The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in a judgment dismissing a murder appeal, has affirmed that scientific evidence, such as DNA and fingerprint analysis, when properly corroborated, can form a “complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence” sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru dismissed the appeal (CRA No. 1584 of 2022) of Suresh Sarkar @ Chhotu, upholding his conviction and life sentence for a 2019 murder. The Court’s decision rested on the strength of this chain of evidence.
The appeal challenged a 16.09.2022 judgment from the Special Judge, South Bastar, Dantewada, which convicted the appellant for the murder of Constable Ram Niwas Markam under Section 302 of the IPC.
Background: The Evidence
The prosecution’s case stemmed from the discovery of Constable Markam’s body by a roadside on 12.07.2019. During the inquest, police noted that the deceased was “clutching 20 strands of hair” in his right hand. From the deceased’s nearby Bolero vehicle, investigators seized items including two water bottles with visible fingerprints.
The Legal Challenge
Before the High Court, the appellant’s counsel, Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, argued that the conviction was flawed because the “chain of circumstance evidence is incomplete.”
The State, represented by Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer, countered that the incriminating circumstances were “fully linked and completed with each other.”
Court’s Analysis: The Complete Chain
The High Court first affirmed the trial court’s finding that the death was homicidal. The bench then focused its analysis on the legal standard for conviction in cases based on circumstantial evidence, citing the “Panchsheel” (five golden principles) laid down by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra.
The Court found that the prosecution had “fully established” several key circumstances that formed this complete chain, with scientific evidence at its core:
- DNA Evidence: The Court relied on the testimony of Dr. Anju Verma (PW-17), a scientific officer. Her report (Ex.P-58) confirmed that the DNA profile generated from the hairs (Ex. A) “clenched in the fist of the deceased” was a match with the DNA profile from the blood sample of the appellant, Suresh Sarkar (Ex. Q).
- Fingerprint Evidence: The bench cited the report from fingerprint expert Dharmendra Kumar Bharti (PW-18). A fingerprint (designated ‘C’) found on one of the Kinley water bottles seized from the Bolero was compared with the appellant’s standard fingerprint. The expert gave a “definite opinion” that the fingerprints were identical, finding “8 corresponding points” that “belong to the same finger of the same person, specifically the right hand of appellant Suresh Sarkar.”
The judgment noted that this direct scientific evidence was corroborated by other facts, including the discovery of human blood on the jeans pant and steel pipe seized from the appellant.
The defense had argued that this evidence was fabricated by police days after the incident. The High Court rejected this claim, finding “no evidence in the investigating officer’s statement to doubt his testimony” and holding that “the mere fact that independent witnesses did not fully support the details does not make the entire investigation… doubtful or unreliable.”
Decision
The High Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully proven its case. The bench stated, “all circumstances decisively point to the guilt of appellant Suresh Sarkar and completely rule out the possibility of the crime being committed by any other person.”
The Court held that the “circumstantial evidence has been fully proved by the prosecution and its link firmly connect each other.” Finding the trial court’s judgment “just and proper,” the appeal was dismissed, and the life sentence was upheld.
