Failure to conduct DNA profiling of recovered bones and lack of proof of homicidal death necessitates acquittal.

The three appellants were convicted by the Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewada, for the murder of Smt. Sukara Yadav.

The prosecution alleged that on March 18, 2016, the appellants trespassed into the house of PW-01 (Rambati Yadav), quarreled with the deceased over a previous dispute, and assaulted her with a wooden log, leading to her death.

Following the incident, the body was cremated, and police subsequently seized bones from the cremation site.

A wooden stick and shirt were recovered based on the memorandum statement of Appellant No. 1.

The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34, 450, and 506(B) of the IPC.

The appellants challenged this conviction on the grounds of lack of homicidal proof and hostile witnesses.

1. Whether the prosecution successfully established the corpus delicti and proved that the bones recovered belonged to the deceased in the absence of a DNA test.

2. Whether the circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of weapons and testimony of the alleged eye-witness (PW-01), was sufficient to sustain a conviction.

The Court applied the "body doctrine" and the principle of corpus delicti as interpreted in Rama Nand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, which holds that while a missing body is not fatal to a murder case, the prosecution must provide clinching evidence of homicidal death.

It relied on S. Kaleeswaran v. State, which mandates that if a skeleton is discovered, the prosecution must prove it belongs to the victim and none else.

The Court further cited Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra regarding the necessity of DNA profiling in modern criminal investigation.

The Court cited Mustkeen @ Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan regarding the insufficiency of weapon recovery without corroborating blood stains.

The Court observed that while bones were recovered, the medical report (Ex.P/20) by PW-09 could not ascertain the age or cause of death, but merely identified them as female human bones.

Crucially, the prosecution failed to conduct a DNA test despite the bones being preserved for that purpose, leaving a vital link in the chain of circumstances unestablished.

Regarding the ocular evidence, the purported eye-witness (PW-01) turned hostile, admitting she was asleep during the incident and only arrived later.

Finally, the recovery of the wooden stick and shirt was deemed legally inconsequential because the FSL report (Ex.P/28) found no bloodstains on the items, failing to link them to the crime.

The Court answered the issues in the negative, finding the evidence insufficient to maintain a conviction.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences under Sections 302/34, 450, and 506(B) of the IPC, and acquitted all three appellants by granting them the benefit of doubt.