Can the onus be shifted to the accused to explain forensic material the prosecution has not linked to the crime?

No. Although semen was detected on the underwear of the accused and on the rectal swab of the deceased, no DNA test was conducted to match the two. The prosecution having failed to establish any link between them, the onus could not have been shifted to the accused to establish that there was no connection; the High Court presumed both to be the same without any evidence produced by the prosecution.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302 — s.201 — s.377 — Evidence Act, 1872 — s.27 — Circumstantial evidence — Last seen together — Extra judicial confession — Disclosure statement — Benefit of doubt — Evidence Act, 1872 — Extra judicial confession — Weak piece of evidence — Corroboration essential — Held: An extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and per se, without independent and cogent corroborative circumstance or evidence, cannot be made the sole basis for conviction. One suffering from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities is ruled out of consideration. (¶43) Evidence Act, 1872 — s.27 — Disclosure statement — Identification of an area already known to the police — Held further: Section 27 admits so much of the information as relates distinctly to a fact thereby discovered. Where no incriminating article is recovered and the accused identifies an area already known to the police, no reliance can be placed on the disclosure statement. (¶38, 40) Circumstantial evidence — Last seen together — Suggestion in cross-examination cannot supply the link — Held further: A suggestion given by defense counsel in cross-examination cannot establish the factum of the deceased accompanying the accused where the witnesses omitted it in examination-in-chief; the theory of last seen is then not borne out. (¶42) Evidence Act, 1872 — Forensic report — Onus lies on the prosecution — Benefit of doubt — On facts, held: Where no DNA test links the semen on the accused's underwear with that on the rectal swab, the onus cannot be shifted to the accused to establish that there was no connection. Appeal allowed; conviction set aside on benefit of doubt. (¶45, 50)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Sahab Singh alias Sat Pal v. State of Haryana — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India