The Madhya Pradesh High Court has overturned the death penalty awarded by a trial court in a case involving the rape and murder of a 3-year-old girl. The court observed that the investigation conducted by the authorities was carried out in an "extremely casual and cryptic manner".

The bench of Justices Sujay Paul and A.K. Paliwal set aside the death sentence given to Vijay alias Pintiya, the accused in the case, and acquitted him by giving him benefit of doubt.

The convict had challenged the judgment passed by the Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012), Burhanpur, holding him guilty for committing offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(2), 376AB, 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code and 5(i)(k)(m)(r) read with 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

According to the prosecution's case, the victim, a 3-year-old girl, had accompanied her grandmother outside their house to answer nature's call. However, upon the grandmother's return after a brief absence, the child was nowhere to be found. A search was initiated, and three days later, the victim's lifeless body was discovered by passersby. Five days later, during the investigation, the appellant was arrested based on suspicion.

The court, after examining the post-mortem and DNA reports, concluded that the prosecution failed to establish any sexual assault against the victim.

"The nail samples of victim were not collected at the first instance and when the same were collected after few days by digging out her body which was buried, it must have lost much of its evidentiary value," said the court.

The court criticized the prosecution for not initially collecting nail cuttings from the victim and emphasized that greater vigilance should have been exercised in such cases. While acknowledging the suspicions surrounding the appellant, the court however ruled that without a clear connection established by the DNA report between the nail cuttings and the appellant's bruises, the accused cannot be held guilty solely on the basis of suspicion.

Another aspect considered by the court was the identity and description of the victim's frock. It noted that the naked body of the victim and the frock were found at a distance of 15-45 feet from each other. The bench highlighted inconsistencies in witness statements regarding the description and identity of the frock. Due to these contradictions, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the frock's identity conclusively.

"It is not clear as to whether it was victim’s frock which was subject matter of DNA examination. This is a very serious flaw on the part of investigating agency. The investigation was made in a very casual manner and we deprecate the same," it said.

Advocate Ajay Shukla, the counsel appearing for the respondent during the course of hearing argued that mere technical flaw in the investigation should not be viewed adversely and it should not cause any dent on the overall prosecution story. However, while rejecting this argument, the court said, “We do not see any merit in this contention because if flaw in the investigation results into failure of justice, interference is inevitable.”

The respondent's counsel further contended that considering the heinous and gruesome nature of the crime, coupled with public pressure on the police, the flaws deserve to be ignored. However, the court dismissed this argument, saying:

"No amount of pressure on police can be a reason to ignore the quality of evidence. We are unable to persuade ourselves with the line of argument that work pressure or any other pressure on the police can be a reason to dilute the requirement of law and to bring clinching evidence against the accused. We are unable to hold that because of public pressure on the Police any such flaw in the investigation can be treated as ‘necessary evil’.”

The court also deprecated the practice of mechanically preparing the questions and recording answers under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. It said this kind of negligence was not expected from a Judge dealing with a trial which resulted into imposition of capital punishment.

"We hope and thrust that henceforth sufficient care and caution will be taken by the Courts while interacting with the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. It must be remembered that courts are to dispense justice, not to dispense with justice," said the court.

Case Title: Vijay @ Pintiya Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeal No.2680 Of 2019

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (MP) 80

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment