High court will consider bail for Nadim Shaikh as DNA of skeleton found does not match alleged victim’s.
Like narco-analysis, the admissibility of DNA tests in criminal jurisprudence will be examined by a court of law.
While hearing a bail application filed by Nadim Shaikh, a life convict in the 2003 Raj Agarwal murder case, a division bench comprising justices Ranjana Desai and Mridula Bhatkar questioned the prosecution about the evidential value of the test and also sought the views taken by the Supreme Court in such cases.
Shaikh and six others were convicted and sentenced to life
imprisonment for kidnapping 14-year-old Raj on November 18, 2003 for ransom and murder. A body was found on the banks of the Bhima river in Daund near Pune, but Raj’s father, Kunjbihari, a businessman, refused to claim the remains stating that the skeleton recovered was not that of Raj.
Raj was kidnapped when he was on his way to Dadar’s Parsee Youth Assembly School at Wadala. His captors had demanded Rs5 crore through hawala channels and his father had told the trial court that he had already paid Rs5 lakh.
The court was informed that a skeleton was recovered in Daund, but DNA tests revealed that the skeleton was not Raj’s. “If the skeleton is not of that child, how can we keep the accused inside (in jail) for murdering him?” justice Desai asked. “Tell us about the DNA test like we know nothing. Do you have any conclusive tests?” In December 2009, four other convicts in the case were granted bail by the Bombay high court while their appeal against conviction was pending. The court had also suspended their sentence.
Shaikh has contended that he too had been convicted in the same case and should be released on bail while his appeal was pending.
The judges said that Shaikh was a “crucial accused” in the case and sought to know if the DNA test could be stretched to an extent where it could be relied on to grant bail to the accused.
“It is significant that a skeleton was found. But what is the competence of a DNA test? How are the scientists trained?” justice Bhatkar asked.
Additional public prosecutor Poornima Kantharia has been given one week’s time to explain the concept of DNA testing to the court. The court also said that the accused cannot be connected with the crime if the test reports were to be believed.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}