Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. A hair was detected by Akhilesh Bhargav, Senior Scientific Officer (P.W.19) at the time of spot inspection as is mentioned in his report (Ex.P/33), which was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/8).

16. As per the forensic report (Ex.P/53), the DNA profile of the hair seized from the hands of the deceased -Ex.C (B/R- 5962) and the DNA profile obtained from the blood sample of the accused - Ex.A (B/R-5960) and DNA profile obtained from nails of the accused -Ex.H (B/R-5967) was found to be matching from the DNA profile obtained from the seized underwear T-Shirt and paint of the accused Jitendra Kushwah, which were marked respectively as Ex.G (B/R 5966). It was pointed out that Y Chromosome STR DNA Profile available on viscera of the deceased and that on the clothes of the accused were similar. Similarly, it was observed that STR DNA Profile of male Autosomal obtained from Ex.C (B/R-5962) was similar to Autosomal STR DNA profile obtained from blood source Ex.A (B/R-5960) and Ex.H (B/R-5967) i.e. seized nails of accused.

(c) Motilal Yadav vs. State of Bihar, (2015) 2 SCC 647 etc. Placing reliance on such judgments, it is submitted that when 36 CRRFC-08/2018 & CR.A.5950/2018 there is corroborative evidence and CCTV footage is available, then identification of the accused cannot be faulted inasmuch as there was resemblance in the CCTV footage and the actual physical appearance of the accused through video conferencing.

59. It is also pointed out that Dr. J.P.Goyal (PW-16) tested the accused to be physically and mentally capable of performing sexual intercourse. Scratch marks behind the elbow and another on the backside of right elbow of the accused were found. Dr. Sarthak Juglan (PW-17) had found injuries on the private parts of the deceased and there were overall 19 injuries on the whole body of the victim. He had opined that all injuries are sufficient to cause death individually in the normal course. He further opined that the main cause of death was due to injuries on the face, neck, smothering and throttling. He noted that death of the victim was in the category of murder and there was incidence of physical, forceful and penetrative sexual assault on the body of the deceased. It is pointed out that DNA reports obtained from the samples of the accused did match with the DNA profile of the hair seized from the hand of the deceased (Ex.P/53). Similarly, DNA profile of the accused obtained from his hair sample and blood sample matched with the spots found over the frock, vest, undergarments, vaginal slide and swab, anal slide and swab obtained from the deceased vide (Ex.P/52) and it is submitted that DNA finger printing itself has sufficiently proved the involvement of the accused and even if all other sources of evidence are discarded, then DNA report is sufficient to hold accused guilty of offence. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanti Devi and others v. Poshi Ram as reported in (2001) 5 SCC 311. Reliance 37 CRRFC-08/2018 & CR.A.5950/2018 has also been placed on the judgment in the case of Pantangi Balarama Venkata Ganesh and others Vs. State of A.P. and others as reported in (2009) 14 SCC 607 wherein in para 46 Supreme Court has held as under :-

67. In fact, Dr. Rahul Yadav (PW-18), from whose residence such recording was downloaded by Akash Sharma (PW-8) and Pratnesh Aathale (PW-9), denied suggestion that he had tampered with the hard disk between 21.6.18 to 23.6.18 though hard disk was not seized till 23.6.18.

68. As far as identification of the accused is concerned, accused in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has admitted that he was taken for sexual potency examination and he had given consent for such examination while answering question Nos.225 and 226. Similarly, while giving reply to question No.450 that Dr. Sudha Iyangar had taken his blood sample and and it was seized from Sudha Iyangar and on such seizure memo (Ex.P/14) he had put his signatures from 'B' to 'B' part, he answered in affirmative. Similarly, he admitted that seizure memo (Ex.P/44) contains his signatures while answering question No.451 and also admitted that search Panchnama of his house Ex.P/49 was prepared which contains his signatures from 44 CRRFC-08/2018 & CR.A.5950/2018 'A' to 'A' part while giving reply to question No.452 and further admitted while replying to question No.453 that in spot Panchnama (Ex.P/45) his signatures are there from 'C' to 'C' part. It is also important that while giving his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the accused had taken a plea while answering question No.106 that Balveersingh Kaurav (PW-7) had seized his blood sample in front of Dr. Sudha Iyangar. Similarly, in answer to question No.331 accused admitted seizure of brown (Katthai) coloured T-shirt and a navy blue coloured underwear. Further in reply to question No.104 when he was asked that he is the same person who has been shown in the CCTV recording of Dr. Rahul Yadav taking the girl in night, accused denied this and submitted that on that day he had gone to Dabra, but there is no attempt on the part of the accused to substantiate this alibi of not being present on the fateful day and being away to Dabra. In reply to question No.482 as to why prosecution witnesses are deposing against him, he admitted that police had caught hold of him, got his medical conducted, his blood sample was obtained, but he is not aware as to why they are deposing against him, then stated that he is putting up a cart of snow balls and since police personnel asked for money and he has refused to give money, therefore, he has been falsely accused. When he was asked whether he wants to give any evidence in defence, he refused to give any evidence in defence. This chronology of events and the FSL report on DNA finger printing vide Ex.P/52 and Ex.P/53, wherein it has been categorically reported that features of DNA strains of the accused matched with the material seized from the scene of crime, namely hair, stains on the clothes of the deceased, so also vaginal and anal slides and swabs prepared 45 CRRFC-08/2018 & CR.A.5950/2018 from the victim matched with DNA profile of the accused and there is no effective cross-examination on Babulal Yadav (PW-29) IO of the case or Dr. Anil Singh (PW-31) Scientific Officer and Assistant Chemical Examiner, Govt. of M.P. State Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, to belie such reports, when such reports categorically point out that male Y chromosome obtained from the underwear of the victim, Ex.B, has same STR DNA profile as obtained from source of the accused Ex.A, DNA profile of male Y Chromosome obtained from Ex.D, E and F, namely frock, vest (Baniyan), vaginal slide and swab and anal slide and swab respectively, matched from Y chromosome STR DNA profile obtained from source Ex.A of the accused and the hair which was seized from the hands of the deceased Ex.C contains same DNA profile as was available in the source material obtained from the accused namely Ex.A and it was also found that seized underwear, T-shirt, pant (Ex.G) contain similar female DNA profile as was obtained from the source of the deceased, namely B/R 6197 on the basis of which Dr. Anil Singh (PW-31) opined that deceased was subjected to vaginal and anal sex, and there is no substantial or relevant cross-examination of this vital witness of prosecution Dr. Anil Singh (PW-31), the plea of learned counsel for the accused that accused has been falsely implicated to save somebody else, who is a close relative of the family of the complainant, is not borne out. In a case of this dimension what is to be seen is that whether chain of circumstances is complete or not. It is not in dispute that the girl as has been shown in CCTV footage following a person is daughter of the complainant Radhakrishan Yadav (PW-1) and Smt. Vandana Yadav (PW-2). It is also not in dispute that they had rightly identified their daughter 46 CRRFC-08/2018 & CR.A.5950/2018 who was found dead in the bushes. There is virtual evidence of accused taking the girl from the said community hall on the road leading towards the small hillocks where dead-body was found. There is also virtual evidence of CCTV footage showing accused coming alone from the said path, then first requirement of last seen is proved beyond doubt and when this evidence of last seen is connected with the FSL report, chain of events gets completed. At this point of time, arguments advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the accused/appellant that he has not been properly identified and no TIP was carried out is concerned, there is no eye-witness to the incident. There is evidence in the form of CCTV footage where family members have seen their daughter being escorted by the accused. Now the same person whose image has been seen on CCTV footage has been identified through video conferencing. Therefore, failure to not keep the accused present neither caused any hindrance on account of there being no TIP prior to video conferencing nor it can be said that it caused any hindrance to the counsel from seeking instructions. In fact, in the light of the law laid down in the case of Sonu (supra) when counsel never objected to this fact that he has been put to a handicap due to absence of the accused, such plea is not permissible at the appellate stage. In fact, in the case of Balbir (supra) the ratio of law is that since witnesses do not have sufficient opportunity to see the faces of the accused, then failure to hold TIP is a serious lapse, but in the present case, nobody had physically seen the accused. He was viewed virtually on CCTV footage and identified virtually through video conferencing. As has been discussed earlier, the identity of the daughter and the person carrying her is important. Accused has 47 CRRFC-08/2018 & CR.A.5950/2018 been identified as the same person who escorted the victim/deceased and who came back alone. Another argument that inconsistency leads to improbabilities and witnesses are related has been answered by Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Prabhudayal Vs. State of Rajasthan as reported in (2018) 8 SCC 127 wherein the ratio is that contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations or embellishments if minor in nature are not fatal to the case of the prosecution and they do not merit rejection of evidence as a whole. Court can separate truth from false statements in witnesses' testimony.

69. As far as contention of learned amicus curiae that appellant has been planted to save some actual culprit is concerned, as per the FSL report Ex.P/52, it is Ex.C, which is hair recovered from the spot from the fingers of the deceased and as per State Forensic Science Laboratory it was marked as B/R-5962. In fact, this hair was examined vide Ex.P/53 and the DNA profile of this hair, Ex.C, which was seized from the hands of the deceased, matched with the DNA profile obtained from the blood of the appellant, viz., Ex.A (B/R-5960) and the DNA profile obtained from the nails of the appellant, namely Ex.H (B/R-5967), therefore, it leaves no iota of doubt that sample which was obtained from the appellant and which appellant admitted to have given in his statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., matches with the DNA profile of the material i.e. hair which was seized from the hands of the deceased vide Ex.P/8. Further it was for the defence counsel to have pointed out that whom he was suspecting to be the real culprit as video footage was available to the defence counsel and he could have moved an appropriate application for DNA examination of such person but no such effort 48 CRRFC-08/2018 & CR.A.5950/2018 has been made during trial, nor there is any allegation that who has been replaced by the present appellant. In view of such material, on record, this Court holds that argument put forth by learned amicus curiae that appellant has been planted to save some actual culprit is not made out and it deserves to be and is rejected. Therefore, issues No.1 and 2 that accused has been falsely implicated have to be decided and are decided against the accused.