Section 376D & 302 IPC | DNA Evidence, Disclosure Statements, and Adverse Inference Sustain Conviction for Gang Rape-Murder Despite No Eyewitnesses : Tripura HC

The Tripura High Court has affirmed a conviction for gang rape and murder under Sections 376D and 302 IPC, holding that scientific DNA evidence, corroborated disclosure statements, and circumstantial consistency are sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, even in the absence of eyewitnesses.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

On the night of 09.03.2017, an 18-year-old girl, Bithika Debbarma, a Madhyamik candidate, was abducted, gang-raped, and murdered in a paddy field at Ganthabil, Khowai, Tripura. Her mother, Sura bala Debbarma (PW-2), lodged an oral complaint at Kalyanpur Police Station on 10.03.2017 after discovering her daughter’s body. The case was registered as Kalyanpur PS Case No. 2017/KLN/006 under Sections 376D, 302, and 34 IPC. Three accused persons - Dipankar Debbarma, Amrit Debbarma (a juvenile), and the appellant, Ritesh Debbarma - were arrested during the investigation.

Key Facts

• The victim was last seen alive on 09.03.2017 at approximately 9:00 p.m., answering a phone call from the accused.
• The appellant and co-accused Dipankar Debbarma were seen riding a Splendor motorcycle near Phaguabari bridge at 1:00 - 1:30 a.m. on 10.03.2017, shortly after the crime.
• The victim’s body was found in a paddy field at Ganthabil on the morning of 10.03.2017.
• Mobile phones of the victim and accused were seized; however, CDR records were not obtained.
• A post-mortem conducted on 10.03.2017 revealed cause of death as homicidal asphyxia due to manual strangulation.
• Vaginal and anal swabs, blood samples from the victim and accused, and clothing items were collected and sealed.
• Blood samples of the appellant (Ritesh Debbarma) and co-accused were collected on 14.03.2017 at Kalyanpur CHC.
• The State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL) received the exhibits on 28.03.2017 and submitted its DNA report on 11.04.2017.
• The DNA report (Exbt. 12/1 - 12/13) revealed that seminal fluid from the victim’s anal swab (Exbt. A8) matched the blood samples of both Amrit Debbarma (Exbt. C4) and Ritesh Debbarma (Exbt. D4).
• Disclosure statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer on 15.03.2017 in the presence of two witnesses and an Executive Magistrate (PW-43).
• Both the appellant and Dipankar Debbarma re-created the crime scene and led to the recovery of the victim’s mobile phone and SIM card.
• The appellant, during his examination under Section 313 CrPC, denied all allegations and did not call any defense witnesses.

Procedural History

• 09.03.2017: Alleged rape and murder of victim.
• 10.03.2017: FIR registered; post-mortem conducted; seizure of evidence initiated.
• 14.03.2017: Blood samples of accused collected at Kalyanpur CHC.
• 15.03.2017: Disclosure statements recorded; crime scene re-creation conducted.
• 28.03.2017: Forensic samples received by SFSL.
• 11.04.2017: DNA report submitted by SFSL.
• 10.07.2024: Sessions Judge, Khowai, convicted appellant under Sections 376D and 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC; sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50,000.
• 31.03.2026: Hearing before Tripura High Court.
• 07.04.2026: Judgment delivered affirming conviction.

The Parties' Positions

For the Appellant

The appellant’s counsel contended that:

• The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence with no eyewitness.
• The complainant’s testimony was exaggerated and unreliable.
• Delay in lodging FIR (over 24 hours) undermined credibility.
• CDR records were not collected, making phone call allegations speculative.
• The anal swab was not collected by PW-38, as her deposition only mentioned vaginal swab and scalp hair, and the term "etc." did not imply anal swab.
• The DNA report was inadmissible due to lack of chain of custody: viscera was handed over without acknowledgment; no evidence of preservation or transit.
• Disclosure statements were recorded before an Executive Magistrate, not a Judicial Magistrate, rendering them inadmissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• Section 313 CrPC was violated as incriminating details of the DNA report were not put to the appellant.
• Relied on Kattavellai v. State of Tamil Nadu, Dashwanth v. State of Tamil Nadu, Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa v. State of Meghalaya, and Chandrapal v. State of Chhattisgarh.

For the Respondent/State

The Public Prosecutor argued that:

• PW-2’s testimony, though exaggerated, was corroborated by multiple witnesses.
• PW-17 and PW-18 placed the appellant and co-accused at the scene near the bridge at 1:00 - 1:30 a.m. on 10.03.2017.
• The Splendor motorcycle used was seized (Exbt. 53), corroborating their testimony.
• The anal swab was collected and included in the seizure list (Exbt. 1), signed by PW-1, PW-4, and PW-37.
• The term "etc." in PW-38’s deposition clearly included anal swab as a standard forensic item.
• The DNA report was properly collected, sealed, transported, and analyzed; no break in chain of custody.
• Disclosure statements were recorded in the presence of witnesses and an Executive Magistrate, and led to discovery of incriminating objects - thus admissible under Section 27.
• The appellant failed to explain incriminating circumstances under Section 313 CrPC, warranting adverse inference.
• The DNA match between the appellant’s blood sample and the victim’s anal swab conclusively proved sexual contact.
• The disclosure statements of both the appellant and Dipankar Debbarma were mutually corroborative and detailed.
• The medical and forensic evidence, taken together, established gang rape and homicidal murder.

Relief Sought

The appellant sought acquittal on grounds of insufficient evidence, violation of procedural safeguards, and improper admission of DNA and disclosure evidence. He prayed for setting aside the conviction and sentence.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether conviction under Sections 376D and 302 IPC can be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence, where DNA profiling conclusively links the accused to the victim’s anal swab, disclosure statements lead to recovery of incriminating objects, and the accused fails to offer any explanation under Section 313 CrPC.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

The appellant’s counsel contended that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence. He argued that the absence of CDR records rendered the phone call allegation speculative. He challenged the admissibility of the anal swab, asserting that PW-38’s use of "etc." did not confirm its collection. He further contended that disclosure statements recorded before an Executive Magistrate were inadmissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, citing Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa. He claimed that Section 313 CrPC was violated because the DNA report’s technical findings were not specifically put to the appellant. He relied on Chandrapal v. State of Chhattisgarh to argue that circumstantial evidence must be unbroken and conclusive, which he claimed was not the case here.

For the Respondent/State

The State countered that the DNA report was scientifically robust and properly handled. The seizure list and testimony of PW-38 confirmed collection of the anal swab, and the term "etc." is a recognized legal shorthand for additional similar items. The disclosure statements were recorded in the presence of witnesses and an Executive Magistrate, and led to the recovery of the victim’s mobile and SIM card - thus satisfying Section 27. The court in Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh held that discovery under Section 27 does not require a Judicial Magistrate. The appellant’s silence under Section 313 CrPC, coupled with the failure to call any defense witnesses, permitted the court to draw adverse inference. The prosecution’s case was further strengthened by the last-seen testimony of PW-17 and PW-18, the post-mortem findings, and the matching DNA profiles.

The Court's Analysis

The Court undertook a meticulous review of the entire evidentiary record, emphasizing that while no eyewitnesses existed, the prosecution’s case was built on a chain of circumstantial evidence that was both consistent and conclusive. The Court held that the DNA evidence, particularly the match between the appellant’s blood sample (Exbt. D4) and the victim’s anal swab (Exbt. A8), was not merely corroborative but decisive. The forensic expert PW-21 testified that the genetic profiles matched, and the Court found no evidence of tampering, mishandling, or procedural lapse in collection, preservation, or analysis.

"The DNA is a scientific report and conviction can be based on said DNA report."

The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the anal swab was not collected, noting that in forensic contexts, the term "etc." following a list of specific items is understood to include other standard biological samples. The seizure list (Exbt. 1), signed by multiple witnesses, confirmed the collection of the anal swab.

Regarding disclosure statements, the Court relied on Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh to hold that Section 27 does not require recording before a Judicial Magistrate. The disclosure was made in police custody, led to discovery of the victim’s mobile and SIM card, and was corroborated by independent witnesses and the Executive Magistrate. The re-creation of the crime scene further validated the statements.

The Court emphasized that the appellant’s failure to offer any explanation under Section 313 CrPC, despite being confronted with all incriminating circumstances - including the DNA match and disclosure - warranted an adverse inference. The Court observed:

"A failure to offer a plausible explanation for incriminating circumstances in the 313 statement or to produce defence witnesses allows the court to draw reasonable and logical inferences against the accused."

The Court also found that the last-seen testimony of PW-17 and PW-18, placing the appellant and co-accused near the scene at 1:00 - 1:30 a.m., coupled with the discovery of the body in a nearby paddy field, established the "last seen together" doctrine. The motive, opportunity, and conduct of the accused were consistent with the prosecution narrative.

The Court further held that Section 34 IPC applied because the acts of rape and murder were committed in furtherance of a common intention, as evidenced by the coordinated phone calls, joint movement, and simultaneous participation in the crime. The Court cited Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka to affirm that common intention need not be pre-arranged and can be inferred from conduct.

The Court dismissed the appellant’s reliance on Kattavellai and Dashwanth, noting those cases involved disputed DNA collection procedures, which were absent here. The chain of custody was intact, and the SFSL report was admissible under Section 293 CrPC.

The Verdict

The appeal was dismissed. The conviction and sentence under Sections 376D and 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC were affirmed. The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life, to mean the remainder of his natural life, and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000, with default stipulation. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently. The Court held that the sentence was commensurate with the gravity of the crime and the scientific and circumstantial evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

What This Means For Similar Cases

DNA Evidence Can Be Decisive in Absence of Eyewitnesses

• Practitioners must treat DNA matches between biological samples and crime scene evidence as conclusive proof of sexual contact or presence, provided the chain of custody is intact.
• Defense challenges based on "lack of CDR" or "delay in FIR" are unlikely to succeed if DNA and disclosure evidence are robust.
• Forensic reports under Section 293 CrPC are prima facie admissible unless proven tampered.

Disclosure Statements Under Section 27 Are Admissible Before Executive Magistrates

• Disclosure statements recorded before an Executive Magistrate, in the presence of witnesses, and leading to discovery of incriminating objects are admissible under Section 27.
• The requirement is not judicial scrutiny but proof of discovery and custody.
• Re-creation of crime scenes and pointing memorandums significantly strengthen the evidentiary value of disclosures.

Silence Under Section 313 CrPC Permits Adverse Inference

• When an accused denies allegations under Section 313 CrPC without offering any explanation or calling defense witnesses, courts may draw adverse inference.
• This is especially potent when the prosecution has established a prima facie case through scientific and circumstantial evidence.
• Failure to challenge forensic reports during cross-examination or under Section 313 weakens the defense position irreparably.

Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC Is Inferable from Conduct

• Joint participation in planning, movement, and execution of crime - even without prior discussion - can establish common intention.
• The Court will infer common intention from coordinated actions, such as joint phone calls, shared transportation, and synchronized post-crime conduct.
• Section 34 applies even if one accused is the primary perpetrator; others are equally liable if they participated in furtherance of the common design.