A DNA test 14 days too late: Why Gujarat High Court just set 3 convicts free in gangrape and murder case

“It is equally well settled that, suspicion however strong, can never take place of the proof. There is indeed a long distance between the accused may have committed the offence and must have committed the offence, which must be traversed by the prosecution by adducing reliable and cogent evidence”, the court said.

Here are the reasons that the court set the accused free:

• The high court dismissed the last seen theory considered by the trial court and found that the allegations of the presence of the accused at the place of the incident, that the victim was with them and was kidnapped forcefully for sexual intercourse, were neither proved nor established.
• The extrajudicial confession of the accused to one of the witnesses, confessing his guilt of killing his aunt, was unreliable rasing concern over whether it is “voluntary, true and credible” to infer the involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime.
• “One line confession” does not inspire confidence since the how and where the victim was killed has not been stated by the accused, nor asked by the witness.
• The samples of the victim and the accused were received after a delay of 14 days without pointing to any reason why the samples were lying in the police station during the said period, and what kind of measures were taken to preserve the samples being taken.
• Breached inprotocols for preserving the DNA samples, gaps in the chain of custody, which create doubts regarding the accuracy and integrity of the samples and test reports, make the DNA Profiling Report unreliable to prove the complicity of the accused.
• Circumstances forming a chain of events should only point to the guilt of the accused and no one else. The chain must be complete, and each fact forming part of the chain must be proved.

• It is a “serious” offence where the victim was raped and brutally killed, but the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty.
• The state failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused, as a complete chain of incriminating circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused has not been established and proved.
• The court directed the immediate release of the accused who were in jail.

Arguments

• Appearing for two of the accused, advocate Ramnandan Singh argued that the trial court’s order was based on circumstantial evidence and with no eye-witness.
• He further argued that the complete chain of events leading to the involvement of his clients has not been established by the prosecution.
• Advocate Bhavik Samani, representing the nephew of the victim, stated that the circumstantial evidence brought on record by the prosecution was not sufficient to bring the charge of rape and murder against the accused Gopi.
• The counsels of the accused submitted that the prosecution failed to prove its case by leading clinching and convincing circumstantial evidence, and in the absence of any legal and admissible evidence, the trial court convicted the accused based on surmises, conjectures and suspicion.
• They further argued that the present case does not fall in the category of “rarest of rare” cases, and the trial court failed to assign special reasons for awarding a death sentence.
• On the other hand, additional public prosecutor J K Shah opposed the appeals, arguing that the trial court had not committed any error while holding the accused guilty of the offence of rape and murder.
• Shah submitted that there is no reason for the police authority to implicate the accused in a serious charge of rape and murder, and therefore, the allegation of false implication has no basis.