The High Court of Chhattisgarh has upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of an appellant for the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl, observing that scientific evidence in the form of DNA profiling and cogent medical reports can serve as a conclusive basis for conviction even in cases where the “last seen” theory is not firmly established.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal delivered the judgment in a criminal appeal filed by Bablu Kalmoom against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), South Bastar Dantewada. The court affirmed the appellant’s guilt under Sections 302 and 376(AB) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Background of the Case
The prosecution’s case originated on January 13, 2020, when a minor girl went missing after heading toward a market. According to the grandmother (PW-08), the accused had assured her that he would accompany the child and bring her back safely. However, the child did not return, and her dead body was later recovered. Relatives identified the victim based on her school uniform and undergarments. Following an investigation involving spot inspections, seizures of biological samples, and a DNA test, the appellant was charged and subsequently convicted by the Trial Court on December 22, 2022.
Arguments of the Parties
The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, contended that the conviction was unsustainable as it rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. He argued that the prosecution failed to establish a “complete chain of circumstances” and that relying solely on the DNA profiling report was “unsafe and insufficient” without independent corroboration. He further emphasized that the appellant was a tribal, illiterate person who had been falsely implicated.
In opposition, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State, argued that the chain of circumstances was indeed unbroken. He highlighted the “last seen” testimony of the grandmother and asserted that the DNA report conclusively matched the biological material found on the victim with the appellant’s profile. He maintained that the medical evidence proved a homicidal death resulting from sexual assault.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court structured its analysis around two primary points: the determination of the victim’s age and the culpability of the appellant.
Determination of Age
Applying the principles laid down in Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2013) and Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, the Court examined the Anganwadi records (Ex.P/15C). The Court noted that the victim’s date of birth was recorded as March 6, 2010, making her approximately 9 years and 10 months old at the time of the incident. The Bench observed:
“Entries made in official records maintained in due course of duty carry a presumption of correctness unless rebutted by cogent evidence.”
Circumstantial and Scientific Evidence
While the Court noted that many witnesses turned hostile, weakening the “last seen” theory, it found other links in the chain to be “sterling.”
- DNA Profiling: The Bench identified the DNA report as the “most crucial and determinative piece of evidence.” It matched the appellant’s DNA with samples taken from the victim’s vaginal swabs. The Court remarked:
“The matching of DNA profiles is a highly reliable form of scientific evidence, which, when properly collected and analyzed, provides near-conclusive proof of the involvement of an individual.” - Medical Evidence: The post-mortem report (Ex.P/29) confirmed the cause of death as asphyxia due to strangulation and established the nature of death as homicidal. It further recorded injuries consistent with forcible sexual assault.
- Extra-Judicial Confession: The Court found the testimony of PW-18, who claimed the appellant confessed before villagers, to be voluntary and trustworthy.
- Identification: The identification of the body by relatives was found to be reliable and supported by photographic evidence.
Regarding the standard of proof in circumstantial cases, the Court referred to the “five golden principles” (Panchsheel) from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984), concluding that the cumulative effect of the established facts excluded every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.
Decision of the Court
The High Court concluded that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Bench held that the scientific evidence lent a “decisive and clinching link” that compensated for the failure to firmly establish the “last seen” circumstance.
The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence of imprisonment for life till natural death.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Bablu Kalmoom vs. State of Chhattisgarh
- Case Number: CRA No. 614 of 2023
- Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
- Date: April 9, 2026
