SC SETS ASIDE DEATH PENALTY IN CHILD RAPE-MURDER CASE OVER CONFESSION, DNA LAPSES:

The Supreme Court recently set aside the conviction of a man accused of raping and causing the death of a minor, citing serious procedural irregularities in the conduct of the trial. The Court observed that the trial was fundamentally flawed, particularly noting that the trial judge had wrongly permitted the investigating officer to recount the accused's confessional statements during his examination-in-chief and improperly admitted those statements into evidence.

The appellant had been sentenced to death for offences under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 376A (rape resulting in death), Section 302 (murder), Section 366 (kidnapping), Section 363 (kidnapping a minor), and Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), as well as under Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

During the trial, apart from other procedural irregularities, the Trial Court allowed the investigating officer to recount the accused’s confessional statements during his examination-in-chief—statements that were allegedly made during the course of the investigation. These confessions were also admitted into evidence through a prosecution witness.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta expressed concern over the manner in which the trial was conducted. The bench observed that the trial judge erred in admitting the accused's confessional statements as evidence based on the investigating officer’s narration. Such admission, the Court emphasized, violated established principles under the law of evidence. According to Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), only confessional statements recorded by a magistrate—regardless of police presence—are considered legally admissible.

“The lopsided manner in which trial was conducted is fortified from the evidence of Sub-Inspector Prahlad Singh(PW-12) who was allowed to narrate the entire confession of the appellant, in his examination-in-chief. This procedure adopted by the trial Court in permitting a police officer to verbatim narrate the confession made by an accused during investigation is grossly illegal and contrary to the mandate of Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Not only this, the trial Court even allowed the confessional statement of the appellant, to be exhibited in the evidence of the witness, which further establishes that the trial was conducted in a totally distorted manner.”, the Court observed.

“Investigating Officer(PW-14) in his examinationin-chief, also made a detailed narration of the confessional statement made by the appellant and also proved the said confessional statement, which again reflects the total lackadaisical approach of the presiding officer who conducted the trial.”, the court added.

The Supreme Court also criticized the prosecution for failing to examine the scientific expert who conducted the DNA profiling, rendering the DNA report inadmissible. Citing Section 45 of the Evidence Act and its ruling in Rahul v. State of Delhi (2023), the Court reiterated that DNA reports cannot be accepted at face value under Section 293 CrPC; the prosecution must prove that reliable techniques were used.

The bench noted serious lapses in the handling of forensic evidence. The prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody, the medical officer did not confirm sealing of samples, and police witnesses could not prove their safe transmission to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). No FSL witness was examined to confirm receipt of sealed samples, raising concerns of possible tampering.

Given the lack of proper procedure and absence of expert testimony, the Court held that the DNA evidence was unreliable. Finding multiple procedural defects and evidentiary gaps, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the appellant’s conviction.