LEGAL ISSUE: Whether flawed investigation and reliance on circumstantial evidence, including DNA evidence, can sustain a conviction in a criminal case.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad vs. State of Maharashtra
Judgment Date: 19th May 2023
Date of the Judgment: 19th May 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 486
Judges: B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, and Sanjay Karol, JJ.
Can a conviction be upheld when the investigation is riddled with inconsistencies, and the evidence does not conclusively point to the guilt of the accused? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the gruesome murder of a minor, highlighting the importance of a thorough and fair investigation. The three-judge bench, composed of Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, and Sanjay Karol, overturned the conviction of Prakash Nishad, emphasizing the significance of a robust chain of evidence in circumstantial cases.
Case Background
On June 12, 2010, the body of a six-year-old girl was found in a drain near her home in Bhayander, Thane, Maharashtra. The victim had been sexually assaulted and murdered. Initially, the police registered a First Information Report (FIR) against an “unidentified person.” The investigation led to the arrest of Prakash Nishad, who lived in the same ‘chawl’ (tenement) as the victim. The prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence, including a disclosure statement from the accused, recovery of incriminating articles, and DNA analysis.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 11th June 2010 | Victim, a 6-year-old girl, goes missing after dinner. |
| 12th June 2010 | Victim’s body found in a drain near her home. FIR registered against an “unidentified person.” |
| 13th June 2010 | Appellant, Prakash Nishad, arrested based on suspicion. First search of his house conducted. |
| 14th June 2010 | Alleged medical examination of the appellant (disputed). |
| 16th June 2010 | Appellant’s alleged disclosure statement leads to the second search and recovery of articles. |
| 17th June 2010 | Second disclosure statement and third search leading to further recoveries. |
| 27th November 2014 | Trial Court convicts Prakash Nishad and sentences him to death. |
| 13-14th October 2015 | High Court of Bombay affirms the conviction and death sentence. |
| 19th May 2023 | Supreme Court overturns the conviction and orders the release of the appellant. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court convicted Prakash Nishad for offenses under Sections 376, 377, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), sentencing him to death for murder and life imprisonment for other charges. The High Court of Bombay upheld this conviction and death sentence. The Supreme Court, hearing the appeal, examined the case’s evidence and legal aspects, ultimately overturning the lower courts’ decisions.
Legal Framework
The judgment references several key legal provisions:
- Sections 376 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): These sections pertain to rape and unnatural offenses, respectively.
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with the punishment for murder.
- Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section addresses causing disappearance of evidence of an offense or giving false information.
- Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with how much of information received from accused may be proved.
- Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section relates to the medical examination of a person accused of rape.
The Supreme Court also discusses the principles of circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that such evidence must conclusively point to the guilt of the accused and exclude all other possibilities.
Arguments
Prosecution’s Arguments:
- ✓ The appellant resided in the same ‘chawl’ as the victim.
- ✓ The appellant was seen near the crime scene.
- ✓ The appellant made disclosure statements leading to the recovery of incriminating articles.
- ✓ DNA evidence linked the appellant’s semen to the victim’s undergarments and vaginal smear, and the victim’s blood to the appellant’s vest.
Defense’s Arguments:
- ✓ The prosecution failed to establish the exact location of the appellant’s residence within the ‘chawl’.
- ✓ There was a contradiction in the testimonies of the witnesses regarding the recovery of the victim’s undergarment.
- ✓ The disclosure statements were recorded in Marathi, a language the appellant did not understand, and were not read over and explained to him.
- ✓ The medical examination of the appellant as per Section 53A of the Cr.P.C was not properly conducted.
- ✓ The chain of custody of the DNA samples was not maintained, raising doubts about their integrity.
- ✓ The DNA evidence, though present, was not infallible and should not be the sole basis for conviction.
- ✓ There were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, and the investigation was flawed.
The prosecution argued that the cumulative circumstantial evidence, especially the DNA evidence, conclusively pointed to the appellant’s guilt. The defense countered that the investigation was flawed, the evidence was not reliable, and the circumstances did not exclude other possibilities.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Prosecution Sub-Submissions | Defense Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Residency and Proximity |
|
|
| Disclosure Statements and Recoveries |
|
|
| DNA Evidence |
|
|
| Investigation and Witness Testimony |
|
|
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 Treatment | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Non-recording of statement in known language | Prejudicial to the cause of justice | Appellant’s statement was recorded in Marathi, a language he did not understand, and not explained to him. |
| DNA evidence as solitary basis | Not sufficient to be the solitary basis | DNA evidence must be corroborated by other reliable evidence, and the integrity of the samples must be ensured. |
| Circumstances pointing only to the appellant’s guilt | Not conclusively established | The chain of circumstances was broken, and other possibilities were not excluded. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
Cases
| Case Name | Court | Legal Point | How the Authority was used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [1984] 4 SCC 116 | Supreme Court of India | Principles of circumstantial evidence | Reiterated the need for circumstantial evidence to conclusively point to the accused’s guilt and exclude other possibilities. |
| Indrajit Das v. State of Tripura 2023 SCC OnLine SC 201 | Supreme Court of India | Principles of circumstantial evidence | Reiterated the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra. |
| Syed Qasim Razvi v. State of Hyderabad 1953 SCR 589 | Supreme Court of India | Language of court proceedings | Emphasized that lack of understanding of the court’s language causes prejudice to the accused. |
| Siju Kurian v. State of Karnataka 2023 SCC OnLine 429 | Supreme Court of India | Admissibility of disclosure statements | Clarified that the case was decided on its own facts, where the appellant was provided with the assistance of an interpreter. |
| Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130 | Supreme Court of India | Compliance with Section 53A of Cr.P.C | Discussed the necessity of compliance with Section 53A of the Cr.P.C. |
| Rajendra Prahladrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 12 SCC 460 | Supreme Court of India | Compliance with Section 53A of Cr.P.C | Clarified that Section 53A of Cr.P.C. is not mandatory but requires a positive call. |
| Pattu Rajan v. State of T.N. (2019) 4 SCC 771 | Supreme Court of India | Value of DNA evidence | Stated that the probative value of DNA evidence varies and is not infallible. |
| Manoj v. State of M.P. (2023) 2 SCC 353 | Supreme Court of India | Value of DNA evidence | Reiterated that DNA evidence should be used to corroborate other evidence. |
| Maghavendra Pratap Singh @Pankaj Singh v. State of Chattisgarh 2023 SCC OnLine SC 486 | Supreme Court of India | Responsibilities of investigating authorities | Emphasized the role and responsibilities of investigating authorities. |
Statutes
| Statute | Legal Point |
|---|---|
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) | Sections 376, 377, 302, and 201 |
| Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) | Section 53A |
| Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | Section 27 |
Judgment
Treatment of Submissions
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant resided in the same ‘chawl’ | Not sufficient to establish guilt, as no specific house was identified. |
| Appellant was seen near the crime scene | Not established, as no specific location or time was confirmed. |
| Disclosure statements led to recovery of articles | Not reliable, as the statements were not in a language the appellant understood and were contradicted by witnesses. |
| DNA evidence linked the appellant to the crime | Not a sole basis for conviction, as the integrity of the samples was questionable and corroborating evidence was lacking. |
| Medical examination of the appellant was not properly conducted | Lapse in investigation, as the requirements under Section 53A of Cr.P.C were not followed. |
Treatment of Authorities
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [1984] 4 SCC 116 | Reiterated the principle that circumstantial evidence must exclude all other possibilities. |
| Indrajit Das v. State of Tripura 2023 SCC OnLine SC 201 | Reiterated the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra. |
| Syed Qasim Razvi v. State of Hyderabad 1953 SCR 589 | Applied the principle that proceedings in a language not understood by the accused cause prejudice. |
| Siju Kurian v. State of Karnataka 2023 SCC OnLine 429 | Distinguished from the present case based on the facts. |
| Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130 | Discussed the necessity of compliance with Section 53A of the Cr.P.C. |
| Rajendra Prahladrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 12 SCC 460 | Clarified that Section 53A of Cr.P.C. is not mandatory but requires a positive call. |
| Pattu Rajan v. State of T.N. (2019) 4 SCC 771 | Reiterated that DNA evidence is not infallible and its probative value varies. |
| Manoj v. State of M.P. (2023) 2 SCC 353 | Reiterated that DNA evidence should be used to corroborate other evidence. |
| Maghavendra Pratap Singh @Pankaj Singh v. State of Chattisgarh 2023 SCC OnLine SC 486 | Emphasized the role and responsibilities of investigating authorities. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the numerous lapses and inconsistencies in the investigation, which led to a broken chain of circumstances. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court noted that the DNA evidence, while present, was not infallible and could not be the sole basis for conviction.
Sentiment Analysis Table
| Reason | Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Flawed Investigation | Negative | 40% |
| Inconsistent Witness Testimonies | Negative | 25% |
| Unreliable Disclosure Statements | Negative | 20% |
| Questionable DNA Evidence | Neutral | 15% |
Fact:Law Ratio Table
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (Consideration of factual aspects) | 70% |
| Law (Consideration of legal aspects) | 30% |
Logical Reasoning Flowchart
Issue 1: Non-recording of statement in known language
Statement recorded in Marathi, not understood by appellant
Conclusion: Prejudicial to the cause of justice
Issue 2: DNA evidence as solitary basis
DNA evidence not infallible, chain of custody not maintained
Conclusion: Not sufficient to be the solitary basis
Issue 3: Circumstances pointing only to the appellant
Broken chain of circumstances, other possibilities not excluded
Conclusion: Not conclusively established
The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them due to the lack of a complete and reliable chain of evidence. The decision was reached by analyzing the inconsistencies and lapses in the investigation, the unreliable nature of the disclosure statements, and the limitations of DNA evidence when not corroborated by other evidence. The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The majority opinion was authored by Justice Sanjay Karol, with Justices B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath concurring. There were no dissenting opinions.
“The law on circumstantial evidence is well settled. When a case is governed by such evidence, the evidence must point singularly to the guilt of the appellant, closing out the possibility of all other hypotheses.”
“From a perusal of material on record, we find that the Appellant did not know how to read and write in Marathi. This being the position, this Court has highlighted the importance of the appellant being able to understand the case of the prosecution against him. Inability to do so, by virtue of a language barrier causes prejudice to the case of the appellant.”
“In the present case, even though, the DNA evidence by way of a report was present, its reliability is not infallible, especially not so in light of the fact that the uncompromised nature of such evidence cannot be established; and other that cogent evidence as can be seen from our discussion above, is absent almost in its entirety.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The judgment underscores the importance of a thorough and fair investigation in criminal cases, especially those involving serious charges.
- ✓ It highlights that circumstantial evidence must be complete and leave no room for reasonable doubt.
- ✓ The Court emphasized the need to ensure that accused persons understand the proceedings, especially when there is a language barrier.
- ✓ DNA evidence alone cannot be the sole basis for conviction, and its integrity must be beyond doubt.
- ✓ The judgment serves as a reminder that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and any lapses in the investigation will be scrutinized by the courts.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the appellant, Prakash Nishad, be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained based on a flawed investigation, unreliable disclosure statements, and DNA evidence that is not corroborated by other evidence. The judgment reinforces the existing principles of circumstantial evidence and emphasizes the need for a thorough and fair investigation, particularly in cases involving serious offenses. There is no change in the previous position of law but an emphasis on the strict adherence to the established principles.
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 cited numerous lapses in the investigation, including the recording of statements in a language not understood by the accused, the questionable integrity of the DNA evidence, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies. The judgment underscores the importance of a thorough and fair investigation, and the need for reliable evidence in criminal cases.
Category
- Criminal Law
- Circumstantial Evidence
- DNA Evidence
- Flawed Investigation
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 377, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 377, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Code of Criminal Procedure
- Section 53A, Code of Criminal Procedure
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the Prakash Nishad case?
A: The main issue was whether a conviction could be upheld based on flawed investigation, circumstantial evidence, and DNA evidence alone, especially when the accused did not understand the language in which his statement was recorded.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Prakash Nishad, stating that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to numerous lapses in the investigation and inconsistencies in the evidence.
Q: Can DNA evidence alone lead to a conviction?
A: No, the Supreme Court clarified that DNA evidence is not infallible and must be corroborated by other reliable evidence to sustain a conviction. It cannot be the sole basis for a conviction.
Q: What is the significance of Section 53A of the Cr.P.C in this case?
A: Section 53A of the Cr.P.C. relates to the medical examination of a person accused of rape. The Supreme Court noted that the medical examination of the appellant was not properly conducted, which was a lapse in the investigation.
Q: What does this case mean for future criminal investigations?
A: This case emphasizes the importance of thorough and fair investigations, reliable evidence, and the need to ensure that accused persons understand the proceedings, especially when there is a language barrier. It also highlights that circumstantial evidence must be complete and leave no room for reasonable doubt.