses.
- Section 302, IPC: Concerns the offense of murder, for which the appellant was sentenced to death by the Trial Court.
- Section 201, IPC: Relates to causing disappearance of evidence of an offense or giving false information to screen an offender.
Additionally, Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with the medical examination of a person accused of rape, was also discussed. The court noted that while this provision is not mandatory, a positive call must be taken regarding the need to follow it. The court observed that there was a glaring lapse in the investigation for not complying with this provision.
Arguments
The prosecution argued that the following circumstances established the guilt of the appellant:
- The appellant resided in the same “chawl” as the prosecutrix.
- The appellant was seen near the scene of the crime.
- The appellant made disclosure statements leading to the recovery of incriminating articles.
- DNA reports established the presence of the appellant’s semen on the prosecutrix’s clothes and vaginal smear, and the prosecutrix’s blood on the appellant’s vest.
The defense contended that:
- The investigation was flawed, and the disclosure statements of the appellant were not properly recorded.
- The appellant did not know Marathi, the language in which the disclosure statement was recorded, and it was not read over or explained to him in his vernacular language.
- The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution did not conclusively point to the guilt of the appellant.
- The chain of custody of the DNA samples was not maintained.
- The medical examination of the accused was not conducted as per Section 53A of Cr.P.C.
The prosecution relied on the DNA evidence and the recovery of incriminating articles based on the appellant’s disclosure statements, while the defense argued that the investigation was flawed, and the evidence was not reliable.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Circumstantial Evidence | Appellant resided in the same chawl | Prosecution |
| Appellant was seen near the scene of the crime | Prosecution | |
| Circumstances do not point solely to the guilt of the appellant | Defense | |
| Disclosure Statement and Recovery | Appellant made disclosure statements leading to recovery of incriminating articles | Prosecution |
| Disclosure statement was not recorded in the language the appellant understood | Defense | |
| Recovery of articles is doubtful and contradictory | Defense | |
| Scientific Evidence | DNA reports showed appellant’s semen on victim and victim’s blood on appellant’s clothes | Prosecution |
| Chain of custody of DNA samples was not maintained | Defense | |
| Medical examination of the accused was not conducted as per Section 53A of Cr.P.C. | Defense |
Innovativeness of the argument: The defense innovatively argued that the disclosure statement was not valid as it was not recorded in a language understood by the appellant, thereby challenging the very basis of the recovery of incriminating articles.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:
- Whether non-recording of a disclosure statement of the appellant in the language in which it is made and recording of the same in a language totally unknown to the appellant, contents whereof are also not read over and explained to him, can be said to have caused any prejudice to the cause of justice?
- Whether DNA evidence can form the solitary basis in determining the guilt of the appellant?
- Whether the circumstances as identified and relied on by the prosecution indeed point to the guilt only of the appellant, closing out any and all other possibilities of any other person?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Non-recording of disclosure statement in appellant’s language | Yes, it caused prejudice | The appellant did not understand Marathi, the language in which the disclosure statement was recorded, and it was not read over or explained to him in his vernacular language. |
| DNA evidence as the solitary basis for conviction | No, it cannot be the sole basis | The court held that DNA evidence must be corroborated by other reliable evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction, especially when the chain of custody is not maintained. |
| Circumstances pointing only to the guilt of the appellant | No, circumstances did not exclusively point to the appellant’s guilt | The court found that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution did not conclusively point to the guilt of the appellant, and there were many gaps in the chain of circumstances. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 | Supreme Court of India | The court reiterated the principles of circumstantial evidence, stating that the circumstances should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. |
| Indrajit Das v. State of Tripura, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 201 | Supreme Court of India | The court highlighted the well-settled law on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the circumstances must form a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused. |
| Syed Qasim Razvi v. State of Hyderabad, 1953 SCR 589 | Supreme Court of India | The court observed that a lack of understanding of the language of the court causes prejudice to the appellant. |
| Siju Kurian v. State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC OnLine 429 | Supreme Court of India | The court clarified that the decision was taken given the specific facts of that case where the appellant was provided with an interpreter and the disclosure statement did not link the recovery to the appellant with the crime. |
| Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130 | Supreme Court of India | The court observed the necessity of compliance with Section 53A of Cr.P.C. |
| Rajendra Prahladrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 12 SCC 460 | Supreme Court of India | The court clarified that Section 53A of Cr.P.C is not mandatory but requires a positive call to be taken in respect of the need to follow the provision or not. |
| Pattu Rajan v. State of T.N., (2019) 4 SCC 771 | Supreme Court of India | The court observed that the probative value of DNA evidence varies from case to case and it is not infallible. |
| Manoj v. State of M.P., (2023) 2 SCC 353 | Supreme Court of India | The court highlighted the need to ensure quality in DNA testing and eliminate the possibility of contamination of evidence. |
| Maghavendra Pratap Singh @Pankaj Singh v. State of Chattisgarh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 486 | Supreme Court of India | The court emphasized the role and responsibilities of the investigating authorities. |
The court also referred to the Maharashtra Police Manual and the “Guidelines for collection, storage and transportation of Crime Scene DNA samples” regarding the integrity of scientific evidence and the importance of maintaining the chain of custody.
Judgment
The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and circumstances presented by the prosecution and found several critical flaws in the investigation. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Appellant resided in the same chawl | The court found this insufficient to establish guilt, noting that a “chawl” is a densely populated area and the specific house of the appellant was not identified by the witnesses. |
| Appellant was seen near the scene of the crime | The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the distance between the place of crime and the place where the appellant was seen, and there was no spot map or ocular evidence. |
| Appellant made disclosure statements leading to recovery of incriminating articles | The court found the disclosure statements unreliable because they were recorded in a language the appellant did not understand and were not read over or explained to him in his vernacular language. Also, the recovery was doubtful due to contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses. |
| DNA reports showed appellant’s semen on victim and victim’s blood on appellant’s clothes | The court found the DNA evidence unreliable due to the lack of proper chain of custody and the failure to comply with Section 53A of Cr.P.C. The court also noted that DNA evidence cannot be the sole basis for conviction. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION]: The court reiterated the principles of circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the circumstances should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused.
- Indrajit Das v. State of Tripura [CITATION]: The court reiterated the principles of circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the circumstances must form a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused.
- Syed Qasim Razvi v. State of Hyderabad [CITATION]: The court applied the principle that lack of understanding of the court’s language causes prejudice to the accused.
- Siju Kurian v. State of Karnataka [CITATION]: The court distinguished this case, clarifying that the facts were different and that the appellant in that case had the assistance of an interpreter.
- Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana [CITATION]: The court highlighted the necessity of compliance with Section 53A of Cr.P.C.
- Rajendra Prahladrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION]: The court clarified that Section 53A of Cr.P.C is not mandatory but requires a positive call to be taken in respect of the need to follow the provision or not.
- Pattu Rajan v. State of T.N. [CITATION]: The court reiterated that the probative value of DNA evidence varies and it is not infallible.
- Manoj v. State of M.P. [CITATION]: The court highlighted the need to ensure quality in DNA testing and eliminate the possibility of contamination of evidence.
- Maghavendra Pratap Singh @Pankaj Singh v. State of Chattisgarh [CITATION]: The court emphasized the role and responsibilities of the investigating authorities.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was deeply concerned about the numerous lapses and irregularities in the investigation. The Court emphasized the importance of a fair and proper investigation, particularly in cases involving severe punishments like life imprisonment or the death penalty. The court noted that the following points weighed heavily in their decision:
- The disclosure statement of the appellant was not recorded in his vernacular language, which caused prejudice to the case of the appellant.
- The chain of custody of the DNA samples was not maintained, making the DNA evidence unreliable.
- The medical examination of the appellant was not conducted as per Section 53A of Cr.P.C.
- There were several contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses, which made the prosecution’s case doubtful.
- The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution did not conclusively point to the guilt of the appellant.
| Sentiment Analysis of Reasons | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Flawed Investigation | 40% |
| Language Barrier in Disclosure Statement | 25% |
| Unreliable DNA Evidence | 20% |
| Contradictory Testimonies | 15% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the legal principles related to circumstantial evidence, the importance of a fair investigation, and the need to maintain the integrity of scientific evidence. The court emphasized that the circumstances forming the chain of commission of the crime did not point conclusively to the appellant, and the numerous lapses in the investigation made it impossible to uphold the conviction.
The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them due to the numerous flaws in the prosecution’s case. The final decision was reached by a unanimous three-judge bench.
The court stated, “The charges mentioned above, although serious and grievous in nature, cannot be said to have been met against the present appellant.”
The court also noted, “There are, in fact, yawning gaps in the chain of circumstances rendering it far from being established- pointing to the guilt of the appellant.”
The court further observed, “Numerous lapses blot the entire map. We have already pointed out multiple instances which have led to the chain of circumstances remaining broken, the larger picture emerging therefrom being that the person, whomsoever they may have been, remains unpunished to this day.”
Key Takeaways
- Importance of Proper Investigation: The judgment underscores the critical need for thorough, fair, and unbiased investigations, especially in cases involving serious crimes.
- Language Rights of the Accused: Disclosure statements must be recorded in a language that the accused understands, and they must be read over and explained to the accused in their vernacular language.
- Reliability of DNA Evidence: DNA evidence, while valuable, cannot be the sole basis for conviction and must be corroborated by other reliable evidence. The chain of custody of DNA samples must be maintained.
- Compliance with Section 53A of Cr.P.C.: While not mandatory, a positive call must be taken regarding the need for a medical examination of the accused in cases of sexual assault.
- Burden of Proof: The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and the circumstances must point exclusively to the guilt of the accused.
The judgment emphasizes that a conviction cannot be sustained based on a flawed investigation and unreliable evidence. It highlights the importance of protecting the rights of the accused and ensuring that justice is served through a fair and proper legal process.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the appellant, Prakash Nishad, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. The court also disposed of any pending applications.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence and DNA evidence when the investigation is flawed, the disclosure statement of the accused is not properly recorded, and the chain of custody of DNA samples is not maintained. The court reiterated the importance of a fair investigation and the need to protect the rights of the accused.
This judgment reinforces the existing legal position on circumstantial evidence and the need for a complete chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused. It also clarifies that DNA evidence, while valuable, cannot be the sole basis for conviction and must be corroborated by other reliable evidence. The judgment also highlights the importance of complying with Section 53A of Cr.P.C. and the language rights of the accused.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Prakash Nishad, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court highlighted numerous lapses in the investigation, including the improper recording of the appellant’s disclosure statement, the lack of a proper chain of custody for DNA samples, and the failure to comply with Section 53A of Cr.P.C. The judgment underscores the importance of a fair and thorough investigation, the protection of the rights of the accused, and the need for reliable evidence to sustain a conviction. The court ordered the immediate release of the appellant.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories: Homicide, Sexual Assault, Circumstantial Evidence, DNA Evidence, Criminal Procedure, Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 377, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the Prakash Nishad case?
A: The main issue was whether a conviction could be upheld solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence and DNA evidence when the investigation was flawed and the accused’s disclosure statement was not properly recorded.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt due to a flawed investigation and unreliable evidence.
Q: Why was the disclosure statement deemed unreliable?
A: The disclosure statement was deemed unreliable because it was not recorded in a language the accused understood and was not read over or explained to him in his vernacular language.
Q: What was the problem with the DNA evidence?
A: The DNA evidence was deemed unreliable because the chain of custody of the samples was not maintained, and the court held that DNA evidence cannot be the sole basis for conviction.
Q: What is the significance of Section 53A of Cr.P.C. in this case?
A: The court highlighted that while Section 53A of Cr.P.C. is not mandatory, a positive call must be taken regarding the need for a medical examination of the accused in cases of sexual assault. The court found a lapse in the investigation for not complying with this provision.
Q: What are the practical implications of this judgment?
A: The judgment underscores the importance of thorough and fair investigations, the protection of the rights of the accused, and the need for reliable evidence to sustain a conviction. It also highlights the language rights of the accused and the need to maintain the integrity of scientific evidence.
Q: What does this case mean for future criminal investigations?
A: This case serves as a reminder to investigating authorities to conduct thorough, unbiased investigations, ensure that the rights of the accused are protected, and maintain the integrity of all evidence, especially scientific evidence. It also emphasizes the need to record disclosure statements in a language understood by the accused.