PRAKASH NISHAD @ KEWAT ZINAK NISHAD versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
[2023] 8 S.C.R. 152, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 8 S.C.R.
   [2023] 8 S.C.R. 152
152
PRAKASH NISHAD @ KEWAT ZINAK NISHAD
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal Nos.1636-1637 of 2023)
MAY 19, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI, VIKRAM NATH AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
Evidence – Case of circumstantial evidence – Six year old
child was sexually assaulted, killed and thrown her into a ‘nala’ –
Appellant was arrested on the basis of suspicion – Charged for
having committed offences punishable u/s.376, 377, 302 and 201,
IPC –Concurrently convicted, death sentence imposed for the charge
u/s.302 and sentenced for other offences – Correctness of – Held:
There were yawning gaps in the chain of circumstances rendering it
far from being established, pointing to the guilt of the appellant –
Several irregularities and illegalities on the part of the agencies
examining the case – Charges levied on the appellant not proved –
Orders of the courts below set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.376,
377, 302 and 201 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.53A –
Criminal Law.
Criminal Law– Whether non-recording of the disclosure
statement of the appellant in the language in which it was made
and recording it in a language totally unknown to the appellant,
contents whereof were also not read over and explained to him, can
be said to have caused any prejudice to the cause of justice? –
Held: Yes – Appellant did not know how to read and write in Marathi
– Perusal of the alleged disclosure statement reveals that it was
recorded in Marathi and the Investigating officer not having read
over or explained contents thereof to the appellant in his vernacular
language i.e Hindi – It was important for the appellant to understand
the case of the prosecution against him – There is nothing on record
to show that it was not practicable to record evidence of the
appellant as well as others, whose vernacular was not Marathi, but
Hindi – Statutory safeguards in reference to language not having
been complied with caused prejudice to the appellant– Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
153
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.53A – Non-compliance
with – Held:In the present case, none of the witness deposed the
fact of medical examination of the appellant as stipulated u/s.53A –
No reason was given for having decided that there was no need to
comply with the provisions of s.53A– Samples of the blood and semen
of the appellant were sent for forensic analysis – However, there is
nothing on record to establish as to who took such samples, on
what date, on how many occasions and why were they not sent all
at once – None of the police officials testified to the formalities of
keeping the samples safe and secure being complied with – There is
only one document (Ext.79) on record, indicating the appellant to
have been medically examined – But even this document does not
reveal sample of the body part being drawn – In any event, the
doctor who conducted such examination did not testify the
correctness of the contents thereof – Also, the document itself is
uninspiring confidence having certain interpolations therein –
Additionally, the document does not fall true to the statutory
requirements imposed u/s.53A – This is a glaring lapse in the
investigation of this crime, for a six year-old child was sexually
assaulted on both of the private parts – Medical examination of the
appellant would have resulted into ascertainment of such assault –
Samples when collected are to be sent to the concerned laboratory
as soon as possible – Delay in sending the
samples is unexplained
– “Without any delay” and “chain of custody” aspects which are
indispensable to the vitality of such evidence, were not complied
with – Thus, in the instant case, the DNA Report cannot be the basis
to send appellant to the gallows – Maharashtra Police Manual –
Appendix XXIV – Evidence – Criminal Law.
Evidence – Value of DNA evidence – Discussed.
Criminal Law – Crime involving severe punishments such as
imprisonment for life or the sentence of death – Role and
responsibilities of the investigating authorities, not adhered to –
Deprecated.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Appellant did not know how to read and
write in Marathi. This being the position, this Court has
highlighted the importance of the appellant being able to
PRAKASH NISHAD @ KEWAT ZINAK NISHAD v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 8 S.C.R.
understand the case of the prosecution against him. Inability to
do so, by virtue of a language barrier causes prejudice to the
case of the appellant. There is nothing on record to show that it
was not practicable to record evidence of the appellant as well as
others, whose vernacular was not Marathi, but Hindi. The original
testimony, from which the text, tenor and true import of their
testimony may be gauged, is not part of the record. Therefore, it
is apparent that statutory safeguards in reference to language
have not been complied with, causing prejudice to the appellant
in terms of Syed Qasim Rizvi. [Para 45][168-F-H; 169-A]
Syed Qasim Razvi v. State of Hyderabad 1953 SCR 589
– followed.
Siju Kurian v. State of Karnataka 2023 SCC OnLine
429 – distinguished.
1.2 No blood of the appellant was found on any one of the
articles recovered by the police. Only stains of semen were found
on the nicker (brown) belonging to the prosecutrix and her vaginal
swabs. Samples of the blood and semen of the appellant were
sent for forensic analysis. Importantly though, there is nothing
on record to establish as to who took such samples, on what date,
on how many occasions and why were they not sent all at once,
none of the police officials have testified to the formalities of
keeping the samples safe and secure being complied with. There
is only one document (Ext.79) on record, indicating the appellant
to have been medically
examined. But even this document does
not reveal sample of the body part being drawn. In any event, the
doctor who conducted such examination, has not stepped into
the witness box to testify the correctness of the contents thereof.
Also the document itself is uninspiring confidence as this Court
notices certain interpolations therein and in a different hand.
Additionally, the document does not fall true to the statutory
requirements imposed under Section 53A Cr.P.C.Here, a child
of the tender age of six was assaulted brutally and killed. The
appellant was arrested on suspicion of having committed the
crime. The police proceeded in accordance therewith and were
supposed to have made discoveries as per the statements made
by the appellant in custody, then in what manner can it be said
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
155
that, at the time when such a positive call was required to be
made by the authorities, reasonable grounds did not exist for the
compliance with Section 53A to be a must? This, in the view of
this Court is a glaring lapse in the investigation of this crime, for
a six-year-old child was sexually assaulted on both of the private
parts of her body. Medical examination of the appellant would
have resulted into ascertainment of such assault. In the present
case, the delay in sending the samples is unexplained and
therefore, the possibility of contamination and the concomitant
prospect of diminishment in value cannot be reasonably ruled
out. Samples when collected are sent to the concerned laboratory
as soon as possible. Chain of custody implies that right from the
time of taking of the sample, to the time its role in the
investigation and processes subsequent, is complete, each
person handling said piece of evidence must duly be acknowledged
in the documentation, so as to ensure that the integrity is
uncompromised. It is recommended that a document be duly
maintained cataloguing the custody. A chain of custody document
in other words is a document, “which should include name or
initials of the individual collecting the evidence, each person or
entity subsequently having custody of it, dated the items were
collected or transferred, agency and case number, victim’s or
suspect’s name and the brief description of the item.” Indisputably,
these “without any delay”
and “chain of custody” aspects which
are indispensable to the vitality of such evidence, were not
complied with. In such a situation, this court cannot hold the DNA
Report Ext.85 to be so dependable as to send someone to the
gallows on this basis. In the present case, even though, the DNA
evidence by way of a report was present, its reliability is not
infallible, especially not so in light of the fact that the
uncompromised nature of such evidence cannot be established;
and other that cogent evidence is absent almost in its entirety.
[Paras 52, 54, 56, 58, 61-63 and 66][173-A-B; 174-D-E, F-G; 176-
B-G; 179-C-D]
Guidelines for collection, storage and transportation
of Crime Scene DNA samples For Investigating Officers-
Central Forensic Science Laboratory Directorate Of
Forensic Sciences Services Ministry Of Home Affairs,
Govt. of India – referred to.
PRAKASH NISHAD @ KEWAT ZINAK NISHAD v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
156
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 8 S.C.R.
1.3 In the instant case, the reasons why the investigation
officers were changed time and again from PW 6 to PW 12 and
then to PW 13, is surprising and unexplained. No reason stands
given for having decided that there was no need to comply with
the provisions of Section 53A, Cr.P.C.; there is unexplained delay
in sending the samples collected for analysis; a premises already
searched was searched again, the reason for which is not borne
from record; lock panchnama is not prepared; no samples of blood
and semen of the appellant can be said to have been drawn by
any medical or para medical staff; allegedly an additional sample
is taken from the appellant more than a month after the arrest;
alleged disclosure statement of the appellant was never read over
and explained to the appellant in his vernacular language; the
appellant was not residing alone at the place alleged to be his
residence; and what was the basis of appellant being a suspect at
the first instance, remains a mystery; persons who may have shed
light on essential aspects- ‘GB’ and ‘MS’ went unexamined etc.,
such multitudinous lapses have compromised the quest to punish
the doer of such a barbaric act in absolute peril. The charges
levied on the appellant stand not proved [Paras 77 and 79][180-
G-H; 181-A-C]
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
(1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88; Indrajit Das v.
State of Tripura 2023 SCC OnLine SC 201; Krishan
Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130 :
[2011] 8 SCR 774; Rajendra PrahladraoWasnik v. State
of Maharashtra (2019) 12 SCC 460 : [2018] 14 SCR
585; Pattu Rajan v. State of T.N. (2019) 4 SCC 771;
Manoj v. State of M.P. (2023) 2 SCC 353;
Maghavendra Pratap Singh @Pankaj Singh v. State of
Chattisgarh 2023 SCC OnLine SC 486 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1985] 1 SCR 88
relied on
para 24
[1953] SCR 589
followed
para 44
[2011] 8 SCR 774
relied on
para 57
[2018] 14 SCR 585
relied on
para 57
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
157
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
Nos.1636-1637 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.10.2015 in CRLAP No.88
of 2015, CONFC No.4 of 2014 and SC No.407 of 2010 and dated
14.10.2015 in CONFC No.4 of 2014 and CRLAP No.88 of 2015 of the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
B. H. Marlapalle, Sr. Adv., Ms. Pratiksha Basarkar, Rishad Ahmed
Chowdhury, Avinish Kumar Saurabh, Ms. Anuja Mishra, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla,
Ms. Shreya Saxena, Ms. Yamini Singh, Sourav Singh, Advs. for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJAY KAROL, J.
Leave granted.
2. The following issues arise for consideration in the present
appeals :
1)
Whether non-recording of a disclosure statement of the
appellant in the language in which it is made and recording
of the same in a language totally unknown to the appellant,
contents whereof are also not read over and explained to
him, can be said to have caused any prejudice to the cause
of justice?
2)
Whether DNA evidence can form the solitary basis in
determining the guilt of the appellant?
3)
Whether the circumstances as identified and relied on by
the prosecution indeed point to the guilt only of the appellant,
closing out any and all other possibilities of any other person?
The Factual Prism
3. Pursuant to FIR No.109/2010 dated 12.6.2010 registered at
P.S. Bhayander (Thane, Maharashtra), the appellant Prakash Nishad @
Kewat Zinak
Nishad was charged for having committed an offence
punishable under Sections 376, 377, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short). The Trial Court vide judgment dated
PRAKASH NISHAD @ KEWAT ZINAK NISHAD v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
158
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 8 S.C.R.
27.11.2014 rendered in Sessions Case No.407/2010, convicted the
accused in connection with all the offences and imposed capital
punishment for the charge under Section 302 IPC and sentence of
imprisonment for other offences. Hereinbelow is a tabular representation
of the sentences as imposed by the Trial Court:
4. Such findings of fact and conviction, including that of the death
sentence imposed were affirmed by the High Court of Bombay, being
the first Court of Appeal in both the proceedings. The reference was
also answered in terms of common judgment dated 13-14.10.2015
rendered in Criminal Appeal No.88/2015 and Criminal Confirmation Case
No.4/2014.
Hence, the present appeals preferred by the appellant.
5. The courts below concurrently found the prosecution to have
established the case beyond reasonable doubt, i.e., the appellant after
sexually assaulting a minor girl (aged six years) put her to death. Also, in
an attempt to destroy the evidence threw her into a ‘nala’ (drain) and
concealed material evidence of crime.
6. At the threshold, we may point out that it is a case of
circumstantial evidence, as none has witnessed the crime for which the
appellant stands charged for. The prosecution case is primarily based,
not on ocular evidence but on the confessional statement of the appellant
leading to the recovery of incriminating articles and through scientific
analysis establishing his guilt. The sheet-anchor of the
case being the
DNA analysis report stating the semen of the appellant found on the
undergarments of the prosecutrix (nicker) and the vaginal smear slide of
the prosecutrix.

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
159
7. We now proceed to examine the prosecution case, as has
unfurled through the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. However,
in the service of ease, the 13 prosecution witnesses given in a tabular
form, which are categorised as follows:
1)
Testimony of the medical examiner, i.e., PW 4 – Dr. Anjali
Pimple (Ext.27);
2)
Testimonies of the independent witnesses, i.e., PW 1 –
Mustakin Mohamad Ismail Shaikh, father (Ext.18), PW 2 –
Rehanabano, mother (Ext.20) and PW 3 – Falim Ahmed
Ibrahim Shaikh, uncle (Ext.21)(all being the relatives of the
prosecutrix);
3)
Testimonies of the Investigating Officer, i.e., PW 6 – Sub-
Inspector Suresh Ganpat Chillawar, 1st Investigating Officer
(Ext.42 ), PW 11 – Ashok Sonar, Head Constable (Ext.56),
PW 12 – A.P.I. Sudhir Shantaram, 2nd Investigating Officer
(Ext.65) and PW 13 – Deputy Commissioner of Police
Deepak Pundalik Devraj, 3rd Investigating Officer (Ext.67);
and
4)
Testimonies of the witnesses to the recovery of incriminating
articles, i.e., PW 5 – Bipin Sohanlal Bafna (Ext.34), PW 7
– Suresh Jagdish Khandelwal (Ext.46), PW 8 – Vishal
Navin Chandra Saha (Ext.49), PW 9 – Vijay Sudama Soni
(Ext.53) and PW 10 – Ramlakhan Jaiswal (Ext.54), who
are panch witnesses.
PRAKASH NISHAD @ KEWAT ZINAK NISHAD v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA [SANJAY KAROL, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
160
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 8 S.C.R.
8. The prosecutrix was born from the wedlock of PW 1 and PW
2 and at the time of occurrence of the incident, i.e., on 11.6.2010, she
was just 6 years of age. Neither her identity, nor the fact that she died as
a result of major ante-mortem injuries, is in dispute.
9. Dr. Anjali Pimple (PW 4), who examined the body of the
prosecutrix, has testified to the factum of the post-mortem conducted by
her and preparation of medical report (Ext.28) thereof. As a witness on
oath, she has deposed that the prosecutrix suffered multiple injuries (15
in total) on her body, including on both of her private parts. Undoubtedly
such injuries are severe, serious and grievous in nature. Thus, the
prosecution has established the case of homicidal death beyond any doubt.
10. The question which arises for consideration is: as to who
committed the dastardly crime? Was it only the appellant or someone
else?
11. For ascertaining such fact, we now proceed to examine the
prosecution case as set out in different stages, be it investigation or trial.
12. The FIR dated 12.6.2010 (Ext.44), so registered on the
complaint of PW 1 (Ext.19 which forms part of Ext.1), records that in
the morning of 12th June, 2010 the dead body of the prosecutrix was
found floating in the Nala, in close proximity to her house. She had been
sexually assaulted and killed by an “unidentified person”, after which
the body was thrown into the nala with the objective of
destruction of
evidence of such assault.
13. Significantly, none is suspected at this stage. The said FIR
was recorded by Police Officer - PW 11. The investigation consequent
thereto was conducted by three people – PW 6, PW 12, and PW 13.
14. PW 6 (the 1st Investigating Officer) in the presence of Panch
Witnesses – PW 9 and PW 10, recovered the body of the prosecutrix
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
161
and sent it for post-mortem, which was conducted by PW 4. This
Investigating Officer only conducted the spot search. His role ends here.
15. Thereafter, PW 12 (the 2nd Investigating Officer) based on
certain inputs (not disclosed), arrested the appellant from his workplace
on 13.6.2010 and searched his house in the presence of two independent
witnesses, namely, PW 5 and Piyush Ramesh Kumar Jain (not examined).
The search resulted in recovery of certain incriminating articles vide
memo Ext.35. The appellant was in no manner associated with such
a search.
16. Thereafter, further investigation was entrusted to PW 13 - the
Deputy Commissioner of Police (the third Investigating Officer), who,
on the basis of disclosure statement of the appellant, conducted the search
at two places, including the house of the appellant previously searched
on 13.6.2010. Such searches were conducted on 16th and 17th of June,
2010, leading to the recovery of certain incriminating articles linking the
appellant to the crime, which stood established in DNA reports (Ext.85
& 86) prepared by the forensic experts through scientific analysis. The
Investigating Officer found tell-tale signs of the appellant in the shape of
stains of his semen, on the vaginal smear slide of the prosecutrix and
blood stains of the prosecutrix on the banian (vest) of the appellant,
linking the appellant to the crime. As such, on completion of the
investigation, a challan was presented in the Court for
trial.
17. In the aforesaid backdrop, we now proceed to examine the
testimonies of the witnesses as categorized above.
18. On oath, PW 1, (father of the prosecutrix) categorically admits
that he had not expressed any doubt on any person for having caused
the death of his daughter. He expressly stated that “I had no doubt on
any one about the death of my daughter”. He recognized the appellant
who, according to the said witness, lived in the same “chawl”. His
testimony is indicative of the fact that on the evening of 11.6.2010, his
daughter (the prosecutrix), aged 6 years, after having dinner left home.
Finding her not to have returned home, he searched for her and found
her to be dead, in a “gutter” near his house. Later on, he states that prior
to 14.6.2010, he had not suspected the appellant of having committed
the crime. Significantly, the date and the basis leading to such suspicion
is not disclosed by him.
19. Other aspects of his deposition, in particular, his statement
with respect to the recovery of the nicker shall be dealt with separately.
He recognized the nicker (Article 10) to be that of his daughter.
PRAKASH NISHAD @ KEWAT ZINAK NISHAD v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA [SANJAY KAROL, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
162
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 8 S.C.R.
20. PW 2, the mother of the prosecutrix, while corroborating the
testimony of her husband, added that till 14.6.2010 she was not aware
as to who had assaulted and killed her daughter. However, in Court, she
testified to having given the appellant a match box, upon his request, in
the early hours of 12.6.2010.
21. PW 3, while corroborating the version of PW 1 and PW 2,
only added that finding the prosecutrix not to have returned home, he
thought that perhaps she had gone to the neighbour’s house to watch
television. On the morning of 12.6.2010, a neighbour - whom he does
not name - informed PW 2 of the dead body of the prosecutrix lying in a
“gutter”.
22. It is to be noted that none of the relatives have disclosed
either the complicity of the appellant in the crime or the reason for their
suspicion towards him, particularly on 14.6.2010 which was two days
after the incident.
23. The law on circumstantial evidence is well settled. When a
case is governed by such evidence, the evidence must point singularly to
the guilt of the appellant, closing out the possibility of all other hypotheses.
24. The locus classicus on the subject is Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda v. State of Maharashtra1. A recent judgement of this Court
authored by one of us (Vikram Nath, J.) has highlighted the well settled
law on circumstantial evidence in Indrajit Das v. State of Tripura2,
reiterating the golden principles, as under :
“10. The present one is
a case of circumstantial evidence as no
one has seen the commission of crime. The law in the case of
circumstantial evidence is well settled. The leading case
being Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra.
According to it, the circumstances should be of a definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; the
circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete
that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human
probability the crime was committed by the accused and they
should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than
that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence.
The said principle set out in the case of Sharad Birdhichand
1 (1984) 4 SCC 116
2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 201
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
163
Sarda (supra) has been consistently followed by this Court. In a
recent case - Sailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat,
this Court observed that in a case of circumstantial evidence, law
postulates two-fold requirements. Firstly, that every link in the
chain of circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the
accused must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable
doubt and secondly, all the circumstances must be consistent
pointing out only towards the guilt of the accused. We need not
burden this judgment by referring to other judgments as the above
principles have been consistently followed and approved by this
Court time and again.”
25. To establish the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution relies
upon the following circumstances:
a)
The appellant was residing in the same chawl as that of the
prosecutrix;
b)
Appellant was found near the scene of the crime;
c)
The appellant made disclosure statements, i.e., dated
16.6.2010 Ext.47 and dated 17.6.2010 Ext.50, which led to
the recovery of incriminating articles vide Memo Nos. Ext.48
and Ext.51. from the house of the appellant and another
place where he had hidden the clothes belonging to him
and the prosecutrix;
d)
The DNA reports prepared on scientific analysis by an
expert, establishing the blood of the prosecutrix on banian
of the appellant and his semen on the clothes of prosecutrix
and her vaginal smear slide.
26. Let us examine whether all these circumstances stand
established by
the prosecution or not.
Circumstance of 13 residing in the ‘chawl’ being seen at
the spot of the crime
27. PW 1 and PW 2 stated that the appellant resided in the very
same chawl as they, although they did not identify his house. Well, that’s
about all. There being no other evidence of he residing there. Even if the
version of the mother of having seen the appellant and giving him a
matchbox, in the early hours of 12.6.2010, is believed, the same does not
advance the case of the prosecution any further. The appellant was not
PRAKASH NISHAD @ KEWAT ZINAK NISHAD v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA [SANJAY KAROL, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
164
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 8 S.C.R.
found at the place where the alleged crime took place or the place from
where the body was recovered. The prosecution has not been able to
establish the distance between the two places - that of the crime and the
place where the appellant was spotted in the morning hours. There is no
spot map or any ocular evidence to this effect. As noted above, what led
these witnesses to discover the appellant of having committed the crime
has gone unstated. It is only on the basis of the information furnished by
PW 1, expressing his suspicion on the appellant, that he was on 13.6.2010
arrested and the same day, his residence was searched. It is here that
the major contradiction, if not falsity, in the prosecution case emerges.
The Investigating Officer PW 12 is categorical of having suspected the
appellant only on the basis of the information furnished by the father of
the prosecutrix, i.e., PW 1. PW 12 states that “the father of deceased
expressed suspicion against the appellant and at the time of his house
search was taken.” and PW 1 states that “He did not suspect anyone
prior to 14.6.2010.” The search was conducted on 13th and not on 14th
of June, 2010. He added that finding the house of the appellant to be
locked, he called the medical analyzer, Mumbai, whereafter, he, by
breaking open the lock of the house of the appellant, recovered
incriminating articles vide Ext.36 on 13.6.2010 and such articles being:
“Article 1 – Square
cardboard;
Article 2 – Blanket;
Article 3 – Floor tiles pieces;
Article 4 – Mat;
Article 5 –Towel;
Article 6 –Spanner;
Article 7 –Hair found on pillow;
Article 8 – Mat; and
Article 9 – Pillow”
28. Having conducted the search in the presence of PW 5 and
Piyush Ramesh Kumar Jain (unexamined), he locked and sealed the
house. Out of the two, the prosecution examined only one witness, namely
PW 5. Perusal of the testimony of this witness as also the Investigating
Officer and the relatives of the prosecutrix, does not establish one major
fact, that being, who actually identified the house of the appellant.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
165
29. A ‘chawl’ is a group of tenements clustered together, very
small in size and densely populated. It’s an inexpensive accommodation,
temporary for some, permanent for others. Living in the same chawl,
cannot be, in the attending facts of no one having identified with certainty
the exact house/room of the appellant, a circumstance pointing to the
guilt of the appellant. As is evident from the decisions referred (supra),
for a circumstance to be established, there shouldn’t be doubt; it should
not leave room for the possibility that, not the appellant against whom
the circumstance is sought to be proved but someone else, may have
done the said crime.
30. None of the witnesses have deposed that it was at the instance
of the appellant that the prosecutrix left the house, nor has anyone
deposed to the effect of having seen the appellant and the prosecutrix
together at any point in time; Appellant was not even a visitor to the
house of PW 1. They have no relationship, be it of whatever nature. All
that is stated is that after having dinner prosecutrix left home, and PW 3
states that he thought she may have gone to the neighbour’s house to
watch TV. With this being the case, last seen theory, does not come into
play. Although argued before us, the Trial Court has correctly not
considered the same to be a circumstance of consequence, in either
direction.
The Circumstance Disclosure Statement of the appellant
and the Recovery of incriminating articles
31.
Conjoint reading of the testimonies of PW 12 and PW 13
further renders the prosecution case to be inherently improbable, if not
self-contradictory and impossible on this circumstance.
32. Unlike PW 5, who is categorical about having seen the blood-
stained nicker in the house of the appellant, PW 12 does not disclose
such fact. Undisputedly, both these witnesses together visited the alleged
house of the appellant only once, i.e., on 13.6.2010. It is a matter of
record that police recovered only one nicker belonging to the prosecutrix,
which was recovered at the time of the second search conducted on
16.6.2010, which renders the recovery by PW 13 in the presence of PW
9 to be extremely doubtful, specifically when the search and subsequent
recovery of incriminating articles is refuted.
33. There is yet another contradiction which bears significance in
the attending facts and that being the time of the seizure of the articles
PRAKASH NISHAD @ KEWAT ZINAK NISHAD v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA [SANJAY KAROL, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
166
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 8 S.C.R.
recovered during the first search. The Panchnama (Ext. 36) reveals
that the same was prepared in the night of 13.6.2010 between 9.00 p.m.
to 9.30 p.m., whereas according to PW 5, all proceedings of recovery
appear to have been completed before 2.00 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. by which
time the witness had returned home. In fact, the factum of search itself
is in doubt as PW 5 categorically states that after conducting the search
he visited the police station where his “signatures” were obtained, though,
he clarifies that earlier too his signatures were taken, but on what paper
and for what purpose, he did not disclose.
34. We may now proceed to the testimony of PW 13, who is the
star witness of the prosecution, i.e., the Investigating Officer. According
to his version, on 16.6.2010, the appellant, while in police custody, made
a disclosure statement (Ext.47) in the presence of independent witnesses
PW 7 and P.K Mehta (not examined). The statement revealed the
appellant to have concealed the nicker of the prosecutrix as also his
clothes, worn by him at the time of incident, in his house, which he was
ready to identify and get recovered.
35. Accordingly, on 16.6.2010 PW 13 along with the Panchas,
staff and the appellant searched the room No.39 of Ganesh Deval Nagar.
The room was opened, and the appellant produced “amul gold 45 size
nicker” and one “white colour nicker of amul gold 80 cm’s size banian”
having blood stains and one
“grey coloured barmuda” and one “brown
colour nicker having contents written as Sophia 65 cm” and some blood
stains. The said articles were seized vide Memo Ext.48 in the presence
of the Panchas. On 17.6.2010 the appellant got recorded a second
disclosure statement while in custody, whereby, he stated that some
additional clothes which he had worn on the day of the incident could be
got recovered. Accordingly, on the basis of such statement Ext.50 dated
17.6.2010, the police party along with the appellant proceeded and
searched room No.206 in Deepshree Building at, approximately two
kilometers from Valiv Naka. One Ganesh Bheema (Ganesh Kapildev
Mishra) opened the door of the room and, as per the disclosure by the
appellant, the police recovered certain incriminating articles vide Memo
(Ext.51) dated 17.6.2010.
36. All the articles recovered prior to 17.6.2010 were sent for
scientific analysis vide letters Ext.68 and Ext.69 both dated 16.6.2010,
the blood sample of the appellant was sent for DNA profiling. He also
sent a letter to the Civil Hospital for collection of the blood, nails, and
hair samples of the appellant. During investigation, he procured the report
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
167
of the chemical analysis as also the DNA report and the FSL report.
The said DNA report prepared by an expert revealed samples of “viscera”
(semen) of the appellant on swab drawn from the private parts of the
prosecutrix. He also recorded the statement of Munna Saroj, who was
residing with the appellant. So is the essence of the examination-in-chief
of this witness.
37. It may be noted that neither this witness nor anyone else has
deposed the fact of medical examination of the appellant, as is stipulated
under Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter,
‘Cr.P.C.’).
38. Further, whether his communication for medical examination
of the appellant was ever followed up at all is not known. So also, its
resultant consequences. Who took the samples of the body parts of the
appellant, if at all, is a mystery. The record does not disclose such fact.
Non-examination of Ganesh Bheema and Munna Saroj in Court, despite
being cited witnesses renders his version to be uncorroborated, thereby
creating a gap in chain of circumstances, preventing it from being
complete.
39. The house from where the articles were recovered on
17.6.2010 was neither owned nor in the exclusive possession of the
appellant. Instead, as is admitted by the Investigating Officer, it belonged
to a third party. The Investigating Officer admits that the said house was
occupied by one Ganesh Bheema, who was never examined in the case,
so also why and what is that Munna Saroj disclosed on
19.6.2010, has
not seen the light of the day. Their complicity in the crime has also not
been ruled out. On this issue examination of Ext.35 reveals that the
house where appellant was residing was owned by Munna Lalchand
and that it was jointly possessed by the appellant and Prakash who have
not been examined.
40. What further renders the veracity of the testimony of this
witness to be questionable has surfaced in the cross-examination part,
wherein he admits not to have mentioned in the statement Ext.47 “that
the accused had hidden the clothes”. In this view of the matter, the
articles so discovered cannot be said to form a discovery in terms Section
27 of the Evidence Act.
41. Significantly, from the testimony of PW 7 it is evident that
appellant did not know Marathi language for he states that “I know that
the appellant does not know Marathi”.
PRAKASH NISHAD @ KEWAT ZINAK NISHAD v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA [SANJAY KAROL, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
168
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 8 S.C.R.
42. Close examination of the testimony of Panch witness PW 8
reveals that the appellant had given his statement in Hindi and not in
Marathi.
43. Though, PW 13 is silent on this fact, but perusal of the said
disclosure statements (Ext.47 & Ext.50) reveals the same to have been
recorded in Marathi and the Investigating Officer not having ever read
over or explained contents thereof to the appellant in his vernacular
language. As a result thereof, certainty is absent as to the correctness of
the statement as made and the statement, as recorded by the police.
44. A Constitution Bench of this Court, in Syed Qasim Razvi v.
State of Hyderabad3, in the following extract observed that when there
is a lack of understanding of the language of the Court, it causes prejudice
to the appellant. The bench observed:
“9. …There is no doubt that ordinary court proceedings in
Hyderabad are conducted in Urdu, but Urdu is certainly not the
spoken language of even the majority of the people within the
Hyderabad State. If the accused in a particular case is not
acquainted with the English language and if by reason of the
absence of adequate arrangements to have the proceedings
interpreted to him in the language he understands, he is prejudiced
in his trial, obviously it might be a ground which may be raised on
his behalf in an appeal against his conviction. But in our opinion
cannot be said that the provision in the Regulation relating to
proceeding being conducted in English if the tribunal so desires
per se violates the equal protection clause in the Constitution.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
45. In the case at hand, the aforementioned proposition of law is
squarely applicable. From a perusal of material on record, we find that
the Appellant did not know how to read and write in Marathi. This being
the position, this Court has highlighted the importance of the appellant
being able to understand the case of the prosecution against him. Inability
to do so, by virtue of a language barrier causes prejudice to the case of
the appellant. There is nothing on record to show that it was not practicable
to record evidence of the appellant as well as others, whose vernacular
was not Marathi, but Hindi. The original testimony, from which the text,
tenor and true import of their testimony may be gauged, is not part of the
3 1953 SCR 589
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
169
record. Therefore, it is apparent that statutory safeguards in reference
to language have not been complied with, causing prejudice to the appellant
in terms of Syed Qasim Rizvi (supra). Here only taking note of the
decision of this Court rendered in Siju Kurian v. State of Karnataka
2023 SCC OnLine 429, we clarify the said decision to have been
taken, given the attending facts where the appellant was provided with
the assistance of interpreter and his disclosure statement leading to
discovery of a fact, unlike the instant case not linking the recovery to the
appellant with the crime.
46. Further, PW 1 has stated that the key of the room, after
effecting recovery on 16.6.2010, was given to the “room partner of the
accused”. Who is this room partner? Was he examined? Was he aware
of the clothes being hidden? Did he hide the clothes? Was his complicity
in the crime ruled out? Are all questions left to be guessed. Such room
partner remains unexamined and his complicity and role in the crime not
explored.
47. Version of the Investigating Officer, that it was PW 12 who
locked the room, does not inspire confidence. The witness does not
remember having placed on record any document indicating that the
lock was labelled and sealed for the search being conducted at the first
instance. It may be noted that in the memos as well, he admits not to
have mentioned where exactly the appellant had kept clothes in the room.
48. On the issue of first disclosure statement
Ext.47, we find the
version of PW 13 to be materially contradicted by the Panch witness
PW 7, who, in no uncertain terms and unrefutedly, has deposed that
“Devraj asked me that the clothes were hidden in the appellant’s house
and as to whether I was ready to act as a panch.” (here PW 13 – the
Investigating Officer is referred to as Devraj). This totally shatters the
prosecution case on the point of recovery pursuant to the alleged
disclosure statement.
49. Even on the point of recovery of the nicker of the prosecutrix
there is contradiction with regard to its place and numbers. We notice
that the dead body was recovered in the presence of two independent
witnesses, namely, PW 9 and PW 10. Significantly, PW 9 states that on
12.6.2010 the dead body of the prosecutrix was recovered from the nala
and that “one nicker was lying on a tin shade. One blood smeared banian
was lying on the roof”. He further adds that after recovery, the dead
body was brought home. “She was raped” (here reference is of the
PRAKASH NISHAD @ KEWAT ZINAK NISHAD v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA [SANJAY KAROL, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
170
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 8 S.C.R.
prosecutrix) and that “blood had come out from the private part of the
girl”. He does not state that tin shade was that of the house of the
appellant. However, PW 1 has deposed that “The knicker of my daughter
was found on the roof of the accused.” But this is in complete
contradiction to the statement of PW 13 who stated that the nicker and
the banian were recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement of the
appellant. On this issue, further contradiction emerges through the
testimony of PW 10 who states that “there were no clothes on her
person” but in the very next breath adds that “she had worn underwear
on her person”, and also that “he had not seen the body of the deceased
girl”. Also, PW 10 states that he cannot read or write in Marathi and
that he affixed his signatures on Ext.43 at the police station which is in
Marathi. Hence, what is the truth and whom to believe is difficult to
infer from the record.
Circumstance of Scientific Examination, in particular DNA
Report of the Scientific Officer
50. We may examine the case from yet another angle and that
being, as to whether, even if the recovery on the search conducted on
13.6.2010, 16.6.2010 and 17.6.2010 is believed to be so, either on the
basis of information obtained from the police during investigation or as a
consequence of statement made by the appellant or any other material
obtained by the police during the course of investigation, the same stands
linked to the appellant or not.
51. We find on this count the prosecution has not sufficiently proven
the case. This is for two reasons : (1) If the alleged house of the appellant
was thoroughly searched on 13.6.2010, as is evident from memo Ext.35
and recovery memo Ext.36, then the question of recovery of articles on
16.6.2010 should not arise. The house is nothing but a small room of 8.5
feet x 6.5. feet (out of which a bathroom was 2.5 feet x 2.5 feet), as is
evident from Ext.35. The police party in the absence of appellant had
microscopically scanned the said room, and yet could not find any material
allegedly recovered on 16.6.2010 vide memo Ext.48; (2) Even the
recovered articles, be it of the search conducted on 13.6.2010, 16.6.2010
and 17.6.2010, do not sufficiently link the appellant to the crime. For
elaboration, we extract herein in a tabular form, the articles recovered,
numbered, accepted and the scientific evaluation thereof.

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
171
PRAKASH NISHAD @ KEWAT ZINAK NISHAD v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA [SANJAY KAROL, J.]

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
172
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 8 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
173
52. From the aforesaid chart, it is evident that no blood of the
appellant was found on any one of the articles recovered by the police.
Only stains of semen were found on the nicker (brown) belonging to the
prosecutrix and her vaginal swabs.
53. To establish clinching evidence against the appellant, the
prosecution seeks reliance on communication dated 16.6.2010 whereby
PW 13 sent certain articles for analysis to the Director, Forensic
Laboratory, Maharashtra. In terms of the aforesaid, the articles, be that
of the appellant or that of the prosecutrix recovered on 12th, 13th and
14th of June, 2010, are as follows :
PRAKASH NISHAD @ KEWAT ZINAK NISHAD v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA [SANJAY KAROL, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
174
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 8 S.C.R.
54. Perusal of these documents reveals that samples of the blood
and semen of the appellant were sent for forensic analysis. Importantly
though, there is nothing on record to establish as to who took such
samples, on what date, on how many occasions and why were they not
sent all at once, we notice that none of the police officials have testified
to the formalities of keeping the samples safe and secure being complied
with.
55. The first alleged blood sample of the appellant collected on
14.6.2010 was sent for analysis vide communication dated 16.6.2010
(Ext.60). The second alleged blood sample of the appellant taken on
20.7.2010 was sent the very same day vide communication (Ext.72).
56. There is only one document (Ext.79) on record, indicating the
appellant to have been medically examined. But even this document
does not reveal sample of the body part being drawn. In any event, the
doctor who conducted such examination, has not stepped into the witness
box to testify the correctness of the contents thereof. Also the document
itself is uninspiring confidence as we notice certain interpolations therein
and in a different hand. Additionally, the document does not fall true to
the statutory requirements imposed under Section 53A Cr.P.C.
57. This Court in Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana4
(two-Judge), observed the necessity of compliance with Section 53A,
4 (2011) 7 SCC 130
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
175
which later on was clarified in Rajendra Prahladrao Wasnik v. State
of Maharashtra5 (three-Judges) that the said provision is not mandatory
in nature. It was observed that it only requires a positive call to be taken
in respect of the need to follow the provision or not. The bench held-
“49…There must be reasonable grounds for believing that the
examination of a person will afford evidence as to the commission
of an offence of rape or an attempt to commit rape. If reasonable
grounds exist, then a medical examination as postulated by Section
53-A(2) CrPC must be conducted and that includes examination
of the accused and description of material taken from the person
of the accused for DNA profiling…”
(Emphasis Supplied)
58. Here, a child of the tender age of six was assaulted brutally
and killed. The appellant was arrested on suspicion of having committed
the crime. The police proceeded in accordance therewith and were
supposed to have made discoveries as per the statements made by the
appellant in custody, then in what manner can it be said that, at the time
when such a positive call was required to be made by the authorities,
reasonable grounds did not exist for the compliance with Section 53A to
be a must? This, in the view of this Court is a glaring lapse in the
investigation of this crime, for a six-year-old child was sexually assaulted
on both of the private parts of her body. Medical examination of the
appellant would have resulted into ascertainment
of such assault.
59. As has been hitherto observed, there is no clarity of who took
the samples of the appellant. In any event, record reveals that one set of
samples taken on 14.6.2010 were sent for chemical analysis on 16.6.2010
and the second sample taken, a month later on 20.7.2010 is sent the very
same day. Why there exist these differing degrees of promptitude in
respect of similar, if not the same- natured scientific evidence, is
unexplained.
60. We may observe that the Maharashtra Police Manual6, when
speaking of the integrity of scientific evidence in Appendix XXIV states-
“The integrity of exhibits and control samples must be safeguarded
from the moment of seizure upto the completion of examination in
the laboratory. This is best done by immediately packing, sealing
5 (2019) 12 SCC 460
6 Available here-https://www.mahapolice.gov.in/uploads/acts_rules/
MumbaiPoliceManualPartIII.pdf
PRAKASH NISHAD @ KEWAT ZINAK NISHAD v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA [SANJAY KAROL, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
176
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 8 S.C.R.
and labeling and to prove the continuity of the integrity of the
samples, the messenger or bearer will have to testify in Court that
what he had received was sealed and delivered in the same
condition in the laboratory. The laboratory must certify that they
have compared the seals and found them to be correct. Articles
should always be kept apart from one another after packing them
separately and contact be scrupulously avoided in transport also.”
61. In the present case, the delay in sending the samples is
unexplained and therefore, the possibility of contamination and the
concomitant prospect of diminishment in value cannot be reasonably
ruled out. On the need for expedition in ensuring that samples when
collected are sent to the concerned laboratory as soon as possible, we
may refer to “Guidelines for collection, storage and transportation of
Crime Scene DNA samples For Investigating Officers- Central Forensic
Science Laboratory Directorate Of Forensic Sciences Services Ministry
Of Home Affairs, Govt. of India”7 which in particular reference to blood
and semen, irrespective of its form, i.e. liquid or dry (crust/stain or spatter)
records the sample so taken “Must be submitted in the laboratory without
any delay.”
62. The document also lays emphasis on the ‘chain of custody’
being maintained. Chain of custody implies that right from the time of
taking of the sample, to the time its role in the investigation and
processes
subsequent, is complete, each person handling said piece of evidence
must duly be acknowledged in the documentation, so as to ensure that
the integrity is uncompromised. It is recommended that a document be
duly maintained cataloguing the custody. A chain of custody document
in other words is a document, “which should include name or initials of
the individual collecting the evidence, each person or entity subsequently
having custody of it, dated the items were collected or transferred, agency
and case number, victim’s or suspect’s name and the brief description of
the item.”
63. Indisputably, these “without any delay” and “chain of custody”
aspects which are indispensable to the vitality of such evidence, were
not complied with. In such a situation, this court cannot hold the DNA
Report Ext.85 to be so dependable as to send someone to the gallows on
this basis. We have carefully perused FSL as well as DNA report forming
part of the record. A snapshot of the said reports, in a tabulated format
is presented as under :
7 Available at- http://cfslchandigarh.gov.in/Uploads/Media/Original
20180627121024_IO-SOP%20Final.pdf

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
177
PRAKASH NISHAD @ KEWAT ZINAK NISHAD v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA [SANJAY KAROL, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
178
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 8 S.C.R.
 For ready reference the extract of the DNA analysis Ext. is
reproduced as under.
“Interpretation
1. The DNA profile of blood detected on ex16 Card board, ex 17
Blanket, ex 18 two pieces of tile, ex 20 Towel, ex 24 piece of
cloth from pillow, and blood detected on ex 1 knicker of victim
Sayunmbano M.A. Shaikh, ex 3 sandow baniyan of accused
Prakash Zinak Nishad of F.S.L.M.L. Case No. DNA 315/10 and
ex 1 blood sample of victim Sayunmbano M.A. Shaikh is identical
& from one and same source of female origin. DNA profiles
match with the maternal and paternal alleles in the source of blood.
2. The DNA profile of blood detected on ex 16 Card board, ex 17
Blanket, ex 18 two pieces of tile, ex 20 Towel, ex 24 piece of
cloth from pillow, ex1 blood sample of victim Sayunmbano M.A.
Shaikh and blood defected on ex 1 knicker of victim Sayunmbano
M.A. Shaikh, ex 3 sandow baniyan of accused Prakash Zinak
Nishad of F.S.L.M.L. Case No.DNA 315/10 and blood sample of
Prakash Zinak Nishad F.S.L.M.L. Case No. DNA 366/10 is from
one and same source. DNA profiles did not match with he
maternal and paternal alleles in the source of blood.
3. Control DNA profile of unknown person is obtained from ex 22
One hair.”
64. Even otherwise, on the value of DNA evidence, we may refer
to an observation made by this Court, in Pattu Rajan v. State of T.N.8,
as under;
“52. Like all other opinion evidence, the probative value accorded
to DNA evidence also
varies from case to case, depending on the
facts and circumstances and the weight accorded to other evidence
on record, whether contrary or corroborative. This is all the more
important to remember, given that even though the accuracy of
DNA evidence may be increasing with the advancement of science
and technology with every passing day, thereby making it more
and more reliable, we have not yet reached a juncture where it
may be said to be infallible. Thus, it cannot be said that the absence
of DNA evidence would lead to an adverse inference against a
8 (2019) 4 SCC 771
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
179
party, especially in the presence of other cogent and reliable
evidence on record in favour of such party.”
(Emphasis supplied)
65. Referring to the above case, a three-Judge bench in Manoj v.
State of M.P.9, through S. Ravindra Bhat J., observed;
“158. This Court, therefore, has relied on DNA reports, in the
past, where the guilt of an accused was sought to be established.
Notably, the reliance was to corroborate. This Court highlighted
the need to ensure quality in the testing and eliminate the possibility
of contamination of evidence; it also held that being an opinion,
the probative value of such evidence has to vary from case to
case.”
66. In the present case, even though, the DNA evidence by way
of a report was present, its reliability is not infallible, especially not so in
light of the fact that the uncompromised nature of such evidence cannot
be established; and other that cogent evidence as can be seen from our
discussion above, is absent almost in its entirety.
67. Unfortunately, the courts below did not go into all the aforesaid
aspects and presumptuously assumed the guilt of the appellant and held
him to have committed the crime.
68. What prevailed upon the courts below, it appears, was the
testimony of the doctor PW 4 - Dr. Anjali Pimple, who conducted the
post-mortem and, “the clinching medical evidence” and “clinching DNA
report”. It is on the basis of the said medical evidence that the courts,
without recording any findings with regard to
the circumstances being
unrefuted, convicted the appellant despite there being contradictions,
material in nature, belying the prosecution case and the veracity of the
statement of witnesses, so also impeaching their credibility.
69. Further, what weighed with the courts below is more so evident
from the findings returned by the High Court, i.e., nature of the alleged
crime being indeed one of the heart-breaking, horrific and most depraved
kind, prompting the confirmation of the death sentence awarded by the
Trial Court, considering the case to be the rarest of rare.
70. It is true that the unfortunate incident did take place, and the
prosecutrix sustained multiple injuries on her body and surely must have
9 (2023) 2 SCC 353
PRAKASH NISHAD @ KEWAT ZINAK NISHAD v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA [SANJAY KAROL, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
180
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 8 S.C.R.
suffered great pain, agony, and trauma. At the tender age of 6, a life for
which much was in store in the future was terrifyingly destroyed and
extinguished. The parents of the prosecutrix suffered an unfathomable
loss; a wound for which there is no remedy.
71. Despite such painful realities being part of this case, we cannot
hold within law, the prosecution to have undergone all necessary lengths
and efforts to take the steps necessary for driving home the guilt of the
appellant and that of none else in the crime.
72. There are, in fact, yawning gaps in the chain of circumstances
rendering it far from being established- pointing to the guilt of the
appellant.
73. As already pointed out, there are several irregularities and
illegalities on the part of the agencies examining the case.
74. The questions raised in the instant appeals are answered
accordingly.
75. Before parting with the matter, we must take note of the manner
in which the investigation into this dastardly crime was undertaken.
Numerous lapses blot the entire map. We have already pointed out multiple
instances which have led to the chain of circumstances remaining broken,
the larger picture emerging therefrom being that the person, whomsoever
they may have been, remains unpunished to this day.
76. Both the crimes committed against the innocent six-year-old
child, are unquestionably, malum in se i.e., evil and wrong on their own,
without the prohibition of
law making it so. This fact, coupled with the
duty upon the investigating authorities not only to protect the citizens of
the country, but also ensure fair and proper investigations into crimes
affecting the society, as in the present case, casts upon such authorities,
in the considered view of this Court, not only legal, but also a moral duty
to take all possible steps within the letter of the law to bring the doers of
such acts to the book.
77. In the instant case, the reasons why the investigation officers
were changed time and again from PW 6 to PW 12 and then to PW 13,
is surprising and unexplained. As we have already pointed out, no reason
stands given for having decided that there was no need to comply with
the provisions of Section 53A, Cr.P.C.; there is unexplained delay in
sending the samples collected for analysis; a premises already searched
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
181
was searched again, the reason for which is not borne from record; lock
panchnama is not prepared; no samples of blood and semen of the
appellant can be said to have been drawn by any medical or para medical
staff; allegedly an additional sample is taken from the appellant more
than a month after the arrest; alleged disclosure statement of the appellant
was never read over and explained to the appellant in his vernacular
language; the appellant was not residing alone at the place alleged to be
his residence; and what was the basis of appellant being a suspect at the
first instance, remains a mystery; persons who may have shed light on
essential aspects- Ganesh Bheema and Munna Saroj went unexamined
etc., such multitudinous lapses have compromised the quest to punish
the doer of such a barbaric act in absolute peril.
78. The charges mentioned above, although serious and grievous
in nature, cannot be said to have been met against the present appellant.
The factum of the commission of the crime against the six-year-old
innocent child is not in dispute and cannot be deprecated enough even in
the most severe terms. However, as the above discussion has laid out
clearly, the circumstances forming the chain of commission of this crime
cannot and do not point conclusively to the appellant in a manner that he
may be punished for the same much less, with the sentence of being put
to death.
79. In view of the above the charges levied on the appellant stand
not
proved.
80. This court, recently, in Maghavendra Pratap Singh @Pankaj
Singh v. State of Chattisgarh10 had emphasised the role and
responsibilities of the investigating authorities by referring to various
judgments of this Court. Such principles, which are essential to successful
investigations, were not adhered to. Needless to state, such responsibilities
would be all the more heightened in cases of crimes involving severe
punishments such as imprisonment for life or the sentence of death.
Considering the nature of the case, the police ought to have, even more
than usual, taken steps, precautions, and decisions to safeguard the fact-
finding and investigation exercise.
81. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. Ex-consequenti,
the judgment dated 27.11.2014 in Sessions Case No.407/2010, passed
by District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Thane as affirmed
10 2023 SCC OnLine SC 486
PRAKASH NISHAD @ KEWAT ZINAK NISHAD v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA [SANJAY KAROL, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
182
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 8 S.C.R.
by the High Court vide judgment dated 13th & 14th October, 2015 in
Confirmation Case No.4/2014 titled as State of Maharashtra v. Prakash
Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad and Criminal Appeal No.88/2015 titled
as Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad Vs. State of Maharashtra,
respectively, convicting the appellant under Sections 302, 376, 377 and
201 IPC and sentencing him to death and life imprisonment and other
punishments described above, are quashed and set aside.
82. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any
other case. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
Divya Pandey
Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Shevali Monga, LCRA)