It was the careless handling of articles seized from the crime scene that weakened the case against one of the accused in the murder of 19-year-old Jhanvi Kukreja at a New Year’s Eve party in Mumbai in 2021. A Mumbai court recently said the collection of evidence was defective, noting that the items were wrapped in a bedsheet, instead of being sealed as per procedure.
The background of the case
On January 1, 2021, Kukreja’s body was found on the ground floor of a staircase in a residential building in the western suburbs of Khar. Kukreja had attended a New Year’s Eve party with her friends on the building terrace and was allegedly killed during a scuffle.
The police arrested Kukreja’s childhood friend, Diya Padalkar, and another friend, Shree Jogdhankar, claiming that they had killed her. The police claimed that Kukreja and Jogdhankar were in a relationship, and that his ‘flirtatious’ behaviour with Padalkar at the party had led to an argument between the couple that escalated into a fight.
On January 31, the sessions court in Mumbai convicted Jogdhankar on charges of murder, sentencing him to life imprisonment, while acquitting Padalkar, giving her the “benefit of doubt”.
What was the evidence the police cited?
As evidence, the police had presented articles seized from the murder spot, the building lobby, and the staircase where the alleged fight took place. The evidence included Kukreja’s clothes, her jewellery, and articles belonging to the accused, to show their presence at the spot. The police had also seized a bedsheet from a flat in the building, where the party’s host resided and where Padalkar allegedly lay down after the incident.
The police had claimed that the bedsheet had traces of blood, belonging to both Kukreja and Padalkar, alleging that this was therefore crucial evidence to show her involvement. These articles were seized in a procedure called ‘spot panchnama’, where articles are seized and secured from the spot where a crime takes place in the presence of independent witnesses or panchas. The court, however, found that the spot panchnama was not done properly.
What issues did the court flag with evidence collection?
A police sub-inspector had conducted the spot panchnama. The police had claimed that a forensic expert was called to the spot to collect the evidence, incriminating articles were seized, and then sent for forensic analysis.
The defence lawyers for the accused, however, referred to CCTV footage. The court was told that the footage showed a forensic technician reach the spot and collect samples. After he left the spot, the articles were kept in polythene bags and wrapped in a bedsheet. The policeman then told the security guard of the building to carry the bundle to the police vehicle. The lawyers said that this was a complete violation of procedure, as there was no sealing of evidence, no independent witnesses, and that the evidence was carelessly put in a bedsheet.
The lawyers also referred to the Police Manual, where Rule 148(2) states the procedure to handle evidence. Titled ‘Handling, Labelling and Packing of Materials Found at the Scene of Crime’, the rules say that the articles being collected have to be “as nearly as possible in its original conditions”. The lawyers also referred to previous judgments on the need for independent witnesses during this procedure.
“In (these) judgments the importance of timely sealing of incriminating articles and keeping those in proper custody before those are sent to FSL [Forensic Science Laboratory] is highlighted. It is observed that in the absence of proper sealing and custody of the incriminating articles, the reports of FSL cannot be relied upon,” the court said.
The court added that the articles been collected without taking any care of contamination or tampering and those were carried in open condition to the police station, hence they cannot be regarded as evidence.
The court relied on other evidence, including the seizure of a shirt worn by Jogdhankar, which it said was done as per procedure subsequently. The shirt had bloodstains belonging to the victim, and this was proved through the DNA analysis, the court said. It also looked at other evidence, including the statements of the witnesses and the nature of injuries to the victim and the two accused.
Why is evidence collection crucial?
After a crime is detected, the police have to seal the crime scene so that any evidence is not tampered with or lost. The evidence can include articles, fingerprints, or other leads into the identity of the offender. Once such evidence is found, there are provisions on how it is to be handled before it is sent to a laboratory for forensic analysis. The proper handling of the evidence is, therefore, necessary as any contamination may render this analysis unreliable.
For instance, if it cannot be proven that a glass found at the crime scene was sealed properly in the presence of independent witnesses, the accused can, during trial, claim that the police had tampered with it to deliberately plant the accused’s fingerprint.
During the trial, while the prosecution presents the evidence, a crucial way to prove it is by showing that all procedure was followed. The police officials and forensic experts who are examined as witnesses face questions from the accused’s lawyers on the evidence. Based on this, the court decides which evidence can be relied on and which should be discarded.
“As article may bear fingerprints, dust, hair etc. or may contain something which will be upset or displaced due to careless handling,” the Police Manual rule referred to in the judgment states.
The police had claimed that a forensic expert was called to the spot to collect the evidence, incriminating articles were seized, and then sent for forensic analysis. 
Share
