Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a conviction by the Sessions Court for kidnapping, rape, and murder of a minor girl. The prosecution case was that a missing report was lodged on 06.06.2010 by the mother of the victim. On 19.06.2010, a decomposed body of a girl was found in a locked room. An FIR was registered and investigation led to the arrest of the appellant after his DNA profile matched DNA extracted from nail clippings of the deceased. The prosecution also relied on last seen together evidence from three witnesses, identification of the deceased's clothes by her parents, and DNA profiling linking the victim to her parents. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under sections 364, 376(2)(f), and 302 IPC.
In appeal, the appellant contended that the conviction was based on weak circumstantial evidence; the dead body was not properly identified; the DNA testing used YSTR method which lacked conclusiveness; the last seen witnesses were not credible as their statements were recorded after the arrest and publicized identity of the appellant; the alibi defence was not properly considered; and the chain of circumstances was incomplete. The prosecution supported the trial court's findings, arguing that the evidence of last seen was from natural witnesses, the DNA match was conclusive, the parents' identification of clothes and DNA parentage established identity, and the alibi was false.
The High Court examined the principles governing circumstantial evidence as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, noting that the conditions must be fulfilled before a case can be said to be fully established on circumstantial evidence. The judgment under appeal was reserved on 28.10.2021 and pronounced on 23.12.2021.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction based on circumstantial evidence including DNA matching and last seen together theory can be sustained under Sections 364, 376(2)(f), and 302 IPC.
Law Points
- conviction on circumstantial evidence requires chain of circumstances fully established
- consistent only with guilt of accused
- DNA evidence evaluated through STR analysis
- last seen together must be in close proximity of time
- identification of dead body through clothes and DNA profiling of parents
- conditions from Sharad Sarda case apply
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (12) 75
Criminal Appeal No.1084 of 2015 in Sessions Case No.589 of 2010
S.S. Shinde, Surendra P. Tavade, JJ.
Mr. Amin Solkar, Ms. Sudha Dwivedi, Ms. Misbaah Solkar, Mr. Asif Kitokar, Ms. Archana Sukla for Appellant; Ms. G.P. Mulekar, APP for State
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence under Sections 364, 376(2)(f), and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to quash the conviction and sentence and acquittal; the State sought dismissal of the appeal and upholding of conviction.
Filing Reason
The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court for kidnapping, rape, and murder of a minor girl and filed this appeal challenging the verdict.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.589 of 2010, convicted the appellant on 05.09.2015 and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine.
Issues
Whether the trial court's appreciation of circumstantial evidence was proper and whether the chain of circumstances was fully established.
Whether the DNA evidence obtained through YSTR DNA testing was reliable and sufficient to link the appellant to the crime.
Whether the last seen together theory was established with close proximity between the time the deceased was last seen with the appellant and the time of death.
Whether the identification of the deceased was conclusively proved through clothes identification and DNA profiling of parents.
Whether the alibi defence raised by the appellant was credible and should have been accepted.
Whether the witnesses proving last seen were credible given that their statements were recorded after the arrest and public disclosure of the appellant's identity.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant: Conviction based on weak circumstantial evidence; dead body not conclusively identified; DNA testing used YSTR method not conclusive; last seen witnesses not credible; alibi defence not properly considered; chain of circumstances incomplete.
Prosecution: Last seen witnesses were natural and credible; DNA match conclusive; parents identified clothes and DNA parentage established identity; alibi false; chain of circumstances complete.
Judgment Excerpts
the dead-body was completely discomposed
the DNA of the appellant was matched with the DNA profle of the victim
the following conditions must be fulflled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established on circumstantial evidence:
the trial court has relied upon the YSTR DNA Testing instead of Autosomal STR DNA testing
Procedural History
On 06.06.2010, Noorjahan Shaikh (PW1) lodged a missing report regarding her minor daughter. On 19.06.2010, a decomposed body of a girl was found in a locked mezzanine room in Vatsalatai Naik Nagar, Nehru Nagar Police Station area. FIR No.160/2010 was registered under Sections 363 and 302 IPC against unknown person. Investigation led to the arrest of the appellant on 01.07.2010 after his DNA sample matched the DNA profile from the victim's nail clippings. A charge-sheet was filed under Sections 364, 376(2)(f), and 302 IPC in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Vikhroli, Mumbai, which committed the case to the Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai. The trial resulted in conviction on 05.09.2015, sentencing the appellant to life imprisonment and fine. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.1084 of 2015 before the Bombay High Court. The appeal was heard on 28.10.2021 and judgment was pronounced on 23.12.2021.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 364, 376(2)(f), 302, 363
