Failure to conduct DNA profiling on recovered skeletal remains breaks the chain of circumstantial evidence in a murder trial.

The three appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, for the murder of Kamta Prasad Pathak and for concealing evidence.

The prosecution alleged that on 02.06.2013, the appellants killed the deceased and buried his body under soil and stones.

After a missing person report was filed on 31.07.2013, the appellants allegedly made memorandum statements leading to the recovery of a human skeleton from Kehra Nala Bandh on 11.08.2013.

While the forensic report confirmed the bones were human, the cause of death and duration could not be determined.

The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment.

1. Whether the skeleton recovered pursuant to the memorandum statements of the appellants was established to be that of the deceased.

2. Whether the prosecution proved the homicidal nature of the death and the involvement of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt in the absence of a DNA profile or conclusive medical evidence.

The court primarily applied Section 302 (Murder) and Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC.

It relied on the "body doctrine" principle from *Rama Nand v. State of Himachal Pradesh*, which held that while a missing corpus delicti is not fatal if homicidal death is proved by clinching circumstantial evidence, it serves as a rule of caution.

The Court further applied the mandatory identification requirement from *S. Kaleeswaran v. State*, stipulating that if a body is discovered at the instance of the accused, the prosecution must prove the remains belong to the victim and no one else.

Finally, it noted the importance of scientific evidence as per *Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra*, where the failure to conduct DNA profiling despite availability leads to adverse consequences for the prosecution.

The High Court found that the prosecution's case suffered from a critical gap in establishing the identity of the deceased.

Although the FSL report [Ex.P/21] specifically recommended DNA profiling and a diatom test to confirm the identity and cause of death, the prosecution failed to conduct these tests without explanation.

Under the rule in *S. Kaleeswaran*, since the skeleton was recovered based on the accused's statements, it was "imperative" to prove the remains were those of the victim.

Furthermore, the medical evidence could not ascertain the cause of death, failing the "clinching and definitive" standard required for circumstantial convictions.

The recovery of weapons (lathi and axe) was deemed irrelevant under the principle in *Mustkeen @ Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan*, as there was no proof of human blood on the items and the seizure witnesses had turned hostile.

The High Court set aside the conviction and sentences under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the IPC, granting the appellants the benefit of doubt.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellants, who were already on bail, were acquitted and discharged from their bail bonds after the statutory period.