A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala & Anr., Criminal Appeal Nos. 1122–1123 of 2018 (Supreme Court of India, 7 Jan 2025) concerns conviction on the basis of circumstantial and scientific evidence for rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl. The trial court convicted the sole accused under Sections 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to death for murder; the High Court confirmed conviction and death sentence. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the accused died during pendency and the legal heirs sought continuation of appeals under Section 394(2) CrPC; the Court proceeded to adjudicate.

The prosecution case depended on search by villagers leading to discovery of the child’s body concealed under clothes in a bathroom adjacent to the accused’s house, post-mortem showing 37 ante-mortem injuries and injuries to genitalia consistent with forcible penetrative sexual assault, seminial stains and semen on clothing and vaginal swab, DNA match between semen stains and the accused, recovery of the child’s belongings from the accused’s premises in pursuance of the accused’s disclosure, and movement of stones covering the septic tank.

The Supreme Court affirmed that the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of incriminating circumstances consistent only with guilt applying the five ‘panchsheel’ principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda. The Court, while upholding conviction, critiqued earlier courts for insufficiently articulating inferential steps and set out detailed principles for judicial appreciation of circumstantial evidence.

Keywords: circumstantial evidence; DNA; rape of a child; strangulation; chain of circumstances.

B) CASE DETAILS 

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arises from the disappearance on 4 April 2012 of a nine-year-old girl who failed to reach her madrassa. Local searches progressively focused on the house of the accused the father of the victim’s friend because the victim was last seen with the accused’s daughter and his house lay adjacent to the madrassa. After repeated search attempts, villagers discovered the child’s body concealed under a heap of clothes in a bathroom adjoining the accused’s house; stones from the septic tank were also found displaced.

Forensic examination revealed human spermatozoa, semen stains on the child’s clothing and dhoti of the accused, blood stains at and beneath the cot matching the victim, and a DNA profile matching the accused linked to semen stains on the victim’s skirt and vaginal swab. Post-mortem recorded 37 ante-mortem injuries and a cause of death as manual compressive and ligature constrictive strangulation; genital injuries suggested forcible penetrative sexual assault.

The accused was arrested, made disclosure statements leading to recovery of the victim’s belongings, stood trial, was convicted under Sections 302 and 376 IPC, and sentenced to death for murder. The High Court confirmed conviction and death sentence. During appellate proceedings before the Supreme Court the accused died and the legal heirs invoked Section 394(2) CrPC to continue appeals seeking to remove the stigma attached to the family; the Supreme Court proceeded to consider merits. The Court treated the prosecution’s case as purely circumstantial supported by scientific proof and focused on whether links formed an unbroken chain consistent only with guilt.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The child victim, aged about nine, left home for madrassa on the morning of 4 April 2012 but never arrived. Witness evidence places her last with the accused’s daughter near the madrassa. Multiple family members and neighbours carried out searches; the accused’s house was repeatedly found locked. On the fourth search, a heap of clothes in the bathroom was illuminated by a torch and removal of those clothes revealed the dead body of the child. Stones covering the septic tank inside the accused’s house were observed displaced.

The police investigation recorded the inquest and seized numerous items including blood-stained midi skirt (MO-7), petticoat (MO-8), black miditop (MO-9), underwear (MO-11) and portions of the accused’s dhoti (MO-14) and shirt (MO-15). Post-mortem disclosed 37 ante-mortem injuries; death attributed to strangulation and smothering, and genital injury consistent with forcible penetrative assault. Forensic Science Laboratory reported detection of seminal stains on the victim’s skirt, dhoti and vaginal swab; DNA typing matched seminal stains to the accused and blood stains and nail cells to the victim.

The accused’s voluntary disclosure led to recovery of victim’s belongings from his premises. The accused denied guilt at trial; no defence witnesses called. Both trial and High Court convicted and sentenced the accused; the High Court confirmed capital punishment. Appeals reached the Supreme Court where the accused had died; legal heirs sought continuation.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt by way of circumstantial evidence and scientific reports?
ii. Whether the chain of incriminating circumstances excludes all other reasonable hypotheses and points only to the accused?
iii. Whether there were procedural lapses (scene security, chain of custody, delays) that invalidated forensic evidence?
iv. Whether the case qualified as a rarest of rare instance justifying death sentence (even though execution became otiose on appellant’s death)?
v. Whether the High Court and trial court adequately articulated inferential reasoning linking each circumstance to guilt?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution failed to prove the body was moved to the bathroom by the accused, pointing to open accessibility of the bathroom and possibility of third-party tampering. It was urged that delay in police arrival, public interference and failure to seal the scene for ~14 hours undermined integrity of samples. Alleged contradictions between Investigating Officer’s testimony and inquest regarding location of underwear (MO-11) and missing witnesses to inquest were highlighted.

Criticism was directed at lapses in chain-of-custody and storage of biological samples, reliance on DNA and FSL reports without proper foundational proof and non-compliance with earlier Supreme Court directions in Rahul and Prakash Nishad regarding sample handling. Counsel argued that evidence was purely circumstantial and contained critical gaps (e.g., initial searches denying body, lack of eyewitness), so the chain was not complete; reliance on confession/disclosure was weak as exclusive access to terrace was not shown. Finally, it was urged the death penalty was disproportionate and the case did not meet rarest of rare threshold.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The State argued that the cumulative circumstances last seen with accused’s daughter, repeated locked house, shifting of the body, displaced septic-tank stones, blood stains at the accused’s cot and beneath it, recovery of victim’s belongings from accused’s roof pursuant to his disclosure, semen stains and DNA match with the accused on the victim’s clothing and vaginal swab, and post-mortem injuries collectively exclude all other reasonable hypotheses. The inquest report prepared under Section 174 CrPC was relied upon as admissible. The State submitted that chain-of-custody was satisfactorily established via evidence of Investigating Officer, FSL and DNA experts, and no plausible manner of planting semen post-arrest was shown. The State pressed that concurrent findings of fact by trial and High Court deserved respect and the offence involved breach of trust and was particularly heinous, supporting the capital sentencing view.

H) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals. The Court proceeded on the accepted premise that the prosecution’s case was circumstantial but buttressed by scientific evidence. Applying the Sharad panchsheel, the Court examined

(a) establishment of each relevant circumstance;

(b) consistency only with guilt;

(c) conclusive nature and tendency of circumstances;

(d) exclusion of every other hypothesis;

(e) completeness of the chain so as to leave no reasonable ground consistent with innocence.

The Court found the sequence of facts victim last seen near accused’s house; accused’s house repeatedly locked; discovery of body in his bathroom only after persistent searches; shifting of the body; displaced septic-tank stones; identification and recovery of victim’s clothing from accused’s premises; blood stains on cot and below matching victim; FSL detection of semen and spermatozoa and DNA profiling conclusively linking semen stains (on skirt and vaginal swab) to the accused; post-mortem injuries indicative of forcible penetrative assault and strangulation together formed an unbroken chain pointing exclusively to the accused.

The Court addressed procedural criticisms: though there were lapses in earlier courts’ explication of inferential steps, oral testimony of the Investigating Officer, DNA expert and constabulary satisfied chain-of-custody concerns; absence of suggestion that accused’s sample was collected post-arrest in a manner to plant semen was fatal to defence challenge. The Court acknowledged methodological deficiencies in lower courts’ reasoning and remedied that by articulating explicit principles for appraisal of circumstantial evidence and demanding that judgments state the inference from each witness and each link in the chain. The Supreme Court thus affirmed conviction. Since the accused had died, execution issues became academic.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The essential ratio is that where circumstantial and scientific evidence collectively form an unbroken chain consistent only with the accused’s guilt and each link is established on evidence conviction can safely follow. DNA linkage of seminal stains to an accused, when combined with contextual circumstances (opportunity, concealment, recovery of victim’s belongings, displaced septic-tank stones and corroborative post-mortem findings), supplies the conclusive tendency required by Sharad to exclude reasonable alternative hypotheses. The Supreme Court emphasized that courts must explicitly map how each piece of evidence contributes to this chain and justify rejection of other hypotheses.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed in obiter that lower courts must more meticulously record the inferential reasoning from witness testimonies and that circumstantial cases demand clear articulation of the inference drawn from each link. The Court set out five procedural principles for appreciation of circumstantial evidence (meticulous discussion of witnesses; clear delineation of reasonable inferences; examination of each incriminatory link; comprehensive elucidation of accepting/rejecting evidence; and reflection that guilt finding is compatible with exclusion of other hypotheses). These pronouncements serve as guidance (though not altering substantive law).

c. GUIDELINES 

• Judicial findings in circumstantial cases must identify each circumstance relied upon and assess it individually and cumulatively.

• Courts must explicitly state the reasonable inference drawn from each witness’s testimony rather than merely summarising evidence.

• Forensic and DNA evidence admissibility requires documented chain-of-custody; trial courts should record steps of seizure, sealing, dispatch and storage.

• Where forensic evidence is relied upon, courts should address defence objections to sample handling and explain why plant-ing or contamination is improbable.

• In death-penalty references, courts must analyse mitigating and aggravating factors; here the question became otiose due to appellant’s death, but principles remain applicable for future cases.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment exemplifies careful application of Sharad’s panchsheel to a fact pattern combining circumstantial facts and robust scientific proof. The Court’s twin action upholding conviction while reproving lower courts for inadequate articulation of inferential reasoning strengthens evidentiary jurisprudence: trial courts must not only gather scientific links but must narrate how each link is proved and why alternative hypotheses fail. The decision confirms that DNA evidence, when properly collected and its chain of custody established on record, is potent corroboration in sexual assault-cum-murder prosecutions.

It also underscores that community discovery of a body and discoveries pursuant to a suspect’s disclosure remain admissible if fair procedures are shown. Practically, the judgment is a reminder to investigators to contemporaneously document seizure and storage steps and to trial courts to evaluate and explain every inference in circumstantial cases. Finally, the Court’s guidance elevates the evidentiary threshold for convicting on circumstantial allegations while providing pragmatic direction to ensure reliable convictions in grievous crimes against children.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88.

2. Rahul v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 1 SCC 83 : [2022] 9 SCR 1129.

3. Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 666 : [2023] 8 SCR 152.

4. Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1952) 2 SCC 71 : [1952] 1 SCR 1091.

5. Rameshwar Dayal & Ors. v. State of U.P., (1978) 2 SCC 518 : [1978] 3 SCR 59.

6. George & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr., (1998) 4 SCC 605 : [1998] 2 SCR 303.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (ss. 302, 376, 201).

2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (ss. 366, 374, 394(2), 428).

3. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000/2015 (s. 23 referenced).