Idukki: Though the prosecution claims that scientific, circumstantial and ocular evidence was presented before the court in the rape and murder case of a six-year-old girl residing at the lanes for estate works at Churakkulam Estate in Vandiperiyar, the judgment found none of it was convincing enough to prove the accused Arjun Sundar, 21, who was a neighbour of the victim, to be guilty of the crime.
In the concluding part of the judgment, there is a separate section mentioned as ‘Defects in the Investigation’ where Judge Manju V of the Special Court for POCSO cases in Kattapana has come down heavily on the investigating officer T D Sunil Kumar, Inspector at Vandiperiyar police station.
The judgment says that the investigation was lethargic and the way of collection of evidence was unscientific “without showing the shrewdness and intelligence reasonably expected from an investigating officer”. This has seriously affected the prompt and timely collection of evidence in the case, the judgment read.
It is also said in the judgment that though the prosecution succeeded in proving that the death of the girl was homicidal and the injuries on her body showed recent sexual abuse, it failed to prove beyond doubt that the lone accused raped and murdered the girl.
Regarding the pubic hairs the prosecution found in the bedsheet in the lane house of the victim, it is said in the judgment that as it was completely utilized for (forensic) examination, the crucial DNA profiling of the hair was not done. Even though semen was found in the bedsheet, it was insufficient for DNA profiling.
The judgment notes that though the investigating officer visited the crime scene on 01.07.2021, the day after the incident, material evidence such as a bedsheet, towel and a knife were collected on 03.07.2021 on revisiting the room. However, it was taken into custody in an unsealed condition.
“Early collection of material objects from the place of occurrence in a proper manner will surely save important pieces of evidence in the case. The evidence of the investigating officer shows that he had collected all material objects in unsealed condition without caring for the possibility of tampering with the same,” says the judgment.
Though the prosecution claimed that the accused opened the almirah in the room to fetch the shawl to hang the victim, the investigating officer did not inspect the almirah for the possibility of chance fingerprints.
The investigating officer testified that the fingerprint expert had stated to him that there was no chance of obtaining fingerprints from the place of occurrence. His evidence also shows that the expert gave a letter to him stating that chance fingerprints were not available. However, the said fingerprint expert was not cited as a witness and the letter stated to be given to him by the expert was not proved in the case. “Hence the prosecution failed to prove their case that chance prints were not available from the place of occurrence. I am of the view that this is also a serious lapse on the part of the investigating officer,” it is said in the judgment.
Though the forensic report says that the nail clippings of the victim and the cellophane tape pressings from her palm found the presence of fibres similar to that on the trousers and undergarments of the accused, the court found that a conviction could not be arrived at based on such forensic report.
It further said that fibres need to be ‘identical’ rather than ‘similar’ to consider them as solid proof. The judgment also points out that till 07.07.2021 the material evidence such as trousers and undergarments were not packed and sealed. Given the investigating officer had custody of the accused from 04.07.2023 to 05.07.2023, the prosecution did not act in a way that the possibility of tampering with such evidence could not be ruled out.
