‘Casual probe’: MP HC sets aside death penalty in rape-murder of 3-year-old case
“The nail samples of the victim were not collected at the first instance and when the same were collected after a few days by digging out her body… it must have lost much of its evidentiary value,” the court said.
2 min read
Shukla also argued that considering the heinous and gruesome nature of the crime coupled with public pressure on the police, the flaws deserve to be ignored. The court, however, said, “No amount of pressure on police can be a reason to ignore the quality of evidence.”
The Madhya Pradesh High court has set aside the death penalty awarded to a 35-year-old man accused of rape-murder of a 3-year-old girl, observing that the investigation was carried out in an “extremely casual and cryptic manner”.
The bench of justices Sujay Paul and A K Paliwal said the Burhanpur district court “miserably failed to frame and put relevant questions relating to the DNA report”. The accused was arrested on August 23, 2018, days after the missing girl’s body was found. The accused became a suspect after some injury marks were found on his face which the police, on the basis of medical examination, stated could have been nail marks.
“The nail samples of the victim were not collected at the first instance and when the same were collected after a few days by digging out her body… it must have lost much of its evidentiary value,” the court said.
Prosecution lawyer Ajay Shukla argued that mere technical flaw in the investigation should not cause any dent on the overall prosecution story.
The court said, “It doesn’t see any merit in this contention because if a flaw in the investigation results in the failure of justice, interference is inevitable.”
Shukla also argued that considering the heinous and gruesome nature of the crime coupled with public pressure on the police, the flaws deserve to be ignored. The court, however, said, “No amount of pressure on police can be a reason to ignore the quality of evidence.”
The court also said that if it treats such serious flaws as ‘necessary evil’, it will “look more and more necessary and less and less evil”. “The flaws in the investigation and collection of evidence cannot be said to be trivial in character,” the court said.
You May Like
