Forensic and Electronic Evidence Fails to Establish Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt; Convictions Under IPC Sections 376(2)(l) and 376-D Overturned
In a significant judgment delivered by the Uttarakhand High Court, the convictions of Mool Chandra @ Moola and Bhup Singh @ Bhupali in a high-profile sexual assault case were overturned due to insufficient forensic and electronic evidence. The bench, comprising Justices Ravindra Maithani and Ashish Naithani, ruled on the appeals filed against the convictions handed down by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani.
The appellants were initially convicted under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(l), and 376-D of the Indian Penal Code, following the abduction and alleged sexual assault of a young girl with intellectual disabilities. However, the High Court found that the evidence presented during the trial did not meet the requisite standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly concerning the sexual assault charges.
The court highlighted significant gaps in the forensic evidence, noting an incomplete chain of custody which undermined the reliability of the scientific analysis. The DNA evidence, which was crucial in linking the accused to the alleged crime, failed to conclusively establish the involvement of either appellant in the act of sexual assault. The court emphasized that suspicion or circumstantial evidence could not substitute for conclusive proof, especially in the absence of definitive forensic corroboration.
While Bhup Singh was acquitted of all charges due to the lack of substantive evidence linking him to the crime, Mool Chandra's conviction for kidnapping under Section 363 IPC was upheld. The court noted that the evidence, including CCTV footage and witness testimony, established that he had taken the victim away from her lawful guardian without consent. However, his convictions under Sections 376(2)(l) and 376-D were overturned due to the absence of any forensic evidence implicating him in the sexual assault.
The judgment also addressed issues related to electronic evidence, particularly the admissibility of CCTV footage. The court found that the footage, admitted without objection and accompanied by a Section 65-B certificate, did not conclusively establish the accused's participation in the assault but did corroborate their proximity to the victim.
The court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to strict evidentiary standards in criminal cases, particularly those involving serious charges such as sexual assault. The judgment emphasizes the necessity for a complete and verified chain of custody for forensic exhibits and highlights the role of corroborative evidence in securing convictions.
This ruling is a reminder of the judiciary's critical role in safeguarding the rights of the accused while ensuring justice for victims, reinforcing the principle that convictions must be based on clear and convincing evidence.
Bottom Line:
Conviction for sexual assault requires conclusive proof. Suspicion or circumstantial evidence, such as association or proximity, cannot substitute for scientific or forensic corroboration, especially when the chain of custody of forensic exhibits is incomplete or unverified.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code Sections 363, 366A, 376(2)(l), 376D; Evidence Act, 1872 Section 65B
Mool Chandra @ Moola v. State of Uttarakhand, (Uttarakhand)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2853567
