DNA-confirmed skeletal remains, corroborated by recovery and last-seen evidence, sustain the murder conviction.

The prosecution alleged that, on 21 May 2015, the appellants induced M.D. Mallappa to accompany them to Maramma Hillock by promising to show him treasure, killed him, took ₹2,00,000, and burnt his body

Mallappa’s daughter, PW1, lodged a missing-person complaint that day

Following the appellants’ arrest in another matter, police recovered nine bones from the hillock; DNA testing of a femur bone matched the profile of PW1, supporting the conclusion that the bone belonged to her biological father

PW2 testified that he had seen the appellants and Mallappa going towards the hillock together on the morning of the disappearance

The Sessions Court convicted the appellants under Sections 302, 382 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC. The appellants appealed under Section 374(2) CrPC, challenging, among other matters, the recovery, DNA evidence and last-seen circumstance

Whether the recovery of the bones and the DNA evidence sufficiently established that the remains were those of Mallappa

Whether the last-seen evidence and the other circumstances established the appellants’ involvement beyond reasonable doubt

Whether the trial court’s conviction and sentence warranted appellate interference

The appeal was brought under Section 374(2) CrPC against convictions under Sections 302, 382 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC

The Court assessed the recovery evidence, forensic evidence and last-seen circumstance together in determining whether the prosecution case supported the convictions

It considered Rohit Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh, including its discussion of Sections 27 and 8 of the Evidence Act: discovery-related knowledge may, in appropriate circumstances, be relevant under Section 8 even where Section 27 is unavailable, but such evidence alone is weak and cannot sustain conviction without other proof

The Court distinguished that precedent on its facts

The Court relied on evidence that the appellants led police and witnesses to the hillock, where bones were recovered, and on the forensic evidence identifying the remains as human

The DNA evidence linked the recovered femur to PW1’s biological father, notwithstanding the delay between recovery and DNA examination; the Court also noted that the bones had been sent for forensic examination in September 2016 and that the DNA witness explained that bones may remain for a long period

PW2’s evidence that he saw the appellants with Mallappa going towards the hillock supplied an additional circumstance

The Court distinguished Rohit Jangde because the evidentiary circumstances there differed, including the deficiencies concerning the DNA matches and the recovery

On reappreciation, it found the trial court’s reasons for conviction to be in accordance with law

The appeal was dismissed