“We find no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court as the prosecution has proved all charges beyond reasonable doubt.”
Court’s Decision:
The Tripura High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the accused against his conviction and sentences under Sections 341, 376(1), 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court affirmed the trial court’s order sentencing the appellant to:
- Life imprisonment for murder under Section 302 IPC,
- Ten years rigorous imprisonment for rape under Section 376(1) IPC,
- Three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 IPC, and
- One month rigorous imprisonment under Section 341 IPC,
all to run concurrently.
The Court held that the circumstantial evidence, DNA evidence, and recovery of incriminating articles established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, leaving no scope to interfere with the conviction.
Facts:
On 5 October 2020, the victim, wife of the informant, went to collect firewood in a litchi garden but did not return home by evening. Her dead body was found the next day under a litchi tree with injury marks on her neck. An FIR was registered, and during the investigation, the police arrested the appellant on suspicion due to injuries noticed on him and based on subsequent disclosure, recovered the victim’s ornaments, a gamchha used for strangulation, and a dao from locations identified by the appellant.
The trial court convicted the appellant based on DNA evidence, recovery of articles, and witness testimonies, leading to the present appeal.
Issues:
- Whether the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for rape and murder were sustainable based on circumstantial evidence.
- Whether the DNA evidence and recovery of articles on disclosure could be relied upon to affirm the conviction.
- Whether there was any procedural irregularity or lack of evidence that would warrant interference with the conviction.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The appellant argued:
- He was falsely implicated due to previous enmity as the informant alleged the appellant had earlier peeped at the deceased while bathing.
- The FIR was lodged after discussion with the informant’s son without naming the appellant, creating doubt about his involvement.
- The case lacked direct eyewitnesses, relying only on circumstantial evidence and alleged disclosure under police custody.
- There were procedural lapses during the seizure of articles, and the DNA evidence was not conclusive to prove rape beyond reasonable doubt.
- The evidence on record was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The State argued:
- The case was based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, including the appellant’s disclosure leading to recovery of the deceased’s ornaments, dao, and gamchha used for strangulation.
- DNA evidence established that semen from the high vaginal swab of the deceased matched the DNA profile of the appellant, confirming the rape.
- The testimonies of PWs 7, 8, 16, and 17 regarding recovery of articles on the appellant’s disclosure and the forensic expert’s evidence provided corroboration.
- The absence of direct witnesses was immaterial since the circumstantial evidence was consistent and unbroken, leading to only one conclusion of the appellant’s guilt.
- The appeal should be dismissed to uphold justice in a heinous crime against a woman.
Analysis of the Law:
The Court analyzed:
- The admissibility of disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which allowed recovery of incriminating material based on the appellant’s statement.
- The weight of circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that if the chain of circumstances is complete and points to the guilt of the accused, conviction can be sustained even without direct evidence.
- DNA evidence, which established a direct link between the appellant and the victim, was found reliable.
- The Court considered that delay in naming the appellant in the FIR or prior enmity was insufficient to negate the prosecution’s consistent evidence.
Precedent Analysis:
While specific cases cited by the appellant were deemed irrelevant to the present case, the Court followed established principles from Supreme Court jurisprudence:
- Circumstantial evidence can form the basis for conviction if it forms a complete chain excluding all hypotheses except the guilt of the accused.
- Disclosure statements under Section 27 leading to recovery are admissible and can be relied upon.
- DNA evidence is a crucial piece of evidence in sexual offence cases.
These principles guided the Court to affirm the conviction.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court found:
- The chain of circumstantial evidence was unbroken, linking the appellant to the crime.
- Recovery of the deceased’s ornaments, dao, and gamchha used for strangulation on the appellant’s disclosure established his involvement.
- DNA analysis confirmed the presence of the appellant’s semen in the vaginal swab of the deceased, corroborating the charge of rape.
- The procedural challenges raised were immaterial in the face of strong forensic and circumstantial evidence.
- The evidence on record proved the charges under Sections 341, 376(1), 302, and 201 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
Conclusion:
The Tripura High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court on the appellant for rape and murder.
It concluded:
“We find no reason to interfere with the observation made by the learned Court below and thus, the same is affirmed.”
All pending applications were disposed of, and the records were directed to be returned to the lower court.
Implications:
- Reinforces the use of DNA evidence as crucial proof in rape and murder cases.
- Affirms the legal position that circumstantial evidence can sustain convictions if forming a complete chain.
- Sends a strong message against sexual offences and murder, upholding stringent punishment for heinous crimes against women.
- Clarifies that procedural challenges or FIR inconsistencies cannot override strong scientific and circumstantial evidence.
Brief Note on Cases Referred:
The judgment mentions that the appellant relied on certain Supreme Court decisions, but the Court found these irrelevant to the case’s facts. Instead, the Court applied settled principles of law regarding:
- Admissibility of disclosure evidence under Section 27.
- Use of DNA evidence in proving sexual offences.
- The standard of proof in circumstantial evidence cases.
- These principles led to the dismissal of the appeal and upholding of the conviction
FAQs:
1. Can a conviction for rape and murder be based solely on circumstantial evidence and DNA evidence?
Yes, if the circumstantial evidence forms a complete chain pointing to guilt and is supported by DNA evidence, a conviction can be sustained even without eyewitnesses.
2. Is a disclosure leading to the recovery of incriminating articles admissible in court?
Yes, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, statements made in police custody that lead to the discovery of facts are admissible and can be relied upon.
3. Does a delay in naming the accused in the FIR affect the prosecution’s case?
Not necessarily. If there is consistent evidence linking the accused to the crime, delay in naming the accused in the FIR does not weaken the prosecution’s case.
