Aftab was found to have gruesomely dismembered her body into over thirty pieces, scattering them across various parts of Delhi. Initially attempting to deceive both Bombay and Delhi Police, Aftab’s falsehoods were unraveled as evidence unfolded during the investigation.
Circumstantial evidence played a crucial role in exposing the crime, despite the challenges it presents in terms of admissibility due to inconsistencies and irregularities. Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act underscores the relevance of evidence in legal proceedings. While circumstantial evidence may not always be the conclusive proof, its admissibility depends on its relevance to the case. Section 6 allows for the introduction of other relevant facts, such as res gestae, which must be connected to the facts in question.
The complexity of circumstantial evidence lies in its susceptibility to fabrication. However, if included in res gestae, even hearsay may be admissible, given its spontaneity and immediacy. The Supreme Court’s decisions in cases like Ashok Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh emphasize the need for a clear sequence of events and proof beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction.
Applying these principles to Shraddha Walker’s case, the analysis aligns with the criteria set in Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P., where circumstances should be fully interrelated, consistent with the accused’s guilt, conclusive, and exclude every alternative hypothesis. The four grounds outlined in Chenga Reddy validate the use of circumstantial evidence in Shraddha Walker’s case.
While the full facts are yet to be unveiled, the evidence discovered thus far has been crucial in connecting the dots. Aftab’s confession, the disposal of Shraddha’s body in eighteen days, and the results of the Narcos test present some irregularities. However, the case hinges on other evidence, including electronic devices, bank transactions, DNA tests, motive, and circumstantial evidence. Contradictions in Aftab’s statement, such as the bank transaction after May 22nd, contribute to building a case against him.
The missing weapon, cell phone, and the inconclusive DNA test add complexity to the case. However, the cumulative weight of circumstances, motive, and illicit relationship suggests guilt. Article 20(3)’s provision that no one can be a witness against oneself makes Aftab’s confession immaterial. Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act further supports the circumstantial evidence pointing towards Aftab’s guilt.
In conclusion, the rarity of cases like Shraddha Walker’s, where both circumstantial evidence and the convict’s confession are present, underscores the importance of prioritizing circumstantial evidence. The need for justice requires careful consideration of the available evidence to prevent the accused from exploiting the absence of proof for leniency.