Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376D and 302 r/w Section 34 – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Acquittal – Unreliable Testimony of Approver – Lack of Corroborative Evidence – Failure to Conduct DNA Analysis – Suppression of Forensic Evidence.
Citations: 2025 KER 42302 : 2025 (6) KLR 171 : 2025 KLT OnLine 214
Court: High Court of Kerala
Coram: *Hon’ble Mr. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V & Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.V. Jayakumar
Case Number: Crl.A. No. 532 of 2020, 17 June 2025
The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under Sections 376D (gang rape) and 302 (murder) r/w Section 34 of the IPC by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha, in S.C. No. 199 of 2017. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimony of PW2, an approver (former co-accused granted pardon under Section 307 Cr.P.C.), alleging that the appellant raped and murdered Sabitha Maji on 01.01.2017 in a tea plantation. The High Court found the approver’s testimony unreliable due to inconsistencies, exculpatory nature, and contradictions with the prosecution’s charge. The absence of DNA analysis to link spermatozoa found in the victim’s vaginal swab to the accused, suppression of forensic reports regarding bloodstains in PW2’s room, and lack of evidence confirming the recovered chopper (MO5) as the sole weapon used were significant evidentiary gaps. The recovery evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was deemed inadmissible due to vague disclosure statements and failure to establish the chain of custody. The Court held that the prosecution failed to provide independent and reliable corroborative evidence to support the approver’s testimony, as required under Section 114, Illustration (b) of the Evidence Act. Emphasizing that conviction based solely on an accomplice’s uncorroborated testimony is unsafe, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant.
Held: The prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable approver testimony, lack of corroborative evidence, and significant investigative lapses, including failure to conduct DNA analysis and suppression of forensic evidence. The appellant was acquitted and ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, subject to no other custodial requirements.
Counsel:
For Appellant: Adv. Smt. V.K. Hema (State Brief) |
For Respondent: Smt. Neema T.V., Senior Public Prosecutor |
Cases Referred:
-
Rampal Pithwa Rahidas v. State of Maharashtra, [1994 SCC Cri 1851]
-
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra, [(2000) 8 SCC 457]
-
Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, [1994 AIR SC 2420]
-
Ram Narain v. State of Rajasthan, [(1973) 3 SCC 805]
-
State of Rajasthan v. Bhup Singh, [(1997) 10 SCC 675]
-
Ramanand alias Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1396]
-
Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1400]
-
Vinobhai v. State of Kerala, [2025 SCC OnLine SC 178]
