Read Time: 11 minutes
The bench observed that the courts below had examined witness testimonies but failed to outline the inferences drawn from them
The Supreme Court recently upheld the conviction of a man in a 2012 case related to sexual assault and murder of a 9-year-old girl, a Madrasa student, who was a friend of his daughter, after finding the chain of incriminating circumstances required to bring home the guilt of the accused was complete in all aspects.
The apex court, however, highlighted the principles of evaluating evidence in case of circumstantial evidence.
Examining the appeal of one Abdul Nassar, on a request by his family members to wash off the stigma, as he died on January 16, 2024, a bench of Justices B R Gavai, K V Vishwanathan, and Sandeep Mehta said there was no doubt in the mind of the court that the prosecution had proved by leading clinching and convincing circumstantial evidence that the accused had committed forcible and violent sexual assault on the child victim and, thereafter, strangled and killed her.
The appellant was awarded death penalty by the trial court by its judgment on July 31, 2013. The High Court's division bench on February 28, 2018 had affirmed the conviction and sentence.
According to the prosecution, on April 4, 2012, at about 6:30 am, the child victim aged about 9 years was proceeding from her house to the Madrasa situated at Ponnamkallu in Amarambalam Village. On the way, she went to the house of the accused which was situated on the side of the panchayat road at Ponnamkallu, in search of her friend who was the daughter of the accused so as to go to the Madrasa together.
Finding the child victim all alone, the accused who was also alone in the house, committed rape upon her in a room in his house at around 6:45 am, and after that, he strangled the child victim with a shawl and smothered her with his hands which lead to the death of the victim. With the intention to destroy evidence, he concealed the dead body of the victim beneath a cot inside the bedroom, shifted it to the bathroom attached to the said house. He also attempted to dispose of the dead body in the septic tank as the stones from under the slab of the septic tank were found removed.
Among the circumstances, the court found blood-stained clothes worn by the deceased child victim were identified by her mother and recovered by the police officials from the house of the accused and her underwear was also found in the kitchen.
As per the postmortem report, a total of 37 ante mortem injuries were found on the child victim’s body along with injuries on the genitalia, suggestive of forcible penetrative sexual assault. The cause of death was opined to be strangulation. Blood stains on the clothes and DNA profile of semen stains were matched, the court pointed out.
The bench, however, said, "While we concur with the ultimate conclusions reached by the trial Court and the High Court, we cannot overlook the deficiencies in the methodology adopted by both the courts in the appraisal and analysis of the circumstantial evidence. The manner in which the evidence has been scrutinised lacks the depth and rigor expected, raising concerns about the adequacy of the evaluative process undertaken to arrive at the said decisions."
The bench pointed out the courts had undertaken an examination of the testimonies of the witnesses but had omitted to delineate the inferences derivable therefrom.
"Moreover, they failed to expound upon how the prosecution has succeeded in constructing an unbroken chain of circumstances that irrefutably establishes the culpability of the accused to the exclusion of any other hypothesis," the bench said.
The bench deemed it essential to enunciate the principles that courts must adhere to while appreciating and evaluating evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence, as follows:
(i) The testimony of each prosecution and defence witness must be meticulously discussed and analysed. Each witness's evidence should be assessed in its entirety to ensure no material aspect is overlooked.
(ii) Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. Thus, the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the testimony of each witness must be explicitly delineated.
(iii) Each of the links of incriminating circumstantial evidence should be meticulously examined so as to find out if each one of the circumstances is proved individually and whether collectively taken, they forge an unbroken chain consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.
(iv) The judgment must comprehensively elucidate the rationale for accepting or rejecting specific pieces of evidence, demonstrating how the conclusion was logically derived from the evidence. It should explicitly articulate how each piece of evidence contributes to the overall narrative of guilt.
(v) The judgment must reflect that the finding of guilt, if any, has been reached after a proper and careful evaluation of circumstances in order to determine whether they are compatible with any other reasonable hypothesis.
In the instant case, the court dismissed the appeal as lacking merit. However, the question of execution of death sentence awarded to the appellant was rendered otiose, considering the fact that he had passed away.
Case Title: Abdul Nassar Vs State of Kerala & Anr
Please Login or Register