Sakunjay Vyas
Published on: May, 14, 2022 at 12:35 IST
The Three-Judge Bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice C T Ravikumar of the Supreme Court overturned an impugned Judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
The High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the here-in appellant by stating that his conviction as well as a sentence of an offence under Section 376A of IPC is hereby set aside on technical ground whereas the conviction and sentences of the offence under Sections 376(2)(i) and 302 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act recorded by the trial court are confirmed.
The reference sent by the trial court is partly accepted. We hereby confirm the death sentence recorded for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
The Apex Court, while addressing the application of section 53A of CrPC, and considering can non conduct of a DNA profiling can be a sole reason to set aside the conviction stated that the in cases which include the offence or Rape as well as murder, a mere flaw of non-conduct of DNA profiling cannot be permitted to decide the fate of a trial.
That even if such a flaw had occurred in the investigation in a given case, the Court has still a duty to consider whether the materials and evidence available on record before it is enough and cogent to prove the case of the prosecution.
“In view of the nature of the provision under Section 53A Cr.P.C and the decisions referred (supra) we are also of the considered view that the lapse or omission (purposeful or otherwise) to carry out DNA profiling, by itself, cannot be permitted to decide the fate of a trial for the offence of rape especially, when it is combined with the commission of the offence of murder as in case of acquittal only on account of such a flaw or defect in the investigation the cause of criminal justice would become the victim.”, the Court said.
The Apex Court, while referring to the case of Sunil Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
[(2017) 4 SCC 393 stated that if the DNA test results were positive, that would constitute conclusive evidence against the accused. Having not done DNA profiling or a negative result of a DNA test would not and could not result in the prosecution case failing for this reason alone.
That the Court has a duty to weigh the other materials and evidence on record to conclude on guilt or otherwise of the appellant here-in and that precisely what was done by the trial Court and then by the High Court, in the instant case.
“As held in Sunil’s case (supra), a positive result of DNA test would constitute clinching evidence against the accused. But, a negative result of DNA test or DNA profiling having not been done would not and could not, for that sole reason, result in failure of prosecution case.”, the Court said.
As a result, the Apex Court overturned the impugned Judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh by stating that the appeal is partly allowed and that all convictions are upheld. However, the death sentence awarded was commuted to that of imprisonment for life with the stipulation that he shall not be entitled to premature release or remission before undergoing actual imprisonment for thirty years.
Also Read: No steps taken to conduct DNA Test of Fetus: Victim Alleges before Kerala HC