TITLE                                : Yawning gaps in the chain of circumstances”save man in

                                             eight-year death row from the gallows

CASE NAME                     : Prakash Nishad @ KewatZinak Nishad Versus State of

                                               Maharashtra

CITATION                     : Crl. A. No.-001636-001637/2023

DECIDING COURT         :Supreme Court of India

BENCH                              :B.R. Gavai, Sanjay Karol and Vikram Nath

DECIDED ON                   :19th May, 2023

RELEVANT CASE LAWS

·       Bachan Singh State of Punjab and Mal Singh Sunil Batra Nathu

·       Syed Qasim Razvi Versus State of Hyderabad

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

1.     Prakash, the appellant, allegedly sexually assaulted a six-year-old girl and put her to death. In an attempt to destroy evidence, the allegation went, he threw her body into a drain and concealed material evidence of the crime.

2.     He was charged with committing an offence punishable under Sections 376 (punishment for rape), 377 (unnatural offences), 302 (punishment for murder) and 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender) of the Indian Penal Code, pursuant to a first information report (FIR) dated June 12, 2010, registered in Bhayander police station, Thane. 

3.     In 2014, the trial court convicted him concerning all the offences and imposed capital punishment for the charge under Section 302 and a sentence of imprisonment for other offences.

4.     The findings of the trial court were affirmed by the High Court of Bombay in 2015. The conviction and sentence were challenged by Prakash before the Supreme Court. 

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether non-recording of a disclosure statement of the appellant in the language in which it is made and recording of the same in a language totally unknown to the appellant, contents whereof are also not read over and explained to him, can be said to have caused any prejudice to the cause of justice?

2. Whether DNA evidence can form the solitary basis in determining the guilt of the appellant?

3. Whether the circumstances as identified and relied on by the prosecution indeed point to the guilt only of the appellant, closing out any and all other possibilities of any person?

RATIO DECIDENDI

The court’s judgment stated that there are “yawning gaps” in the chain of circumstances rendering it far from establishing the guilt of the appellant. 

HELD

On the first issue, the court found that the investigating officer recorded the disclosure statements in Marathi and did not read them over to the appellant in his vernacular language, which was Hindi.In Syed Qasim Razvi, the Supreme Court had observed: “If the accused in a particular case is not acquainted with the English language and if by reason of the absence of adequate arrangements to have the proceedings interpreted to him in the language he understands, he is prejudiced in his trial, obviously it might be a ground which may be raised on his behalf in an appeal against his conviction.”

On the second issue, the doctor who took the samples is not a witness. Thus, the statutory requirement of Section 53A of the IPC has not been complied with.The court also said: “In the present case, the delay in sending the samples is unexplained and therefore, the possibility of contamination and the concomitant prospect of diminishment in value cannot be reasonably ruled out.”

On the third issue the court acknowledged the undeniable occurrence and severity of the crime against the six-year-old victim. However, it concluded that the charges against the present appellant were not substantiated. The court identified significant gaps in the chain of circumstances, which undermined the establishment of the appellant's guilt. The judgment criticized the investigation process, highlighting numerous lapses that had led to a broken chain of circumstances. Ultimately, the court expressed its dissatisfaction with the failure to hold the actual culprits accountable, emphasizing that the responsible person or persons remained unpunished.