The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, on finding that a death row prisoner was wrongly convicted, directed the Jhalawar Superintendent of Police to reopen investigation into a case arising from the rape and murder of a 7-year-old.
The accused was convicted of raping and murdering a 7-year-old and sentenced to death by trial court. The High Court confirmed the conviction but commuted the death to life imprisonment;
The State appealed to the Supreme Court which confirmed the conviction. The matter was, however, remitted to the High Court to reconsider the question of sentence;
In this second round, the High Court found that the entire case rested on circumstantial evidence. It was noted that the DNA samples indicated false implication and that the two criminals who seemed to have actually committed the offence were not booked;
Thus, the case was directed to be re-opened, and the DLSA was asked to appeal against the conviction. The High Court also commuted the death penalty of the convict to life imprisonment.
In a detailed judgment, the Court pointed out various instances during the investigation that indicated the false implication of the accused.
The High Court began by examining precedents related to death penalty at length, and discussed reasons that could be considered for converting death penalty to life imprisonment.
The bench noted that the entire case was based on circumstantial evidence. It was taken into account that reliance had been placed by the court on the DNA report as per which, the DNA profiles of two males was obtained from the leggings of the victim.
The same profiles were also obtained from the underwear of the accused. However, it did not match that of the accused’s blood sample.
The High Court also took into account that the accused was not given an opportunity to explain his DNA report.
Additionally, it was considered that as per the school record of the accused he was a minor at the time of the offence, he did not have any criminal background and had shown good conduct in jail.
In this light, the cardinal rule of criminal law that a hundred guilty may be acquitted, but one innocent should not be held guilty was highlighted by the Bench.
It was stated that this rule was followed to ensure that overzealous prosecution did not result in the conviction of an innocent man.
The High Court was of the opinion that the two who had committed the crime shifted blame to the accused with the help of the police.
In fact, it was underscored that material facts regarding the age of the accused and the DNA evidence were not brought to the apex court’s attention, and no assistance was provided to the appellant before the top court.
Therefore, the Secretary of the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority was directed to appeal against the previous judgment of the High Court converting the accused’s death sentence to life imprisonment.
Further, the Bench in the instant case directed the Jhalawar Superintendent of Police to reopen the matter and investigate afresh the two accused whose DNA samples were obtained from the leggings of the victim.
