Previous 26 / 31 Next

PRAKASH NISHAD @ KEWAT ZINAK NISHAD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [SANJAY KAROL, J.] 177 A B C D E F G H

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Prakash Nishad @ Kewat

CASE BRIEF

Jurisdiction

India

Nationalities

Indian

Case Title: Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of Maharashtra

Age at Offence: 24

Age Group at Offence: Adult (18 to 59)

Gender: Male

Religious Group at Offence: Hindu

Vulnerable/ Marginalised Group

Socio-economic Status

Jurisdiction - Geolocation

Latitude: 20.5937

Longitude: 78.9629

Jurisdiction - Geolocation (linked CASE BRIEF): India

Contributing TRP Partner

The Square Circle Clinic (India)

Latest Country's Death Penalty Status

Retentionist

Case Current Status: Closed: Acquitted

Year when sentenced to Death Row: 2010s: 2014

Method of Execution: Hanging

Nature of Offences for Death Penalty

Sexual Violence: Rape
Murder: Single Victim

Expert Evidence

Forensic/Medical evidence: Autopsy/Post mortem
Forensic/Medical evidence: DNA/Serology/Biology

Case Background (300 words max)

The Case against the accused is that he allegedly kidnapped, raped and murdered a 6-year-old girl. The four key circumstances against the accused are:

The accused was residing in the same chawl as the victim and was found near the crime scene.
He made disclosure statements, leading to the recovery of incriminating articles from his residence and another location where he had hidden clothes belonging to both himself and the victim.
Appellant was found near the scene of the crime
The DNA reports prepared on scientific analysis by an expert, establishing the blood of the deceased on banian (undershirt) of the Accused and his semen on the clothes of deceased and her vaginal smear slide.

The Supreme Court, while allowing the appeal and acquitting the accused held :

The recovery evidence in this case is unreliable due to multiple contradictions and procedural lapses: discrepancies in witness testimonies about the timing and details of the recovery, inconsistencies about the location and condition of the incriminating articles, failure to properly document or seal the search, non-examination of key witnesses like the room partner, and the appellant's inability to understand the language of the proceedings. Additionally, the police failed to follow proper procedures, making the recovery questionable under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Chain of custody on Sample Collection: There is no evidence on record establishing who collected the samples, on what date, how many times, and why the samples were not sent all at once. None of the police officials testified about the formalities of keeping the samples safe and secure.
Questionable DNA Report: The only document indicating the Accused's medical examination does not reveal the sample of the body part being drawn. The doctor who conducted the examination did not testify to the correctness of the document's contents. Additionally, the document itself lacks credibility due to certain interpolations and different handwriting, failing to meet the statutory requirements under Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The judgment is selected because it emphasizes the importance of maintaining the 'chain of custody' of evidence, which was not properly documented in this case. The chain of custody ensures that each person handling the evidence is acknowledged in the documentation to maintain the integrity of the evidence. The absence of a duly maintained chain of custody document compromises the reliability of the evidence.

Defence Arguments (200 words max.): Not captured in Judgment

Judgement with Headnotes (200 words max): Fair investigation: The Supreme Court highlighted several critical lapses in the investigation that compromised the prosecution's case. Despite the heinous nature of the crimes against a six-year-old child, the Court observed that the investigation was marred by unexplained changes in investigating officers, failure to comply with Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unexplained delays in sending samples for analysis, and multiple procedural irregularities. These included a lack of proper documentation, failure to draw blood and semen samples from the accused in a timely manner, and the unexplained re-search of already searched premises.

Legal Representation Received

Second Appeal: Pro bono
Appeal: State Legal Aid
Pre-trial: Unknown
Trial: Unknown

Legislation Related to the Offence(s): Section 53A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) Section 27- Indian Evidence Act 201,302,376,377- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)

Judicial Precedents: Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra Syed Qasim Razvi vs. The State of Hyderabad and Ors. Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik vs. State of Maharashtra Pattu Rajan vs. The State of Tamil Nadu

Language of Case Materials

English

Primary Documents

Prakash Nishad @ Kewat 2023 SCR.pdf
English
Download View

Death Penalty Defence - Asia

Select target paragraph3

Prakash Nishad @ Kewat

Primary Documents

Notifications