DNA profiling and unexplained incriminating circumstances sustain conviction for gang rape and murder.

On the night of March 9, 2017, the victim, an 18-year-old student, left her home after receiving a phone call and did not return

Her body was discovered the following morning in a paddy field at Ganthabil with signs of sexual assault and strangulation

An FIR was lodged on March 10, 2017, leading to the arrest of the appellant and two others

The prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence, including the "last seen" theory, where witnesses (PW-17 and PW-18) spotted the appellant with a co-accused on a motorcycle near the crime scene at approximately 1:30 AM

Forensic analysis through DNA profiling matched the appellant's DNA with samples obtained from the victim's anal swab

The Sessions Judge, Khowai, convicted the appellant under Sections 376D, 302, and 34 of the IPC, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life

The appellant challenged this on grounds of medical contradictions, lack of direct evidence, and procedural lapses in DNA collection

1. Whether the prosecution successfully established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction for gang rape and murder

2. Whether the DNA profiling report and the collection of anal swabs were legally reliable and sufficient to link the appellant to the crime

3. Whether the silence of the accused and his failure to provide an explanation during his Section 313 CrPC examination allowed for an adverse inference against him

4. Whether the common intention under Section 34 IPC was established between the co-accused

The court applied Sections 302 (Murder), 376D (Gang Rape), and 34 (Common Intention) of the IPC

It relied on Section 27 of the Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of information leading to the discovery of facts and the re-creation of the crime scene

The court invoked Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which places the burden of proving facts within "special knowledge" on the accused once a prima facie case is established

It further cited Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh regarding the scope of Section 27

and Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka regarding the formation of "common intention" under Section 34

The court found that while the case was based on circumstantial evidence, the "last seen" testimony of PW-17 and PW-18 was cogent and un-rebutted by the defense

The court emphasized the scientific weight of the DNA report (Exbt-12/1 to 12/13), which showed the appellant’s DNA matched the semen found on the victim

It dismissed the appellant's objection regarding the collection of the anal swab, clarifying that the medical officer’s use of the term "etc." in her deposition reasonably encompassed related biological samples

Applying Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the court noted that since the appellant was seen with the victim and co-accused near the time of death, he failed to offer any plausible explanation for these incriminating circumstances during his Section 313 CrPC statement

The voluntary disclosure statements and the subsequent re-creation of the crime scene by the accused under Section 27 were deemed admissible as they led to the discovery of material evidence like the victim's mobile phone

The court concluded that the joint acts of calling the victim and the forensic evidence proved a "community of purpose," satisfying Section 34 IPC

The court affirmed the conviction under Sections 376D, 302, and 34 of the IPC and upheld the sentence of life imprisonment for the remainder of the appellant's natural life. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's judgment was affirmed in its entirety