Supreme Court Overturns Death Sentence Citing Faulty Probe, Unreliable Evidence; New DNA Guidelines Issued.

Supreme Court of india issued new mandatory direction for DNA Sample handling in Criminal cases while It heard and allowed the appeal acquitting the murder and rape charges of the appellant who was convicted of murder and rape and was sentenced to death.

The decision hinged on a , which the Court found to be inconclusive and riddled with deficiencies.

Case Background: The case is stemmed from the brutal deaths of two young individuals, Ezhil Muthalvan (D1) and Kasturi (D2), on May 14, 2011, near Suruli Falls. The highly decomposed bodies of the victims were discovered on May 19, 2011, with the post-mortem revealing homicidal deaths and signs of sexual assault on female victim.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant, Kattavellai @ Devakar,'s motive was greed for jewellery, leading to the murders and rape when the victims refused his demands. The prosecution's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of PW-5 (Rajkumar) concerning the "last seen theory," as well as evidence related to the appellant's arrest, confession, recovery of articles, a Test Identification Parade (TIP), and DNA findings. The appellant was found guilty and was convicted under Sections 302 (murder), 376 (rape), and 397 (robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) of IPC among others and was given death sentence by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Theni, which was then affirmed by the High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench, finding these circumstances to be established beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. The appellant challenged the judgment of the High Court at Supreme Court.

Supreme Court meticulous re-evaluation of the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution by dismantling each piece of circumstantial evidence, offering several crucial observations:

Standard for Circumstantial Evidence: The Apex Court reiterated that in cases based solely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established and form a complete chain of evidence consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused's guilt, thereby excluding every other possible conclusion and leaving no reasonable doubt as to innocence.

On the "Last Seen Theory" the Ape Court held that it is a weak piece of evidence that cannot form the sole basis for a conviction.

Supreme Court found the testimony of PW-5, the prosecution's "star-witness," to be "full of holes, stretches and surmises"., linking with his failure to the incident to authorities between May 14 and May 20, despite witnessing threats and learning of D2's disappearance, was deemed unreasonable and "hard to conceive as reasonable" conduct.

The Court also noted that the testimony of seeing the appellant with a sickle was not incriminating, as the appellant worked as a "coconut cutter" and used such an instrument in his profession.

Arrest, Confession, and Recovery (Circumstance Three):

On the manner of Arrest, The Court found that the record was "conspicuously silent" regarding the whole suspicion which had led to the appellant's arrest at the first place, and the Court also pointed out to the absence of independent witnesses at the time of arrest, since only PW-16 (Village Administrative Officer) testified he was informed after the arrest.

On the matter of Confession, the Apex Court held that Extra-judicial confessions were deemed "weak pieces of evidence" requiring "greater care and caution" and independent corroboration. It also found the second confession (recorded over a year after the offence) to be unjustified and unreliable due to suspicious circumstances and lack of corroboration., and held that the confessions made to a police officer are wholly inadmissible.

Supreme Cout while holding the information leading to discovery and recovery of Material Objects as admissible under under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, however, it held that such Recovery must be "unimpeachable and not be shrouded with elements of doubt"., as the alleged murder weapon, sickle used to cut open Coconut, was not forensically examined, no blood was found on it, and no link was established between the weapon and the injuries.

The Court further observed, that clearly, there was also no forensic report for semen or blood on recovered clothes, and the chain of custody was missing. The gold chain, though identified by D2's parents, was stated to be "readily available" in stores, and crucial witnesses regarding its acquisition by the appellant's wife were not examined.

Rape and DNA Evidence (Circumstance Four):

Since there was an unexplained delay of 41 days in sending vaginal swabs to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), the Apex Court rejected the DNA evidence as "rendered unusable" due to significant lapses in its handling and preservation. It also noted the conflicting testimonies among witnesses regarding the custody of samples after collection.

Expressing "sadness" the Court highlighted that DNA evidence is frequently rejected due to the "carelessness" of medical professionals and investigators in collection, storage, and transit.

Thereofore, the Apex Court issued new mandatory directions for all future cases involving DNA evidence, emphasizing strict adherence to Standardized procedures for: -Collection, packaging, documentation (including FIR details, IO details, serial numbers), -Transportation (within 48 hours with documented reasons for delay), -Secure storage, and the mandatory maintenance of a comprehensive "Chain of Custody Register".

These guidelines are to be disseminated to all police departments and academies for compliance and training.

Thus, the Apex Court acquitted the appellant-convict of all the charges and order for his realease, and in arriving at this conclusion, the Apex also reevaluated other factors such as Non-examination of Material Witness, aulty Investigation and Unexplored Suspects, questionable motive of robbery and "ineffective, inadmissible" Test Identification Prade.

As far as the "Right to Compensation for Wrongful Prosecution" is concern, the Supreme Court, while not directly applying it to the appellant's relief, noted that long incarceration followed by clean acquittal raises issues of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) violation, potentially giving rise to claims for compensation., and the Apex Court urged the legislature to consider enacting laws for such situations, referencing practices in foreign jurisdictions.

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