The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently set aside the conviction of a man accused of raping and murdering his stepmother and ordered an inquiry against the investigating officer who 'slept over forensic reports'. [Habu vs The State of Madhya Pradesh] .After finding that hair found in the hand of the deceased and the hair of the appellant were not referred to the DNA unit for identification, a bench of Justices Subodh Abhyankar and Satyendra Kumar Singh, based on the Supreme Court's decision in Tomaso Bruno and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh held that appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt."A bare perusal of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court clearly reveals that in a case where the prosecution has the best evidence available with them, but deliberately withholds the same and does not produce, its benefit has to be given to the accused," it said..The Court was hearing an appeal by a man against his conviction by the trial court which found him guilty of raping and murdering his stepmother. The man had spent 10 years in jail.The appellant's counsel, Anurag Vyas, argued that the appellant was falsely accused in the case and that, despite the fact that it was a matter of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution was unable to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.He further claimed that there was no forensic evidence linking the appellant to the crime. He reminded the court that despite the fact that the deceased was discovered with hair in her palm, the prosecution failed to submit any DNA analysis linking the hair to the appellant.He also claimed that there were important omissions and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the majority of whom did not support the prosecution's case and prayed that the appellant be acquitted.On the other hand, Government Advocate Amit Singh Sisodia opposed the prayer for acquittal..After hearing both parties, the Court stated that the only evidence available was the word of a witness who had seen the appellant and the deceased together about 13 hours before the deceased's body was discovered in a field.It further stated that despite a forensic report urging that the deceased's hair and the appellant's hair be referred to the DNA unit for identification, the prosecution took no such steps."So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, we have already discussed that the prosecution has relied upon the last seen together evidence, despite having one of the best evidences which could be made available in these modern times to a prosecution agency i.e. the hairs in the hands of the deceased, which could have been very well matched with the hairs of the appellant through DNA profiling. But for reasons best known to the prosecutions, it has not proceeded with this crucial DNA Testing of the hairs," the Court said. It also found that the slides of the deceased’s vagina also had human spermatozoa, but again, the prosecution did not try to match the DNA of the spermatozoa with that of the appellant..Regarding the 'last seen together' theory, the Court said that it did not inspire confidence as the appellant and deceased were last seen together about 13 hours before the body of the deceased was foundTherefore, since no material connected the appellant with the crime, the Court allowed the appellant's appeal..The Court before concluding its judgment, expressed its displeasure in the manner that the investigating agency had dealt with the case. It said that the investigating officer had 'slept over the forensic reports'."It is inconceivable that after recovering hairs of an accused from the hands of the deceased, and despite a specific observation by the Scientific officer that DNA is necessary for the confirmation of the matching the hairs seized and that of the appellant, no efforts were made by the investigating officer to get the DNA profiling done which has led to sheer injustice, not only to the appellant but also to the deceased whose culprit has never been caught or has walked free today by the order of this court," it stated.Such negligent approach of an investigating officer was not acceptable, the Court said directing the State to initiate an inquiry into the matter and proceed against the responsible officers who were guilty of dereliction of duty..[Read Judgment]
