Dismissed

Vanamadi at Malladi Dhanalakshmi, Rajahmundry v. P.P., Hyd

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Aug 2021CRLA/1034/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A child's murder was proved through circumstantial evidence, including motive, last-seen evidence and forensic findings linking the accused's nail clippings to the deceased. The court accepted the forensic report without examining its author and dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vanamadi at Malladi Dhanalakshmi… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN Criminal Appeal No. 1034 of 2014

¶4

JUDGMENT : ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)

¶5

Heard Sri. B. Parameshwara Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Sri. S. Dushyanth Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, through Blue Jeans video conferencing APP and with their consent, the appeal is disposed of.

¶6

Challenging the conviction and sentence dated 06.09.2012 passed in S.C. No. 30 of 2011 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada, A1 preferred the present appeal.

¶7

Originally A1 to A3 were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code [‘ I.P.C. ’] for causing the death of a boy, by name, Vanamadi Eswar @ Eswara Rao [‘ deceased ’], aged about 4 ½ years on 11.04.2007 at about 1.30 P.M. at the house of A1 in Ramalayam 1^st Street, Yetimoga, Kakinada.

¶8

The facts, as culled out from the evidence of the prosecution, are as under:

¶9

i) A2 is the mother of A1 and A3 is the maternal aunt of A1. PW2 is the husband of PW1 and they were blessed with two children [deceased and one Manohari]. It is said that,

¶10

¶11

the deceased was aged about 4½ years at the time incident while Manohari was aged about 6 years.

¶12

ii) PW2 was having illicit intimacy with A1 since long time, which fact was to the knowledge of PW1. About a month prior to the incident, PW1 quarrelled with PW2 and went to her parent’s house. The quarrel relates to PW2 going to the house of A1 frequently. About 10 days thereafter, the elders pacified the matter and made her join her husband. They also advised PW2 not to go to the house of A1 and look after PW1 well. Accordingly, PW1 joined her husband and both of them started living together and PW2 was looking after her well.

¶13

iii) While things stood thus, on 10.04.2007 at about 11.00 P.M., in the night, while PW2 was returning home after completing his work, A1 waylaid him and questioned him as to why he is not coming to her house. PW2 replied stating that he could not come as differences have crept in between himself and his wife. PW1 claims to have seen this incident. A1 followed PW2 to the house of PW1 and started chastising PW1 and PW2. A1 claims to have also stated that PW1 will meet the same fate as faced by her mother [mother of A1], as the daughter of paramour of A2 died.

¶14

¶15

iv) On the next day i.e., on 11.04.2007 at about 12.00 noon, the son [deceased] of PW1 and PW2 took one rupee from PW2 and went out for purchasing some eatables, but he did not return home. At the time when he left the house, he was wearing white trouser and without any shirt. They waited for two hours and, thereafter, started searching for him. During search, PW5 and PW6, who are residents of neighbouring street, told PW1 that they saw the deceased playing in the street and later A1 taking him into her house.

¶16

v) On the same day at about 10.30 P.M., while PW1, PW2 and others were searching for the boy, PW6 raised cries saying that the dead body of a boy is in the water tub, which is underneath the staircase of her house. All of them went there, took out the body from the tub and found him dead. They noticed nail marks on the nose and face of the body. On a belief that the boy was alive, took him to Care Hospital, Kakinada, but the doctors there declared him as brought dead.

¶17

vi) At about 3.00 P.M., PW1 and PW2 went to the police station and presented a report. Ex.P1 is the Report. Basing on the same, a case in Crime No. 98 of 2007 came to be registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C., as suspicious death. Ex.P15 is the First Information Report.

¶18

¶19

vii) PW13 – the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered Ex.P15, sent a copy of the F.I.R., along with the report to Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kakinada, and posted a Police Constable to guard the scene of offence. He recorded the statements of PW1 and PW2. At the time of examination, PW1 handed over a white colour pant worn by the deceased, which was removed from the body of the deceased after it was taken out from the water tank. M.O.1 is the pant. He got photographed the scene of offence with the help of PW8. Ex.P4 and P5 are the photographs of the scene. He also got prepared a rough sketch of the scene, which is placed on record as Ex.P16. At the scene, he also seized four red colour bangle pieces lying by the side of the water tank, which are placed on record as M.O.2. On 12.04.2007, he conducted inquest over the dead body which was in-front of the house of PW2, in the presence of PW10. Ex.P10 is the inquest report. During inquest, he examined PW4 to PW6 along with others and recorded their statements. The panchayatdars opined that the deceased died due to the acts of A1. Basing on the inquest report, he altered the section of law from Section 174 Cr.P.C. to Section 302 and 201 read with 34 I.P.C. Ex.P17 is the altered F.I.R. After completing the inquest proceedings, he sent the dead body for post-mortem examination.

¶20

¶21

viii) PW11 – a Professor working in Forensic Medicine, Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada, conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued Ex.P11 – post-mortem report. He also noticed nine [09] external injuries on the body. The second and fourth injury relate to crescentric finger nail marks on the nose and left soft cheek. Further, during post-mortem examination, the doctor collected the following:

¶22

“1. The deceased beast bone piece 5 cm., preserved in rectified spirit along with two water bottles collected from the water tank upper and bottom layer from where the body was recovered sent for R.F.S.L., to exclude the role of drowning if present.

¶23

2. Deceased blood collected on gauze cloth to be sent by Investigating Officer for grouping.

¶24

3. Deceased nasal tissue along with finger nail marks preserved in rectified spirit for sending to F.S.L., along with nail scrapings of the accused by the Investigating Officer for comparison if any tissue available in the finger nail scrapings of the accused.”

¶25

According to him, the cause of death would be due to asphyxia due to smothering.

¶26

ix) PW14 – the Inspector of Police, who took up investigation, verified the investigation done and re-examined the witnesses. On 13.04.2007 at about 5.00 A.M., on credible information, he along with PW9 and others went to Boat Yard, Yetomoga, Kakinada, and arrested A1 to A3. When interrogated, the accused confessed about the commission of the offence. Pursuant to the confession of A1, PW14 got

¶27

¶28

photographed the right hand of A1 with bangles through PW8 and the same is placed on record as Ex.P6. Thereafter, they went to the house of A1, from where they discovered a blood stained blue coloured knicker and a blood stained gunny bag from beneath a cot. The same were seized under Ex.P9. He also sent a requisition to the Medical Officer [PW12] to collect the nail clippings of A1. Ex.P13 is the said requisition. The Medical Officer collected the nail clippings of A1 and sent them in a sealed cover to PW14 through escort Constable. The material objects seized including nail clippings were sent to R.F.S.L., Vijayawada and F.S.L., Hyderabad. Ex.P18 and Ex.P19 are the letter of advices, while Ex.P12 and Ex.P20, respectively, are the reports of R.F.S.L. and F.S.L., respectively. After collecting all the necessary documents, more particularly, the nail clippings report from F.S.L., Hyderabad, a charge-sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 34 of 2010 on the file of Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada.

¶29

On appearance of the accused, copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., came to be furnished. Since the case is triable by Court of Sessions, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Basing on the material available on record, charges as referred to above came to be framed, read over and explained to the

¶30

¶31

accused, to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶32

In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW14 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P21, beside marking MOs. 1 to 4. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which they denied, but however no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

¶33

Basing on the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, namely, motive; accused being last seen in the company of the deceased; accusing taking the deceased into her house; and the nail clippings, which contain the soft tissues of the deceased, the learned Sessions Judge convicted A1 alone under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed.

¶34

Sri. B. Parameshwara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that, there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that since the expert is not examined, the F.S.L., report relating to nail clippings, cannot be relied upon. He further submits that when the dead body was not recovered at the instance of the accused and as it was found in a water tub situated underneath the staircase of the house of PW6, fixing the culpability on the

¶35

¶36

appellant would be improper and incorrect. He further submits that the recovery/discovery of articles pursuant to the arrest of the accused cannot be believed and the same does not in any way connect the accused with the crime, more so, when the body was not found in the house of the accused.

¶37

On the other hand, Sri. S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that, though the case rests on circumstantial evidence, but still the prosecution has successfully proved all the four circumstances relied upon by them to connect the accused with the crime. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar and Another v. State Government of NCT of Delhi¹ , he would contend that, examination of an expert is not necessary and the report given by the authority can be relied upon. He further submits that the evidence of PW6 and PW8 clearly establish the involvement of the accused in the crime, more particularly, the two circumstances, namely, ‘last seen’ and ‘the deceased being taken in the house by A1’. According to him, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court warrants no interference.

¶38

The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond doubt?

¶39

1 (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 493

¶40

¶41

It is no doubt true that the case rests on circumstantial evidence. In a case arising out of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove each of the circumstance relied upon by them and the circumstances so proved should form a chain of events, which should lead to an irresistible conclusion establishing the guilt of the accused.

¶42

In R.Damodaran v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police² , t he Apex Court after referring to the judgment of a three Judge Bench in Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors³ , held that, in a case which rests on circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests:

¶43

1. the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;

¶44

2. those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;

¶45

3. the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and

¶46

4. the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the

¶47

2 AIR (2021) SC 1173

¶48

3 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706

¶49

¶50

accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See Gambhir v. State of Maharastra⁴ )

¶51

Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court, we shall now proceed to see as to whether the circumstances referred to above are proved and if proved, whether they are sufficient to connect the accused with the crime.

¶52

The first circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is “Motive” for the accused to commit the crime.

¶53

Admittedly, A1 was having illicit intimacy with PW2. Even PW1 in her evidence categorically deposed about illegal intimacy of A1 with PW2, which she came to know after the marriage. Disputes arose between them, pursuant to which PW1 went away to her parent’s house. On advice of elders, she joined the company of her husband [PW2] and later both of them started living together. In-fact, in the cross-examination of PW1, it has been elicited that even prior to the marriage, A1 and PW2 were treated as wife and husband by the people of the locality. She further admits that the root cause for the differences between PW1 and A1 is the conduct of her husband [PW2] in going to the house of A1 because of illicit intimacy. It was elicited that A1 raised disputes with PW1 stating that she was not allowing her husband coming to her. PW2 in his evidence categorically states that he got illicit intimacy with A1 since last 14 years and about a month prior to the date of incident, PW1 left the house and

¶54

4 (1982) 2 SCC 351

¶55

¶56

went to her parent’s house. Subsequently, elders prevailed upon both of them, pursuant to which PW1 joined him. PW4 also deposed about the illicit intimacy between A1 and PW2 and the dispute raised by PW1 with regard to illicit intimacy of PW2 with A1.

¶57

From the above evidence, it is clear that PW2 and A1 had illicit relationship with each other, which fact came to the knowledge of PW1 after marriage and since then she has been raising disputes with her husband over the said relationship. It has also come on record that a month prior to the incident, PW1 left her husband and went to her parent’s house because of the relationship between PW2 and A1 and PW2 frequently visiting the house of A1.

¶58

Coming to the “Motive” aspect, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 clearly establish that on 10.04.2007 at about 11.00 P.M., in the night [a day prior to the incident], while PW2 was returning home, A1 accosted him and questioned him as to why he is not coming to her house. He replied stating that he could not come as differences have cropped between himself and his wife. It is said that A1 along with PW2 came to the house of PW2 and then chastised PW1 and PW2 stating that PW1 would meet the same fate as faced by her mother [mother of A1] as the daughter of paramour of A2 died. So saying, she left the place and immediately, thereafter, i.e. on the next day morning, the incident in question took place.

¶59

¶60

The version of PW1 with regard to threat given by A1 gets corroboration from the evidence of PW2, who is none other than the husband of PW1 and paramour of A1. His evidence also shows that on 10.04.2007 at about 11.00 P.M., while he was returning to his house, A1 stopped him near his house and questioned as to why he is not coming to her house. PW2 told her that he could not come because of the disputes with his wife [PW1]. At that time, A1 accompanied PW2 to his house. Meanwhile, PW1 came out of the house and there was exchange of words between A1 and PW1. At that time, A1 threatened PW1 stating that she would meet the same fate as faced by her mother. The said version gets support from the evidence of PW4 as well.

¶61

In-fact, the evidence of PW6 also discloses that, about one month prior to the date of incident, PW1 raised a dispute with PW2 as he did not stop going to the house of A1. She left him and went to her parent’s house. After 10 days, at the instance of elders, PW1 joined PW2. About 10 days thereafter at about 10.30 P.M., A1 came to the house of PW1 and PW2 and quarrelled with them questioning PW2 as to why he is not coming to her house.

¶62

From the evidence of these witnesses, it is very much clear that a day prior to the incident there was a quarrel / verbal altercation between PW1 and A1, wherein, A1 threatened PW1 stating that she will meet the same fate as her mother [mother of

¶63

¶64

A1]. Hence, the prosecution was able to establish ‘motive’ for A1 to cause some harm to the family of PW1 and PW2.

¶65

The second circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is, ‘ A1 being seen last in the company of the deceased and taking the deceased into her house ’.

¶66

As seen from the evidence of PW1 and PW2, on 11.04.2007 at about 12.00 noon, the deceased took one rupee from PW2 and went out for purchasing eatables, but did not return home. PW1 is said to have waited for two hours and as the deceased did not turn up, they searched here and there. It is also brought on record that the house of A1 is situated in the neighbouring street, or in other words, the family of accused and the family of PW1 were residing in the same locality but in the neighbouring streets.

¶67

At about 2.00 P.M., PW5 and PW6 informed PW1 about they witnessing the deceased playing in-front of their house and, thereafter, A1 taking him into her house. It would be appropriate to extract the evidence of PW5, in the words spoken to by him, which is as under:

¶68

“On 11.04.2007 at about 1.00 p.m., the son of P.Ws.1 and 2 by name Eswar came in front of our house and called my wife as “Ammamma” [grandmother]. Then, I asked Eswar to come to me, but he did not come to me. The said Eswar was playing in-front of the houses of myself and A.1. Later, A1 called and took Eswar to her house. About one hour thereafter, P.Ws. 1 and 2 came there in search of Eswar and at that time, we informed him that we saw

¶69

¶70

Eswar playing in-front of our houses and taking him into her house by A.1”

¶71

1. Though PW5 was cross-examined at length, nothing useful

¶72

came to be elicited to discard his testimony except to the extent that prior to the deceased being taken to her house by A1, the deceased was playing with two or three children who belong to the said locality. According to him, the children played there only for five minutes.

¶73

The evidence of PW6, who is the wife of PW5 is also to the effect that, on 11.04.2007 at about 1.00 P.M., the deceased came to their house and called her as Ammamma [grandmother]. She asked him to come, but the deceased continued playing there. While deceased was playing there, A1 took him inside her house. At about 2.00 P.M., PW2 came there and asked about Eswar, on which PW6 told him as to what happened earlier.

¶74

The evidence of PW5 and PW6 amply establish two things; firstly, the deceased was seen playing in-front of the house of A1; second, A1 coming out and taking the deceased into her house. As stated earlier, though, PW5 and PW6 were examined at length, but nothing useful came to be elicited to discard their evidence with regard to A1 taking the deceased into her house.

¶75

The next circumstance relied upon is the conduct of PW1 and PW2 after receiving information from PW5 and PW6 .

¶76

¶77

The evidence of PW5 and PW6 would show the events that occurred after they informed PW1 and PW2 about A1 taking the deceased into her house.

¶78

PW1 and PW2 along with PW5 and PW6 went to the house of A1 and asked A1 about Eswar, but A1 denied deceased coming to her house. PW5 in his cross-examination admits that he did not go inside the house and questioned A1 about taking the deceased into her house. Similarly, PW6 in his evidence deposed that, on receiving information about A1 taking the deceased inside house, PW2 went to A1 and asked her about the deceased. Then, A1 told him that Eswar went away long time back. Thereafter, all of them started searching for the deceased. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence of PW1 and PW2.

¶79

The evidence of PW1 and PW2 corroborate the evidence of PW5 and PW6 in all material aspects with regard to the information furnished by them relating to the deceased, namely, playing in the street and later A1 taking the deceased into her house. In the cross-examination of PW2, it has been elicited that at about 2.00 P.M. on 11.04.2007, PW5 and PW6 informed her about A1 taking the deceased into the house while he was playing in-front of the house of A1. It was not necessary for the counsel for the accused to elicit such an answer in the crossexamination. Be that as it may, it was further elicited that on receiving information, they went to the house of A1, but it was

¶80

¶81

latched from outside. They did not go inside the house as the doors from inside was also latched. It was further elicited that the lights in the house were put off and they did not try to break open the doors and go inside as PW2 is said to have informed that he met A1 in the afternoon and enquired with her about the deceased.

¶82

Taking a cue from the above admission, the learned counsel for the appellant tried to contend that when PW2 was in the house of A1 on that day afternoon, the possibility of deceased being kept in the house of A1 cannot be accepted. In other words, his argument appears to be that, when A1 took the deceased inside the house, it would have been in the knowledge of PW2 as he was present in the house. We feel that these admissions were wrongly understood by the counsel for the appellant. The admission was only to the effect that in the afternoon he asked A1 as to whether she saw the deceased, who replied stating that she did not see and did not take the deceased to her house. It does not mean that PW2 spent time with A1 in her house in the afternoon. Therefore, this circumstance do establish beyond doubt that it was A1 who took the deceased inside the house and when PW2 questioned the accused about the whereabouts of the deceased, she denied and later on the door of the house was latched from inside and outside as well, to give an impression that she was not in the house.

¶83

¶84

The third circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the recovery of the dead body from a cement tub in the house of PW4. According to her, she along with PW1 and PW2 searched for the deceased in the afternoon and at about 10.30 P.M., she returned home and went to the water tub, which was outside her main house, covered with an iron sheet. On removing the iron sheet for collecting water, she could touch the body, which was found to be that of Eswar. She raised cries, which attracted the attention of the nearby residents to her house. The fact that the body was recovered from a water tub situated outside the house and underneath the staircase, is not in dispute. A perusal of rough sketch of the scene shows that the house of PW4 is adjacent to the house of accused separated by a small street. It was neither suggested to PW4 nor to PW1 and PW2 that there was no possibility for the accused to place the body in the water tub. Even assuming to be otherwise, the crucial evidence on record is the forensic science report relating to the nail clippings of the accused.

¶85

Before dealing with the evidence of forensic expert, it would be appropriate to note that there were nine injuries on the face of the deceased, which are as under:

¶86

“1. A reddish contusion of 4 x 2 cm., size present over right bony cheek it is 2 cm., right of right nostril of the nose;

¶87

2. Three crescentric finger nail marks of 0.5 x 0.25 x 0.25 cm., size each with a distance of 0.5 cm., surrounded by a reddish contusion of 2 x 1 cm., size present over upper 1/3^rd of mid ala of the nose;

¶88

¶89

3. Reddish contusion of 2 x 1 c.m., size present over tip of the nose;

¶90

4. A crescentric finger nail mark of 0.5 2 0.25 x 0.25 cm., size surrounded by a reddish contusion of 2 x 1 cm., size present over left soft cheek it is 1 cm., to the left of angle of the month;

¶91

5. A reddish contusion of 3 x 0.5 cm., size present over mid aspect of upper lip;

¶92

6. Teeth bite marks of 0.25 x 0.25 cm., size of three in number present over inner and mid aspect of upper lip and is coated with dried blood;

¶93

7. A reddish abraded contusion of 2 x 0.5 cm., size present over right side of lower lip;

¶94

8. Reddish contusion of 1 x 0.5 cm., size present over tip of the nose;

¶95

9. A reddish abraded contusion of 2 x 1 cm., size present over mid aspect of chin.”

¶96

All the injuries were fresh and red in colour. In the crossexamination, PW12 [doctor] admits that except the injuries on the face of the body of the deceased, he did not find any injuries on other parts of the body. It was further elicited that some of the injuries are possible if the boy falls into a tank. Except injuries 2 and 4 [nail mark injuries on the face / scratches], all other external injuries were possible if a person falls on a blunt object touching the face. It was further elicited that nail marks should accompany scratch marks in case they are accidentally caused while playing with children. It is also to be noted that the nasal tissue of the deceased was taken by the post-mortem doctor and preserved to be tested with nail clippings of the accused, having regard to the nature of injury number 2 and 4

¶97

¶98

found on the body of the deceased. In view of the above, it would be appropriate to refer to forensic science report.

¶99

An objection came to be raised with regard to relying on the R.F.S.L., report without examining the author. Issue identical to the case on hand came up for consideration in Rajesh Kumar’s case [1^st cited supra], wherein, the court after referring to Section 293 Cr.P.C., held as under:

¶100

“ 9. A bare reading of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 293 shows that it is not obligatory that an expert who furnishes his opinion on the scientific issue of the chemical examination of substance, should be of necessity made to depose in proceedings before Court. This aspect has been highlighted by this Court in Ukha Kolhe v. The State of Maharashtra⁵ and Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab⁶ . Therefore, there is no substance in the revision petition so far as the conviction is concerned.”

¶101

1. In Yelchuri Manohar v. State of A.P.⁷ the Division Bench

¶102

of this court held that in view of Section 293(4)(e) of Cr.P.C., there is no need to examine the expert unless the court feels it necessary.

¶103

In Dalwadi Govindbhai Amarsinghbhai vs. State of Gujarat⁸ , it was held that, in view of Section 293 and 294 of Cr.P.C., there is no need to summon expert of Forensic Science Laboratory to prove contents of report, especially when there is

¶104

5 AIR 1963 SC 1531

¶105

6 AIR 1988 SC 1011

¶106

7 (2005) Crl.L.J. 4593 (AP) DB

¶107

8 (2004) Crl.L.J. 2767 (Gujarath)

¶108

¶109

no challenge to the said report during examination of Investigating Officer.

¶110

Even otherwise, the counsel failed to elicit any prejudice being caused to him due to non-examination of the expert. However, a perusal of the R.F.S.L., report covering the nail clippings would show that, nail clippings of A1 were sent to F.S.L., Hyderabad, for D.N.A. comparison with the soft tissues of the deceased taken during the post-mortem examination. Ex.P21 is the report received from F.S.L., Hyderabad, stating that the allelic pattern of nail clippings i.e., item no. 1 matches with allelic pattern of item no.3 i.e., small piece of tissue [deceased] marked as item no. 3. The conclusion arrived at was that the Autosomal STR Analysis conclusively proves that item no. 1 [nail clippings] is matching with the D.N.A. profile of source item no. 3, indicating that they are from same biological origin.

¶111

Though, the investigating officer was cross-examined about the delay in dispatch of nail clippings, but the record shows that they were preserved in the same condition in which they were handed over by the Medical Officer [PW12]. His evidence shows that, he collected the nail clippings of both the hands of A1 by using nail cutter and handed them over to a Police Constable for getting it analyzed with a requisition. Though, he submits that he did not notice any tags of tissues in the nails of A1, but in the re-examination admitted that tags of

¶112

¶113

tissues can be noticed if observed in microscope or by genetic council. The evidence of investigating officer shows that the nail clippings were kept in a sealed cover and they were kept intact till they were handed over to F.S.L., Hyderabad. It would be appropriate to extract the findings given in Ex.P21 – F.S.L., Report.

¶114

“Conclusion: The Autosomal STR analysis conclusively proves that item no. 1 [nail clippings] is matching with the DNA profile of source of item no. 3, indicating that they are from same biological origin.”

¶115

In Dayanidhi Bisoi v. State of Orissa⁹ , the Hon’ble

¶116

Supreme Court held that, nail clippings of accused found to contain blood can be taken as corroborative piece of evidence and the said evidence alone is not sufficient to base conviction.

¶117

In the instant case, there is no explanation from the accused as to how the soft tissue of the deceased was in her nails. Therefore, the forensic science lab report showing the presence of soft tissue of the deceased in the nails of the accused can be taken as a strong circumstance in the chain of events connecting the accused with the crime.

¶118

One another circumstance to connect the accused with the incident is the presence of broken bangles at the scene. Though, an argument is sought to be advanced that bangles of similar nature would be available in the village, but, at the time of preparing panchanama, the investigating officer noticed pieces

¶119

9 (2003) Crl.L.J. 3697 (SC)

¶120

¶121

of broken bangles and, accordingly, seized them and marked as M.O.2. Immediately, after the arrest of A1, photograph of her hands were taken through PW8 and the bangles worn by her matches with the colour of the bangles that were seized at the scene.

¶122

The last circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the recovery of the articles belonging to the deceased from the house of A1.

¶123

The evidence of PW13 show that, blood stained white coloured pant [M.O.1]; blue coloured knicker [M.O.3]; blood stained gunny [M.O.4]; water collected from the top and bottom of the water tank; pieces of breast bone and blood of deceased collected in a gauze cloth, were sent to R.F.S.L., Vijayawada, by way of letter of advice under Ex.P18. They were sent for the purpose of comparison of said objects with the blood of the deceased.

¶124

A perusal of Ex.P20 report shows that R.F.S.L., Vijayawada, in turn forwarded the said objects to F.S.L., Hyderabad. Ex.P20 report further shows that items 1 to 4 i.e., (1) one white coloured readymade pant with dark brown stains [M.O.1]; (2) one navy blue coloured knicker [M.O.3]; (3) one hand gunny bag [M.O.4], and (4) a piece of gauze cloth with dark brown stains, were examined and blood was detected on item Nos. 1, 2 and 4 but not on item No. 3, and said blood is of

¶125

¶126

human origin and it is of “A” group, which tallied with the blood group of the deceased.

¶127

In-fact, the evidence of PW14 coupled with Ex.P12 also shows that Ex.P20 report was given by F.S.L., Hyderabad, in respect of other items i.e., (1) piece of bone in a plastic jar; (2) a plastic jar containing turbid liquid; (3) a plastic jar containing top water collected from the place where the body was recovered; (4) another plastic jar containing turbid liquid i.e, bottom water collected from the above said place, were examined under microscope for diatoms. Diatoms were detected in item Nos. 1, 3 and 4 only, but not in item no. 2. Therefore, the recovery of the above objects is an another link in the chain of events connecting the accused with the crime.

¶128

Though, it is a case arising out of the circumstantial evidence, but, having regard to the evidence adduced by the prosecution, more particularly, the report of the Forensic Science Lab, Hyderabad, relating to nail clippings, the report of R.F.S.L., Vijayawada and F.S.L., Hyderabad, relating to blood found on the clothes of the deceased matching with the blood group of the deceased; the accused being last seen in the company of the deceased and taking the deceased into her house and the motive for commission of the offence, we hold that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and, as such, the conviction and sentence imposed requires no interference.

¶129

¶130

Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed confirming the Judgment dated 06.09.2012 in S.C. No. 30 of 2011 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada.

¶131