Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 106 -If the accused is last seen with the deceased and particularly in a case of this nature when the time gap between the last seen stage and occurrence of death is so short, the accused must offer a plausible explanation as to how he parted company with the deceased and the explanation offered must be satisfactory. Section 106 of the Evidence Act mandates that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. It is on this principle that this Court has repeatedly held that if an accused fails to offer an explanation, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him under Section 106 and if he fails to offer a reasonable explanation that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances. (Para 21)
Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 53A – The lapse or omission (purposeful or otherwise) to carry out DNA profiling, by itself, cannot be permitted to decide the fate of a trial for the offence of rape especially, when it is combined with the commission of the offence of murder as in case of acquittal only on account of such a flaw or defect in the investigation the cause of criminal justice would become the victim. [Quoted from Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 8 SCC 668] (Para 26)
POCSO Act – Section 29,30- The injury on the prepuce of the penis of the accused along with the matching of the blood group coupled with other circumstantial evidence clearly constitute foundational facts for raising presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act. (Para 28)
Summary: The appellant, was convicted for the kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of a four-year-old child. The Trial Court sentenced the appellant to death, which was confirmed by the Gujarat High Court. Partly allowing appeal, SC set commuted the death sentence to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission.