It was the careless handling of items seized at the crime scene that weakened the case against one of the accused in the murder of 19-year-old Jhanvi Kukreja at a New Year’s Eve party in Mumbai in 2021. A Mumbai court recently said that evidence collection was faultynoting that the items were wrapped in a sheet, rather than sealed as per procedure.
On January 1, 2021, Kukreja’s The body was found on the ground floor. of a staircase in a residential building in the western suburbs of Khar. Kukreja had attended a New Year’s Eve party with her friends on the building’s terrace and was allegedly killed during a fight.
Police arrested Kukreja’s childhood friend, Diya Padalkar, and another friend, Shree Jogdhankar, alleging that they had killed her. The police claimed that Kukreja and Jogdhankar were in a relationship and that her “flirtatious” behavior with Padalkar at the party had led to an argument between the couple which led to a fight.
On January 31, the court sessions in Bombay accused jogdhankar accused of murder, giving him a life sentence, while acquitting Padalkar, giving her the “benefit of the doubt.”
What was the evidence that the police cited?
As evidence, the police had presented items seized at the crime scene, the lobby of the building and the staircase where the alleged fight occurred. The evidence included Kukreja’s clothes, her jewelery and items belonging to the accused, to prove his presence at the scene. The police had also seized a bed sheet from an apartment in the building where the host of the party resided and where Padalkar allegedly slept after the incident.
The police had claimed that the sheet had traces of blood, belonging to both Kukreja and Padalkar, claiming that it was therefore crucial evidence to prove their involvement. These items were seized through a procedure called ‘spot panchnama’, in which the items are seized and secured at the place where the crime is committed in the presence of independent witnesses or panchas. However, the court considered that the place panchnama It was not done correctly.
What issues did the court raise with the collection of evidence?
A police sub-inspector had carried out the operation. panchnama. Police claimed that a forensic expert was called to the scene to collect evidence, incriminating items were seized and then sent for forensic analysis.
Story continues below this ad.
The defendants’ defense lawyers, however, referred to security camera images. The court was told the footage showed a forensic technician arriving at the scene and collecting samples. After leaving the scene, the items were kept in polythene bags and wrapped in a sheet. The police officer then told the building’s security guard to take the package to the police vehicle. Lawyers said this was a complete violation of procedure as there was no sealing of evidence, no independent witnesses and the evidence was carelessly placed in a sheet.
The lawyers also referred to the Police Manual, where Rule 148(2) sets out the procedure for handling evidence. Titled ‘Handling, Labeling and Packaging of Materials Found at Crime Scenes’, the rules say items being collected must be “as close as possible to their original conditions”. The lawyers also referred to previous rulings on the need for independent witnesses during these proceedings.
“In (these) judgments the importance of timely sealing of the incriminating articles and keeping them in proper custody before sending them to the FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) is highlighted. It is observed that in the absence of proper sealing and custody of the incriminating articles, the FSL reports cannot be relied upon,” the court said.
The court added that the items were collected without taking care of contamination or handling and that they were taken open to the police station, so they cannot be considered evidence.
Story continues below this ad.
The court relied on other evidence, including the seizure of a shirt worn by Jogdhankar, which it said was done as per subsequent procedure. The T-shirt had blood stains belonging to the victim, and this was proven by DNA analysis, the court said. He also examined other evidence, including witness statements and the nature of the injuries suffered by the victim and the two accused.
Why is evidence collection crucial?
After a crime is detected, police must seal the crime scene so that no evidence is disturbed or lost. The evidence may include items, fingerprints, or other clues to the offender’s identity. Once such evidence is found, there are provisions for how it must be handled before being sent to a laboratory for forensic analysis. Therefore, proper evidence handling is necessary, as any contamination can make this analysis unreliable.
For example, if it cannot be proven that a glass found at the crime scene was properly sealed in the presence of independent witnesses, the defendant may, at trial, claim that the police had tampered with it to deliberately plan to take the defendant’s fingerprints.
During the trial, as the prosecution presents evidence, a crucial way to prove it is by showing that all procedures were followed. Police officers and forensic experts who are questioned as witnesses face questions from the defendants’ lawyers about the evidence. Based on this, the court decides which evidence can be relied on and which should be discarded.
Story continues below this ad.
“Since the article may have fingerprints, dust, hair, etc. or may contain something that could be altered or displaced due to careless handling,” establishes the rule of the Police Manual referred to in the ruling.