Unfair Trial and Broken Circumstantial Chain; Supreme Court Vitiates Death Sentence and Acquits Accused

In yet another case the Supreme Court of India allowed the criminal appeals thereby setting aside the concurrent conviction and death sentence imposed upon the appellant, Dashwanth, by the Trial Court and which was affirmed by the High Court of Tamil Nadu.

The appellant, Dashwanth, had been convicted for the offenses of rape and murder of a seven-year-old female child, in which he was chareged Under Sections 302, 201, 363, 366, 354-B, of IPC and Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act (R/w 7 and 6 r/w 5(m)).

The case of the prosecution centered entirely on circumstantial evidence and related to the child’s disappearance on February 5, 2017, and the subsequent recovery of her charred body on February 8, 2017.
When the matter was taken up for trail, the charges where framed on October 24th 2017, the legal aid counsel was appointed in Dec 2017, and just after few days iof the appointment of the legal aid counsel the evidence of 30 witnessess conmmenced. The learned cousel for appellant contented and points towards the hasty of the Trial Court from framing of charges to recording of evidence, without providing the documents to him which is mandated by law.

The Supreme Court, upon detailed analysis, reitreated that though the case involves the henious offence however, the fundamental principal of criminal jurisprudence cannot be by passed, and the prosecution is duty-bound to prove the guild of the accused.

The APex Court observed a gross failure to adhere to fair trial principles. As the charges were framed when the accused was unrepresented, violating mandatory provisions of Section 207 CrPC (supply of documents). The legal aid counsel was appointed more than 2 months after framing of charges, and the evidence of 30 witnesses commenced just four days later and was completed in under two months, denying the counsel sufficient time for effective cross-examination and preparation, thus prejudicing the defense.

From questionning the Last seen theory by PW3 before the IO after over two months, to inadmissiable confession statements detailing the sexual assault and murder; which was nerated by the IO, rather than the accused himself which is against the well-settled law under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Furthermore, the Court held that the recovery of the body, ornaments, and bag was deemed suspicious and likely planted.

Supreme Court observed that although the DNA analysis showed a match between the appellant's profile and semen found on the victim’s undergarment, the conclusion was rendered unreliable because the chain of custody of the forensic samples was miserably failed to be proved. The Malkhana In-charge or transit witnesses were not examined, and there was a substantial, unexplained delay of four months in collecting the appellant’s blood samples, raising the possibility of contamination and rendering the DNA report insignificant.
However, the whole exercise of Trial Court's pronouncing of the conviction and award of death penalty on the very same day (February 19, 2018), appears to be the Apex Court as a mere formality. The Apex Court further held that, neither the Trial Court nor the High Court obtained mandatory reports on mitigating/aggravating circumstances, psychological evaluations, or jail conduct, which directly contravened established sentencing principles.

Conclusively, the Court emphasized that the suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof required in criminal cases, particularly when the essential chain of circumstances is broken. The Apex Court found that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the chain of incriminating circumstances and that the trial itself was fundamentally vitiated due to procedural errors. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released immediately.

Coram: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta.