Satisfaction Of Court Cannot Be Substituted By Expert Opinion: Kerala HC Acquits Murder Accused Citing Lack Of Reliable Evidence
While acquitting a man accused of murder on the ground of negligent evidence collection, the Kerala High Court recently ruled that the satisfaction of the Court cannot be substituted by expert opinion.In the criminal appeal, the preliminary question before the Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran was whether there was sufficient material before the trial...
While acquitting a man accused of murder on the ground of negligent evidence collection, the Kerala High Court recently ruled that the satisfaction of the Court cannot be substituted by expert opinion.
In the criminal appeal, the preliminary question before the Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran was whether there was sufficient material before the trial court to find the accused guilty.
It was noted that the case against the accused was largely based on fingerprints and chemical evidence. However, the Court noted that there wasn't sufficient reliable evidence for the trial court to have found the accused guilty of the crime.
"The testimony of an expert is at best an opinion, which has to be given due weight by the Court. However, the conclusion has to be arrived at by the Court itself, based on the opinion of the expert. We are here, concerned with whether there was any material before Court to arrive at a conclusion... The satisfaction so arrived at by the Court cannot be substituted with the opinion of the expert."
The appellant had been convicted of murdering a retired septuagenarian teacher by smothering her to death and stealing her cash and ornaments.
There were two accused in the case, with one still absconding from the law but the petitioner was found guilty of offences under Sections 457 (trespass by night), 392 (robbery), 201 (disappearance of evidence) and 302 (murder) of the IPC.
The trial court had sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000 for murder, with further sentences and fines for the other offences.
In appeal, Advocate Renjith B Marar, appearing for the accused, argued that the charge set up by the prosecution was based solely on circumstantial evidence and there was not even a single circumstance established to his guilt.
He contended that the prosecution's case of scientific evidence concerning fingerprint and the fabric fibre found in the victim's hands testing identical to the fabric of the pants recovered from the accused's residence cannot be believed. He further added that the manner in which the recoveries were made is suspicious and the materials sent for scientific examination were not immediately submitted to the court.
However, Special Government Pleader S Ambikadevi disagreed and stated that an unbroken chain of circumstances has been proved. She urged for the appeal to be dismissed on the ground that the trial court's conviction was based on valid grounds and proved circumstances, and that the sentence imposed was also proper.
After perusing the materials on record and the arguments advanced, the Court observed that the procedure followed by the prosecution for collection of scientific evidence was grossly inadequate and that for that reason, neither the fingerprint comparison report nor the chemical analysis results of similar fibres were reliable.
"There are no circumstances proved against the accused and he has to be given the benefit of doubt only due to the sloppy manner in which the collection of evidence was carried out by the I.O (Investigating Officer). We allow the appeal and acquit the accused and he shall be released forthwith if his continued detention is not warranted in any other case"
The Court further noted that the report of the fingerprint expert relied on by the trial court report merely stated that on comparison, the chance print developed from the scene of crime is identical to the left ring finger impression of the accused.
This was found to be inadequate for the trial court to have arrived at its finding as the developed chance print, the sample print, and the photographs should have been produced before the court.
"Further the specific similarities which persuades the expert to form an opinion has to be detailed for the Court to compare the prints and come to a conclusion. The procedure followed is grossly inadequate to inspire confidence of the court and the report is inadmissible in evidence."
As such, the Division Bench concluded that the trial court erred in having relied on fingerprint evidence as an incriminating circumstance.
Another scientific evidence strongly relied on by the prosecution was a piece of fibre found in the palm of the deceased which tallied with the fibre of the pants recovered from the house of the accused. However, the Court found that the scientific analyst did not speak on how the fibres were similar, without which the Court cannot satisfy itself.
Finding that none of the circumstances as pointed out by the prosecution has been established to pin the crime on the accused, the Court acquitted the appellant.
Case Title: Biju Kumar v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 7