In a significant verdict, the Gujarat High Court has overturned the conviction and death sentence of a man in his 40s, who was earlier found guilty by a Surat trial court for the heinous crimes of impregnating his minor daughter and subsequently murdering her.
Case Background and Trial Court Conviction
The tragic case dates back to June 29, 2017, when the body of a 14-year-old girl from Odisha's migrant labourer community was discovered on Surat's Dumas Beach. The police investigation alleged that her own father was responsible, having impregnated her and then strangling her to death to avoid public shame.
In January 2020, a Surat trial court convicted the accused based on circumstantial evidence. This included the theory of last seen together, the accused taking the victim to a clinic, and crucially, a DNA report that stated the accused's samples matched those of the victim's foetus. He was sentenced to death under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
High Court's Scrutiny and Grounds for Acquittal
A division bench comprising Justice Ilesh Vora and Justice R T Vachhani heard the state government's plea for confirmation of the death sentence. However, the bench took a starkly different view, ultimately acquitting the accused.
The High Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to build an unbreakable chain of circumstantial evidence. It pointed out major lapses, including the non-examination of key witnesses like the victim's mother and brother, and insufficient proof for the 'last seen together' theory.
Critical Flaws in DNA Evidence
The cornerstone of the prosecution's case—the DNA evidence—was thoroughly dismantled by the High Court. The bench identified severe procedural lapses that compromised the evidence's integrity.
Firstly, there was an unexplained 13-day delay in sending the biological samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). Secondly, the samples were not preserved properly; they were not kept in an ice box, raising a high risk of contamination and degradation.
The court also questioned the chain of custody of the samples before they reached the FSL. Furthermore, it cast doubt on the competence of the scientific officer who conducted the analysis, noting his qualification was BSc in Zoology, which may not suffice for such complex DNA profiling.
The bench concluded that with such lapses in quality control and the possibility of sample contamination, the DNA evidence could not be relied upon to conclusively establish guilt.
Verdict and Legal Implications
Ultimately, the Gujarat High Court ruled that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court stated that the circumstantial evidence chain had snaps and did not point exclusively to the accused's guilt.
This ruling underscores the paramount importance of meticulous evidence collection and preservation, especially in capital punishment cases relying on scientific proof. It highlights how procedural errors in forensic investigation can lead to the collapse of even the most serious charges.
