Skull Superimposition Technique For Identification Of Dead Body Not Infallible : Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused

The Supreme Court observed that skull superimposition technique for idenitification of the dead body cannot be regarded as infallible.

When the super-imposition report is not supported by any other reliable medical evidence like a DNA report or post-mortem report, it would be very risky to convict the accused believing the identification of the dead body of the victim through the super-imposition test, the bench of CJI UU Lalit and Bela M. Trivedi observed.

S. Kaleeswaran and John Anthonisamy @ John  along with the other three accused were convicted by the Trial Court in a murder case. According to the prosecution, all the accused in furtherance of the conspiracy hatched by them murdered a taxi driver John Thomas. The Madras High Court dismissed their appeals.

In appeal before the Apex Court, one of the contentions raised was that the identity of the dead-body of the deceased was also not duly proved.

The bench noted noted that the corpus when found, was in a highly decomposed condition and the skeletal remains were found after almost 5 months from the date of the incident of the deceased having gone missing.  The identification, therefore, was done by getting the skull super-imposition test done through a forensic expert, the court noted.

"In Pattu Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu4 , this Court has explained that though identification of the deceased through superimposition is an acceptable piece of opinion evidence, however the courts generally do not rely upon opinion evidence as the sole incriminating circumstances, given its fallibility, and the superimposition technique cannot be regarded as infallible. In the present case, since the super-imposition report was not supported by any other reliable medical evidence like a DNA report or post-mortem report, it would be very risky to convict the accused believing the identification of the dead body of the victim through the super-imposition test. It is true that in the case based on circumstantial evidence, if the entire chain is duly proved by cogent evidence, the conviction could be recorded even if the corpus is not found, but when as per the case of prosecution, the dead body of the victim was discovered from the place shown by the accused, it is imperative on the part of the prosecution to prove that the dead body or the skeleton found at the instance of the accused was that of the victim and of none else."

Reappreciating other evidence on record, the bench found that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution did not complete the chain to dispel the hypothesis of innocence of the accused. The Court therefore acquitted them by setting aside concurrent conviction.

Case details

S. Kaleeswaran vs State | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 903 | CrA 160 OF 2017 | 3 November 2022 |  CJI UU Lalit and Bela M. Trivedi

Counsel 

For Appellant(s) :  Mrs. N.S. Nappinai, Adv. Mr. Asaithambi MSM, Adv. Mr. V. Balaji, Adv. Mr. Atul Sharma, Adv. Mr. C. Kannan, Adv. Mr. Nizamuddin, Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. C.B. Gururaj, Adv. Mr. Animesh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Saleem Gul, Adv. Dr. Nanda Kishore, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR Ms. Nupur Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Mahara, Adv. Ms. Vaidehi Rastogi, Adv.

Headnotes

Criminal Trial - Skull Superimposition Technique - Though identification of the deceased through superimposition is an acceptable piece of opinion evidence, however the courts generally do not rely upon opinion evidence as the sole incriminating circumstances, given its fallibility, and the superimposition technique cannot be regarded as infallible - When the super-imposition report is not supported by any other reliable medical evidence like a DNA report or post-mortem report, it would be very risky to convict the accused believing the identification of the dead body of the victim through the super-imposition test - When as per the case of prosecution, the dead body of the victim was discovered from the place shown by the accused, it is imperative on the part of the prosecution to prove that the dead body or the skeleton found at the instance of the accused was that of the victim and of none else (Para 13)

Criminal Trial - Extra Judicial Confession - When the extra judicial confession is not duly proved, or does not inspire confidence or is not corroborated by any other reliable evidence, the conviction could not be based solely on such weak piece of evidence. (Para 8)

Criminal Trial - Last Seen Together Theory - The failure of the accused, in a case based on circumstantial evidence which included "last seen together theory", to explain under Section 313 Cr.PC as to under what circumstances the victim suffered death, would also not be a ground to arrive at an irresistible conclusion that the accused were involved in the commission of the alleged crime - If there is considerable time gap between the persons seeing together and the proximate time of the crime, the circumstances of last seen together, even if proved cannot clinchingly fasten the guilt of the accused. (Para 11-12)

Criminal Trial - Motive - Though in a case of direct evidence, motive would not be relevant, in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link to complete the chain of circumstances. (Para 14)

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - The five golden principles laid down in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 (Para 6)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment