Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad vs. The State of Maharashtra
Background
A six-year-old girl was found dead in a drain near her home in Thane, Maharashtra, having been sexually assaulted before being killed. The Trial Court convicted the appellant, a neighbour, based on circumstantial evidence: chiefly his residing in the same locality, disclosure statements leading to recovery of articles, and a DNA report linking his semen and the victim's blood to items recovered, and sentenced him to death. The Bombay High Court, as the first appellate court and in the mandatory death-reference proceeding, confirmed both the conviction and the death sentence.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court found serious gaps in the prosecution's chain of circumstantial evidence: neither the victim's parents could explain what first made them suspect the appellant, key witnesses who might have shed light on the investigation were never examined, and the disclosure statement was recorded in a language unfamiliar to the appellant without being read back and explained to him. The Court held that for a conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence, the chain must point unerringly and exclusively to the accused's guilt, excluding every other reasonable hypothesis: a standard the prosecution's multiple investigative lapses failed to meet, especially in a case carrying the death penalty. It set aside the conviction and sentence entirely, and directed that the appellant be released unless wanted in any other case, also flagging investigative failures for the attention of the police.
Lesson Learnt
In cases resting solely on circumstantial and scientific evidence, particularly where the death penalty is at stake, courts demand an unbroken, gap-free chain of proof; unexplained lapses in investigation, such as unexamined witnesses or improperly recorded confessions, can be fatal to even the most serious prosecution.