Constitutional Right Of Accused To Defend Himself Is Not Illusory: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Minor’s Sexual Assault & Murder Case

While acquitting a man in seven-year-old girl’s sexual assault and murder case, the Supreme Court remarked that the Constitutional right of an accused charged with an offence to defend himself is not illusory.

The accused preferred Criminal Appeals challenging the Judgment of the Madras High Court, by which his death sentence was confirmed and conviction was upheld.

The three-Judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “The constitutional right afforded to an accused charged with an offence to defend himself is not illusory or imaginary. For the trial to be fair and reasonable, an effective opportunity to defend must be provided to the accused and representation by a counsel of choice is an important component of this guarantee.”

The Bench added that in a case where accused is facing charges for offences which carry capital punishment, this constitutional mandate becomes even more sacrosanct, and it is the duty of the Court as well as the State to ensure that the accused is not prejudiced or deprived of a fair opportunity of defending himself in a case where he may be awarded death penalty.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal represented the Appellant/Accused, while Senior Advocate V. Krishnamurthy represented the Respondent/State.

Brief Facts

As per the prosecution case, in the year 2017. a 7-year-old female child victim went missing. The parents had gone out shopping and when they returned in the evening, they did not see their daughter around, upon which a search was made with the help of the neighbours including the Appellant-accused. The police was also informed but the efforts to trace out the child did not yield any results. A complaint was filed and based on that, a missing persons’ case was registered. The Complainant (victim’s father) in his efforts to get clues about the whereabouts of his child, claimed to have browsed video footage of a CCTV camera installed at a nearby temple which gave an indication as to the manner in which the child victim might have been kidnapped.

The police also followed the lead provided by the Complainant and went through the CCTV footage after which the needle of suspicion turned towards the Appellant. Hence, he was arrested and he allegedly confessed. Thereafter, the body of the victim was recovered and the case was converted to a crime report for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 363, 366, and 354-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 8 read with Section 7 and Section 6 read with Section 5(m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The Trial Court found the accused guilty for the said charges and awarded death sentence to him for the offence of murder. This was challenged before the High Court, which confirmed the same and being aggrieved, the accused was before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “First and foremost, we will address the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that there has been a total failure of justice inasmuch as the trial was not conducted in a fair manner and no proper opportunity was provided to the appellant to defend himself.”

The Court was of the view that the legal aid counsel appointed to defend the Appellant could, by no stretch of imagination, have had a reasonable and effective opportunity to prepare the matter and conduct the cross-examination from the witnesses.

“However, the chronological list of events reproduced (paragraph 34 supra) makes it clear that these mandatory requirements were totally bypassed/violated by the trial Court while conducting the proceedings. Hence, prejudice and denial of opportunity of effective defence to the accused are writ large on the face of the record”, it said.

Considering the fact that almost eight years elapsed since the incident took place, and considering the fact that the Appellant already suffered protracted proceedings of trial and Appeal, while being incarcerated in custody, the Court decided to examine the case on merits.

“We are, therefore, convinced that the circumstance of last seen together has been created by the Investigating Officer (PW-30) through the witness Murugan (PW-3) in order to lend credence to the otherwise weak case of the prosecution. … the primary evidence of the so-called CCTV footage is not available on record. In addition thereto, we find that the theory of incriminating CCTV footage also seems to be a fictional creation by the Investigating Officers to somehow trap the appellant for the crime”, it further noted.

The Court held that the recoveries of the bag, allegedly containing the bottles in which petrol was carried and the undergarment of the victim, were not effected at the instance of the Appellant and were planted recoveries.

“This conclusion is fortified by the fact that there is no mention of the said bag in the observation mahazar51 and the rough sketch. The Investigating Officer (PW-29) did not utter a word that he sealed the ornaments allegedly recovered in furtherance of the disclosure statement given by the appellant. Hence, the identification of these articles by the complainant (PW-1) pales into insignificance”, it added.

The Court also said that the sanctity of the procedure of drawing the blood samples of the Appellant and the forwarding thereof to the FSL has been breached which would lead to the DNA report being rendered redundant.

“… though the scientific experts concluded that the DNA profile of the semen stain found on the underwear of the victim was matching with the DNA profile of the appellant but as the very factum of recovery of the Material Object, i.e., the undergarment of the victim has not been established beyond doubt (discussed in 55 supra), as a consequence, no sanctity whatsoever can be attached to the conclusions drawn in the Expert Report (Exhibit P-32)”, it remarked.

Moreover, the Court said that a very serious question has to be posed regarding the time of collection of the blood samples of the Appellant and there is no dispute that the case of prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence, and the Appellant came to be arrested 3 days later.

“Thus, there was no reason whatsoever for the Investigating Agency to have waited for four months before collecting the blood samples of the appellant. There is a strong possibility that the delay may have been utilized to manipulate the samples. Doing so was very easy because there is no evidence on record regarding the unbreached chain of custody of any of the forensic samples”, it added.

Conclusion

The Court remarked that while the case pertains to the commission of heinous offence involving a girl of tender age of 7 years, at the same time, it cannot ignore or bypass the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is duty-bound to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

“The onus is heavier in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence. However, regrettably, the prosecution has miserably failed to do so in the instant case, leaving the Court with no choice but to acquit the appellant, despite the heinous nature of the crime. While it is acknowledged that the acquittal of an individual involved in a heinous crime can lead to societal distress and cause grave anguish to the victim’s family, the legal framework does not permit the Courts to punish an accused person based merely on moral convictions or conjectures”, it emphasised.

The Court observed that each case must be adjudicated by the Courts rigorously on its individual merits and in strict conformity with the law, without yielding to public sentiment and external pressures.

“As a result of the above analysis, we are of the firm view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the vital circumstances, viz., (i) last seen together theory; (ii) suspicious movement of the appellant captured in the video footage of the CCTV camera installed at a nearby temple; (iii) confessional/disclosure statement made by the appellant leading discoveries/recoveries to the incriminating and (iv) FSL reports establishing the DNA profiling comparison, which constituted the entire edifice of the prosecution case and on which the conviction of the appellant was based”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals, set aside the impugned Judgment, and acquitted the accused.

Cause Title- Dashwanth v. State of Tamil Nadu (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1203)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, AOR Abhimanue Shrestha, Advocates Shreya Rastogi, Manasa Ramakrishna, Vishwajeet Bhati, Trisha Chandran, and Mamta Sharma.

Respondent: Senior Advocate V. Krishnamurthy, AOR Sabarish Subramanian, Advocates Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Azka Sheikh Kalia, Jahnavi Taneja, and Danish Saifi.

Click here to read/download the Judgment