The Supreme Court said that it is the duty of the investigating agency to protect the rights.
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Friday said that omission or omission in DNA profiling cannot be allowed to decide the fate of a trial for the offense of rape, especially when it is combined with murder, as acquittal would result in a criminal offence. The cause of justice will become the victim. Only because of such flaw in the test.
The top court observed commutation of the death sentence awarded to life imprisonment for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl with the condition that she is released before she undergoes actual punishment for a period. or will not be entitled to exemption. 30 years old
A three-judge bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar delivered its verdict on an appeal filed by the convict challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision which had upheld the death sentence awarded to him in the case by a lower court.
The bench, also comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar, observed that the counsel appearing for the convict had argued that no DNA test was conducted to link the appellant with the samples found on the body of the deceased, and Thus, section 53A. CrPC was violated.
Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) deals with the investigation of a person accused of rape by a doctor.
“Given the nature of the provision under section 53A CrPC and the judgments referred to…. We are also of the considered view that the omission or omission (objective or otherwise) in carrying out DNA profiling cannot, in itself, be allowed to decide the fate of a trial for the offense of rape, particularly when it is taken up with the Commission. is added. Only such conviction as the offense of murder or acquittal by reason of defect in the investigation will lead to criminal justice in the case of acquittal,” the bench said in its 84-page judgment.
It is noted that even if there has been any such lapse in the investigation in a case, it is the duty of the court to consider whether the material and evidence available before it is sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution. and are solid.
“In a case which relies on circumstantial evidence, the court has to consider whether, notwithstanding such omission, the various links in the chain of circumstances constitute a whole chain which alone points to the guilt of the accused. , which excludes all presumptions of innocence on his side,” it said.
The top court said that there can be no doubt about the position that a fair investigation is necessary for a fair trial.
The bench said that it is the duty of the investigating agency to protect the rights of both the accused and the victim by following the procedures laid down in the investigation and ensure fair, efficient and effective investigation.
“Even while doing so, we cannot be oblivious to the well settled position that mere defects or deficiencies in the investigation do not entitle an accused to acquittal,” it said.
“In other words, it cannot be the sole cause of interference in the award of conviction, if the rest of the evidence is sufficient to maintain the same,” the bench said.
It is noted that the appellant was the cousin and brother of the mother of the victim and the incident took place in September 2014 in Gwalior district.
In its judgment, the bench observed that the “devious and gruesome manner” in which the appellant had tortured the girl was evident from the grievous injuries.
The bench said that the trial court considered the question of punishment and pronounced its judgment on the same day the appellant was convicted.
“We shall not be deemed to be wholly illegal and permissible. What is ultimately necessary is to consider the aggravating and diminishing circumstances by the use of the mind. For conviction under section 302 (murder) in the case They were not given due attention while considering the question of punishment.
The bench observed that it is “true that all murders are inhuman” and to award capital punishment, the offense must be unusual in nature, having regard to the mitigating circumstances, the court must also be of the opinion that the punishment for life is imprisonment. is insufficient and there is no option but to impose the death penalty.
It said that the appellant, who was 25 years old at the time of commission of the offence, had no criminal history, belonged to a poor socio-economic background, and had an impeccable conduct inside the jail.
“Therefore, having regard to the above aspects in view of the issue, we do not find any reason to rule out the possibility and possibility of reform and rehabilitation of the appellant,” it said.