The Delhi High Court has directed release of three lifers convicted for murder after it found the police was relying on the sole circumstance that their and the victim's DNA sample matched with the DNA in the saliva on the four butts of the cigarette smoked by them immediately before the murder as it turned out that the deceased was a non-smoker.
The police had claimed to have recovered cigarette butts and plastic glasses in which the convicts' and the deceased had allegedly consumed alcohol immediately before murder.
Witness falsifies case
However, the victim's brother Rama Yadav testified that though he used to drink occasionally, his brother was a non-smoker.
“Undoubtedly, Rama Yadav, one of the Prosecution Witness, falsifies the prosecution case that the appellants and the deceased ate and drank together before he was murdered. It is in the evidence of Rama Yadav that the deceased Munshi Yadav drank occasionally and he never smoked cigarettes,” noted the high court.
“the sole circumstance that the prosecution has sought to rely in support of the appellants’ (convicts') guilt was that the DNA from the appellants’ samples matched the DNA of the saliva on the cigarette butts seized from the spot. It is to be noted that this circumstance by itself, does not establish an unbroken chain of circumstances which points unerringly towards the only hypothesis of the guilt of the appellants. The prosecution had to first establish by credible evidence that the cigarette butts were actually seized from the spot, as alleged.
“Apart from that, the prosecution had to led authentic and credible evidence that the deceased had smoked cigarette with the appellants shortly before he was murdered. In the instant case, the prosecution had led positive evidence of the complainant Rama Yadav, brother of the deceased that the deceased never smoked cigarettes. This fact stands proven in the testimony of his own real brother. Furthermore, the prosecution is unable to establish claimed recoveries of the cigarette butts or the broken plastic glasses from the spot,” said Justices Gita Mittal and Anu Malhotra.
‘Missing’ complaint
The Bench directed release of the three men – Sunil Kumar, Arvind and Dinesh – who had come to high court in challenge to the life imprisonment with fine of ₹2,000 awarded by the trial court on September 24, 2015.
In the instant case, the trio were booked for murder of one Munshi Yadav, a labourer in a factory in the DSIDC, Narela.
On December 13, 2012, Rama Yadav, the brother of the deceased informed the police that his brother had been missing for over 24 hours and his body was found lying near the juggis at the roundabout at DSIDC, Bhor Garh, Narela.
There were injury marks on the face of the deceased and his tongue was stuck between his teeth. A cream coloured shawl was found tied around his neck.
As per the police version, four cigarette butts and four broken plastic glasses were lying near the body. Rama Yadav claimed to have last seen his brother with Dinesh.
“It is noteworthy that in the brief facts while detailing allegations of Rama Yadav with regard to Munshi Yadav going missing and recovery of his dead body, there is no reference to the cigarette butts or the plastic glasses alleged to have been recovered from the spot,” noted the high court.
In the death report which includes detail of every article found on or near the body of the deceased, there was no mention of the recovery of either cigarette butt or of any plastic glasses.
