The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that DNA profiling to determine the fate of a rape convict cannot be allowed to be erroneous or omitted, especially when it is combined with murder, as the acquittal would be the cause of a criminal trial. Only because of such errors in the investigation. An eight-year-old girl has been sentenced to life in prison by the Supreme Court for commuting a death sentence for rape and murder, provided she is not entitled to a premature release or pardon for a period of time before serving her actual sentence. 30 years.
A three-judge bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar ruled on an appeal filed by the convict challenging the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had upheld his death sentence in the case by a trial court.
A bench comprising Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and City Rabikumar noted that the defense counsel for the convict had claimed that no DNA test was done to attach the appellant to the specimen found in the body of the deceased, and as a result, Section 53A of the CRPC was violated.
Section 53A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) relates to the examination of a person accused of rape by a physician.
“Given the nature of the provisions under Section 53A CrPC and the decisions referred to … we also consider that errors or omissions (intentional or otherwise) may not be allowed to be made automatically in order to conduct DNA profiling. This is in line with the Commission for the Murder of Murder because in the case of an acquittal of such an error or defect in the investigation alone, the victim will be subject to a criminal trial, “the bench said in its 84-page judgment.
It noted that despite such errors in the investigation of a given case, the court still has a duty to consider whether the materials and evidence available in the record are sufficient and appropriate to prove the case. “In a case relying on circumstantial evidence, the court must consider that, despite such gaps, the various links in the chain of circumstances form a complete chain that excludes all assumptions of innocence and points to the guilt of the accused alone. His favor,” it says.
The apex court said there was no doubt about the position that a fair investigation was needed for a fair trial. The bench said that it was the responsibility of the investigating agency to protect the rights of both the accused and the victim in accordance with the procedure laid down in the inquiry and to ensure a fair, competent and effective investigation. “Even at the time of the arrest, we cannot neglect the position settled too close that an accused does not deserve to be acquitted simply because of an error or omission in the investigation,” it says.
“In other words, it cannot be the only reason to intervene in a conviction if the rest of the evidence is strong enough to maintain the same,” the bench said.
It mentioned that the appellant was the cousin and brother of the victim’s mother and the incident took place in September 2014 in Gwalior district. In its judgment, the bench noted that the appellant’s beating of the girl in a “diabetic and horrific manner” was clear from the serious injury. The bench observed that the trial court considered the question of punishment and awarded it on the same day as the appellant was convicted. “We do not understand that it is absolutely illegal and unauthorized. In the end, all that is required is to consider the tense and calming situation with the application of the mind. They were not given due consideration when considering the question of reward. Conviction to be convicted, in the case at hand, “it noted.
The bench said it was true that “all murders are inhumane” and that for the imposition of the death penalty, the offense must be of an unusual nature where, despite the milder circumstances, the court must be of the opinion that life imprisonment. Inadequate and there is no alternative but to execute. It said the appellant, who was 25 years old at the time of the crime, had no criminal precedent, came from a poor socio-economic background and behaved perfectly inside the prison. “Therefore, considering the above aspects, in order to look into the issue, we do not find any reason to deny the possibility and possibility of reforming and rehabilitating the appellant,” it said.