Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The prosecution alleged that on 17.09.1993, a police team was again sent to Tamil Nadu under PW-26. On 21.09.1993, Murugan was arrested from the house of his father-in- law and the Rolex watch which he was wearing was seized and kept under seal by memo Ex.PW-2/B. Murugan made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-2/A and led the police to Ramnath Puram where Veeran used to live. Veeran was wearing a gold chain which was seized. He made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-2/C, further to which, two stolen gold rings, hidden in his house were seized and taken into possession. The prosecution alleged that specimen foot prints of all the three accused were taken after their arrest. The foot prints and negatives of the chance foot prints found at the spot were sent to the Finger Prints Bureau, Jaipur. PW-14 Iqbal Ahmed prepared an enlarged photograph of the chance footprint and compared it with the specimen footprint of the three accused. His opinion was that the chance footprints matched with that of the appellant Karuppan.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant Karuppan, Mr. Manu Sharma argued that even though Karuppan was allegedly arrested on 02.08.1993, there was no reason why he ought to have been in possession of Omax wrist watch as was alleged and found against him. The sheer improbability of a criminal successfully stealing the valuables from the deceased person's premises and flaunting it openly itself undermines the prosecution's story. It was further argued that the other vital circumstance relied upon by the Trial Court to convict Karuppan was the alleged chance footprint found in the premises. In this regard, it was emphasized that the photograph of the said chance footprints though allegedly taken by PW- 22 was not deposited in the Malkhana till 07.09.1993 when the negatives were deposited. It was submitted that PW-22 as well as the police witnesses PW-24 & 26 had deposed that the photographs were taken on 28.07.1993. The prints and negatives therefore, were always in the possession of the police as also the specimen prints which were taken at the time of the arrest - Ex.PW-14/B1 to PW-14/B-4. In other words, submitted the learned counsel, the most damaging piece of evidence implicating Karuppan was in the form of the photograph of a chance footprint. The prints of the photographs and negatives continued to be in the possession of the police even on the date when the alleged specimen footprints were taken after the arrest of Karuppan. In these circumstances, there was a strong possibility of manipulation and planting of evidence.

12. Elaborating on this aspect, it was argued next that there is no evidence on the point that the footprints of other accused/appellants were ever taken when they were arrested. The depositions of PW-3 & 4 are relied upon to say that they had arrested the accused but were silent on this aspect. As far as the appellant Karuppan's print is concerned, though PW-26 says that the prints were taken at P.S. Janak Puri by PW-24 O.P. Yadav, the latter does not corroborate this version. The other circumstance characterized suspicious by learned counsel was that PW-14's deposition that the forwarding letter - seeking opinion on the footprints - was signed by the DCP and dated 21.09.1993. This conflicted with the version of the SI K.P. Singh PW-27, who stated that all prints were taken on 29.9.1993. Learned counsel also relied upon the copy of the forwarding letter which referred to the DCP's letter enclosing the Crl.A. Nos.16, 107, 187/1998 Page 5 specimen footprints of all the three accused dated 21.09.1993. It was submitted that this was impossible because Murugan and Veeran were arrested in Tamil Nadu on 21.09.1993 and the letter enclosing their specimen footprints could never have been possibly referred for opinion the same day. It was argued that the witness PW-14 who mentioned that the specimen footprint tallied with that of the chance footprints could not be believed for more than one reason. In this regard, it was pointed out that the opinion PW-14/A merely lists out the physical features of the foot and fingers without detailing the distinctive and unique prints observed from the specimen forwarded for opinion. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment reported as Mahmood v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1976 (1) SCC 542 and Roop Singh v. State of Punjab, 2008 (11) SCC 79, to say that the Courts cannot rely upon experts' opinion to convict an accused when other evidence does not support the prosecution version.

20. It would therefore, be clear that expert opinion has to be unambiguous, and inspire confidence in the court. Apart from the lack of certain crucial details about the unique features in the two footprints, there is another significant aspect which the court has to carefully consider on this aspect. It is that concededly negatives of the photographs (of the footprints) were not deposited in the malkhana, till after the arrest of the Appellant Karuppan, and after specimen footprint samples were obtained from him. This, in this court's opinion is a serious infirmity in the prosecution case, because in a circumstantial evidence based case - such as the present one, - where the incident was not witnessed by anyone, and where there is no "last seen" evidence, the court has to be doubly sure that there is no missing link in the chain (of circumstances) which has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution was unable to furnish any explanation why the negatives of the photographs of the footprints were deposited later, much after Karuppan's arrest, and admittedly after his specimen footprint had been taken.