Case Note & Summary
(1) The appeals arose from the conviction of two accused for murdering a newborn female child and causing disappearance of its body. The prosecution alleged that accused No.1 gave birth to a female child from her illicit relationship with accused No.2 and, three days later, both accused strangulated the child and buried the body behind accused No.1's house to screen themselves from legal consequences. (2) On 07-02-2013, Police Inspector Sudke received secret information that a female fetus was buried behind accused No.1's house. He proceeded with an Executive Magistrate and panchas, where accused No.1 dug out the dead body. Post-mortem revealed death by strangulation. Investigation disclosed that accused No.1 had delivered a female child at SRTR Medical College on 04-02-2013 and was discharged on 06-02-2013. DNA analysis of samples from the accused and the dead body concluded that both were the biological parents. The trial court convicted both accused under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 IPC. (3) The central legal issues were whether the circumstantial evidence, particularly the DNA report, was sufficient to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt, and whether common intention could be inferred against accused No.2 solely on the basis of biological parentage and joint concealment of the crime. (4) The appellants contended that there was no direct evidence linking them to the murder; the panch witnesses and other material witnesses turned hostile; the Executive Magistrate's panchnama was not per se admissible; and mere fatherhood could not lead to an inference of common intention. The prosecution argued that the DNA report provided conclusive proof of parentage, the concealment of the body demonstrated a unified plan, and the hostility of a few witnesses did not dilute the prosecution case. (5) The High Court held that DNA evidence, being scientifically accurate and unchallenged, firmly established that the deceased child was born to the accused. The conduct of both accused in burying the body together, combined with accused No.1's recent delivery and hospital discharge, pointed irresistibly to their common intention to murder the child and dispose of the evidence. The Court relied on Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik and Anil alias Anthony Arikswamy Joseph v. State of Maharashtra to affirm the reliability of DNA profiling in criminal trials. The hostility of the mother and neighbour regarding illicit relations was held inconsequential in the face of scientific and medical evidence. The discovery of the body at the instance of accused No.1 was considered a relevant fact under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. (6) The appeals were dismissed, and the conviction and sentences of rigorous imprisonment for life (with fine) under Section 302/34 IPC and three years (with fine) under Section 201/34 IPC were confirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Evidence – DNA Profiling – Reliability and Conclusiveness – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – DNA evidence is scientifically accurate and can conclusively establish biological parentage when the chain of custody is maintained and the report is unchallenged; Held, the DNA report showing that accused No.1 and accused No.2 were the biological parents of the deceased child was sufficient to prove that the child was born from their illicit relationship (Paras 8-11). B) Criminal Law – Common Intention – Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Common intention to commit an offence may be inferred from the conduct of the accused and the surrounding circumstances; Held, the fact that both accused were biological parents and jointly participated in burying the child’s body behind the house indicated their shared intention to cause death and dispose of evidence (Paras 14-15). C) Criminal Evidence – Hostile Witness – Appreciation of Evidence – The mere fact that a material witness turns hostile does not necessarily vitiate the prosecution case if other credible and conclusive evidence exists; Held, hostility of the mother and neighbour regarding illicit relations did not weaken the case in light of DNA and hospital records proving parentage (Paras 6, 8). D) Criminal Procedure – Discovery of Fact – Section 27 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Information given by an accused that leads to the discovery of a material fact is admissible even if the person was not formally arrested at the time, provided the information was not obtained by coercion; Held, exhumation of the dead body at the instance of accused No.1 constituted a relevant discovery linking her to the crime (Paras 6, 17-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the circumstantial evidence, including DNA report establishing parentage and discovery of the buried body at the instance of accused No.1, was sufficient to sustain the conviction of both accused for murder and causing disappearance of evidence with common intention under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code?
Final Decision
Both appeals are dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court against both accused are confirmed.
Law Points
- DNA test is scientifically accurate and conclusive proof of biological parentage
- Common intention under Section 34 IPC can be inferred from the conduct of the accused in concealing the crime
- Discovery of fact by accused leading to recovery of dead body is admissible even before formal arrest
- Hostility of witnesses does not affect prosecution case if there is other credible evidence
