"IO Literally Slept Over Forensic Reports": MP High Court Reverses Rape & Murder Conviction After 10 Yrs, Orders Enquiry Against Errant Officers

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench recently chided the investigating agency for not utilizing the scientific evidence available to them so as to make a watertight case against an accused in a murder and rape case, thereby leaving the Court with no choice but to acquit him.

The division bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice S.K. Singh further held that the negligent approach taken by the IO was not acceptable to the Court-

It is inconceivable that after recovering hairs of an accused from the hands of the deceased, and despite a specific observation by the Scientific officer that DNA is necessary for the confirmation of the matching the hairs seized and that of the appellant, no efforts were made by the investigating officer to get the DNA profiling done which has led to sheer injustice, not only to the appellant but also to the deceased whose culprit has never been caught or has walked free today by the order of this court. To add insult to the injury, the investigating officer has also failed to get the DNA profiling of the slides of the deceased which had human spermatozoa as per the FSL report which would have made a water tight prosecution case but it was also not done, may be purposefully or negligently. Be that as it may, such negligent approach of an investigating officer is not acceptable to us.

The facts of the case were that the Appellant was convicted by the trial court for offences punishable under Section 376 and 302 IPC. The Prosecution had heavily relied on the theory of "last seen together". Aggrieved by his conviction, the Appellant preferred the appeal before the Court.

Challenging his conviction, the Appellant argued that the whole case was based on circumstantial evidence and that the Prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He further submitted that there was no forensic evidence available on record to connect him with the offence even though the deceased was found holding strands of hair in her hand. Since there were also material omissions and contradictions in the case presented by the Prosecution, the Appellant prayed for his acquittal.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court observed that the case of the Prosecution relied immensely on the theory of "last seen together". The Court further brought its attention to the chemical examiner's report which had recommended that the strands of hair recovered from the hand of the deceased be sent for DNA testing. However, the investigating agency did not pursue the recommendation. The Court also noted that the spermatozoa found on the apparel of the Appellant was also not sent for DNA testing.

Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Tomaso Bruno & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court opined that in a case where the Prosecution has the best evidence available with them, but deliberately withholds the same, its benefit has to be given to the accused-

So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, we have already discussed that the prosecution has relied upon the last seen together evidence, despite having one of the best evidences which could be made available in these modern times to a prosecution agency i.e. the hairs in the hands of the deceased, which could have been very well matched with the hairs of the appellant through DNA profiling. But for reasons best known to the prosecutions, it has not proceeded with this crucial DNA Testing of the hairs. It is also found that the slides of the deceased's vagina also had human spermatozoa, but again, for the reasons best known to the prosecution agencies, they have not tried to match the DNA of the aforesaid spermatozoa with that of the appellant. In such circumstances, we are at pains to observe that if this is the procedure adopted by the investigating agencies, then there is simply no point in prosecuting any person at all and the whole trial appears to be a farce.

The Court, thus, concluded that in the absence of any other material connecting the Appellant with the crime, their reliance on the 'last seen together' theory was not good enough to draw a conclusion that the chain of events is so complete leading to the only conclusion of guilt of the Appellant.

The Court reprimanded the investigating agency and expressed its displeasure with the manner in which the investigation was carried out-

As a parting note, we would be failing in our duties if we do not express our utter displeasure towards the manner in which the investigating agency has proceeded. It appears that after arresting the appellant and completing the formalities of collecting the evidence, the investigating officer has literally slept over the forensic reports.

Furthermore, the Court directed the State to enquire into the matter and take necessary steps against the officers responsible-

Thus, we direct the State to initiate an inquiry into the matter and proceed against the responsible officers who are guilty of dereliction of their duties, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to such officer/s.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court set aside the conviction of the Appellant who was lodged in jail for more than 10 years. Accordingly, the Appeal was allowed.

Case Title : Habu @ Sunil v The State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 197

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment