The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence of three men for the gang rape and murder of a woman in the Balod district, ruling that scientific evidence in the form of a DNA report can form the basis for sustaining a conviction even when eyewitnesses turn hostile.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal dismissed the criminal appeals filed by Kamalnarayan Sahu, Kamlesh Kumar Shrivas, and Uttam Kumar Rawate, affirming the judgment of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Balod. The Court held that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt through a complete chain of circumstantial evidence corroborated by forensic findings.
Factual Background
The case dates back to June 12, 2021, when the victim was found dead in her home in Village Kosmi, Police Station Doundilohara. According to the prosecution, the victim’s neighbor found her door locked from the inside and, upon peering through a gap, saw the victim lying motionless. After entering the house, witnesses discovered the victim’s body on a cot, with her hands tied behind her back and injuries on her face and neck.
The post-mortem examination conducted by Dr. Aditya Fating (PW-16) revealed that the cause of death was asphyxiation due to smothering, which was homicidal in nature. The medical examination also confirmed sexual assault, with injuries found on the victim’s private parts. A vaginal slide and swab were preserved for chemical analysis, which later confirmed the presence of human semen.
The police investigation revealed that the deceased had been in a relationship with the accused Kamalnarayan Sahu for several years. Based on suspicion and subsequent investigation, the police arrested Sahu along with Kamlesh Kumar Shrivas and Uttam Kumar Rawate. DNA profiling matched the semen found on the victim and biological material on a pillow recovered from the crime scene with the blood samples of the accused.
The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 450 (house-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for life), 376D (gang rape), and 302 (murder) read with Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life (remainder of natural life) for the offence of gang rape and life imprisonment for murder.
Arguments Before the Court
Senior Advocate Fouzia Mirza, appearing for appellant Kamalnarayan Sahu, and Advocate Ashok Kumar Swarnakar, appearing for the other appellants, argued that the conviction was based solely on circumstantial evidence as there were no eyewitnesses. They contended that all material prosecution witnesses had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s case.
The defense raised serious objections regarding the reliability of the DNA evidence. Ms. Mirza submitted that the prosecution failed to establish due compliance with the “Guidelines for Collection, Storage and Transportation of Crime Scene DNA Samples” and the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). She argued that the “chain of custody is demonstrably broken” and that the possibility of contamination or tampering could not be ruled out.
Further, the defense argued that the absence of the accused’s blood or fingerprints at the crime scene cast doubt on their involvement. They cited Supreme Court judgments in Prakash Nishad alias Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of Maharashtra, Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamilnadu, and Dashwanth v. State of Tamilnadu to support their contentions regarding the standard of proof required for DNA evidence.
Government Advocate S.S. Baghel, representing the State, argued that the DNA report (Ex.P-56) conclusively linked the appellants to the crime. He submitted that the DNA profile from the vaginal slide and swab matched the appellants, and the mixed DNA profile found on the pillow cover recovered from the spot also matched the accused. He asserted that the hostile testimony of witnesses did not negate the scientific evidence, which was collected and analyzed in compliance with established protocols.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The High Court meticulously examined the evidence, particularly the forensic reports and the challenge to the DNA procedure.
On Homicidal Death and Sexual Assault: The Bench affirmed the Trial Court’s finding that the death was homicidal. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Aditya Fating and the post-mortem report, the Court noted the victim died of asphyxiation and had been subjected to forcible sexual intercourse prior to death.
On DNA Evidence and SOP Compliance: Addressing the defense’s argument on procedural lapses, the Court scrutinized the testimony of the Investigating Officers and medical experts. The Bench observed:
“The prosecution has duly complied with the prescribed protocols. The crime scene was properly secured, and the biological samples were collected by trained forensic personnel. Proper labeling, sealing, and documentation were maintained, and the chain of custody was preserved throughout the process.”
The Court rejected the argument regarding the possibility of tampering, stating that “claims of procedural infirmities raised by the defense are not supported by any material evidence or documentation.”
On Circumstantial Evidence: The Court held that the absence of eyewitnesses or the accused’s blood at the scene was not fatal to the prosecution’s case given the positive DNA match. The judgment noted:
“The DNA on the pillow found at the crime scene provides a direct link between the appellants and the deceased’s house… The law does not require the prosecution to establish the presence of the accused’s blood at the scene for a conviction, particularly when there is a valid and scientifically backed DNA match.”
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Prakash Nishad alias Kewat Zinak Nishad, the High Court reiterated that “DNA evidence is a powerful tool for establishing a link between the accused and the crime scene, especially when no other direct evidence is available.”
Conclusion: The Court concluded that the circumstances proved by the prosecution formed a complete chain pointing unerringly to the guilt of the appellants.
“The circumstantial evidence, including the DNA evidence, forms a complete chain that points conclusively to the appellants’ involvement in the crime.”
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the conviction and sentences awarded by the Trial Court. The appellants were directed to continue undergoing their sentences.
