Forensic Case Analysis
Forensic Case Analysis
Forensic Case Analysis
With the intention of taking Jeevajothi, the complainant and the wife of the deceased
Santhakumar (an employee of P. Rajagopal), as his third wife, the appellant P. Rajagopal
(Accused No. 1), who is the owner of a chain of hotels called Saravana Bhavan, committed the
offence. Rajagopal coordinated several threats, beatings, and exorcisms against the complainant
and her family in order to fulfil his ambition. With the other accused's assistance, the Accused
made many futile attempts to break the Complainant's marriage up. With the aid of other
Accused, he successfully kidnapped the complainant's husband in order to shape the entire
occurrence and push the complainant to marry Accused No. 1. He then staged the murder of the
complainant's husband in 2001. Following that, the complainant filed a FIR against each accused
party.
Issues:
Arguments
The appellants claimed that the High Court and the Trial Court had solely relied on presumptions
and that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution had not been shown in accordance
with the law. In addition, he claimed that the later first information report filed on November 20,
2001, could not have been filed at all because there can never be two first information reports
filed for the same incident. He claims that the incident described in the first information report
dated 20.11.2001 is just an extension of the earlier abduction offence that occurred on
01.10.2001 and resulted in legal action after the first information was filed on 12.10.2001. He
claimed that by doing so, the proceedings in this case would be invalidated and the FIR in the
present case would simply accept the nature of an announcement made under Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C. Expert legal counsel further argued that, in the lack of a DNA test, it was improper to
identify the body solely based on a superimposition test.
Motive, observable situation, and recovery of the dead corpse at the scene of the accused were
primarily the factors relied upon by the Respondent to prove the guilt of the accused. The
accused's failure to provide any clarification regarding the most recent scenario in their statement
recorded in accordance with Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code adds another link to the
chain of circumstances. He maintained that the murderous episode in the current case is just an
extension of a prior offence, which was the kidnapping of PW1 and the deceased Santhakumar.
Without a doubt, circumstantial considerations must be taken into account when determining
whether or not such acts constitute a piece of a similar exchange1. In any case, it becomes clear
from examining the two FIRs together that the main abduction incident began and ended on
01.10.2001.
It is clear that the two incidents happened at different times and places, but even though they
shared a motive, the subsequent offence cannot be considered a continuation of the previous one
because it had a different purpose. The deceased and PW1 were intended to be kidnapped in the
first offence, but this was only done to intimidate and scare them. The second offence, on the
other hand, was committed with the goal of killing the victim and permanently eliminating him.
It is therefore obvious that there is no shared intent or plan between the two offences.
Judgment
In referring to the law that the filing of a second FIR violates Article 21 of the Constitution, the
Hon. Supreme Court reaffirmed the rule established in the case of Awadesh Kumar Jha v. State
of Bihar3, which states that a fresh offence cannot be investigated as part of an ongoing case but
must be investigated separately if it occurs during an ongoing investigation and is unrelated to
the offence being investigated. The probative value given to DNA evidence, like any other
opinion evidence, is also held to vary from case to case based on the facts and circumstances as
well as the weight given to other evidence in the record, whether it be contradictory or
corroborative. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that the lack of DNA evidence may support a
negative inference against a party, particularly in the context of other strong and trustworthy
evidence on file in that party's favour. The argument that it was wrong to rely on evidence
regarding identification by superimposition and to forgo undertaking a DNA test was rejected.
The group of appeals brought by defendants against the Madras High Court's 2009 ruling was
dismissed by the bench of Justices N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and Indira
Banerjee. The Supreme Court upheld the life sentences given to P. Rajagopal and five of his
associates by the High Court for the 2001 murder of Santhakumar. The court reiterated that it is
important to keep in mind that while proof beyond a reasonable doubt must be shown in every
criminal case, this proof need not be flawless, and someone who has committed a crime cannot
escape punishment just because the truth may become flawed when presented via human
processes. The Court came to the conclusion that Rajagopal was the only party responsible for
his actions because the sequence of events was complete.
Analysis
It is the responsibility of an expert witness to assist the Court by providing the report based on
their expertise along with justifications so that the Court can form its own judgment by
evaluating such materials. The Court is not, however, bound by the expert evidence, and the
opinion evidence is only advisory. The Court also stated that although DNA evidence is
becoming more accurate, it still cannot be regarded as error-free. Therefore, given the presence
of other strong and trustworthy evidence, the absence of DNA evidence would not support a
negative inference.
Although DNA testing is currently thought to be the most accurate method and aids the court in
clearly identifying the body, DNA testing, like all other types of opinion evidence, varies from
case to case based on the particulars and circumstances of each case. Therefore, it is accurate to
argue that, similar to DNA testing, superimposition testing can also be the only factor
implicating a body's identity. This is because neither test can be said to be absolutely certain. As
a result, the Indian Courts recognize, permit, and rely on both the DNA test and the
superimposition test in matters involving the identification of the deceased.