Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
“Lackluster & Shabby” Investigation: Supreme Court Acquits Accused In Minor’s Rape & Murder Case; Sets Aside Death Sentence
|The Supreme Court observed that, had the accused men indulged in such a ghastly act with the child victim, then their act would not have gone unnoticed by the persons residing in the locality.
The Supreme Court has acquitted two men out of whom one was awarded death sentence in a case involving rape of a 12-year-old girl in the year 2012.
The Court was deciding Criminal Appeals filed against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Lucknow and the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which confirmed the death penalty.
The three-Judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta remarked, “We feel that the present case is yet another classic example of lackluster and shabby investigation and so also laconic trial procedure which has led to the failure of a case involving brutal rape and murder of an innocent girl child.”
The Bench observed that, had the accused men indulged in such a ghastly act with the child victim, then their act would not have gone unnoticed by the persons residing in the locality.
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat and AOR Varinder Kumar Sharma appeared for the Appellants/Accused while AOR Shaurya Sahay appeared for the Respondent/State.
Case Background
As per the prosecution case, in September 2012, the deceased victim (minor) had gone out to attend the call of nature in the late evening. When she did not return, the parents got alarmed and a search operation was launched, but to no avail. Next day, the child victim’s chappals, water canister, underwear, and blood stains were seen spread around in a field which was under cultivation of accused No.1. The denuded dead body of the child victim was found lying amidst the rice crop growing in another field. The victim’s father filed a Complaint before the Police alleging that some unknown persons had committed rape and thereafter, murdered his minor daughter. Hence, an FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The postmortem reports opined that the child victim had been subjected to grave violence and sexual assault and died as a result of asphyxia due to strangulation. As many as nine ante mortem injuries were noticed on the victim’s body including numerous on her nether regions. From the statements of various witnesses examined by the Investigating Officer (IO), the needle of suspicion turned towards the Appellants, who were then arrested. However, the DNA report was received and the comparison did not yield any conclusive results. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record, proceeded to convict and sentence the Appellants. The reference for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to accused no.1 was answered in affirmative by the High Court and it also dismissed the Appeals challenging conviction. This was under challenge before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in the above context of the case, said, “As is apparent, the conclusions in the first DNA report and the supplementary DNA report are in stark contradiction. Hence, it was essential for the prosecution to summon the expert concerned for reconciling the grave discrepancy in the two DNA reports. Having failed to do so, the prosecution cannot be permitted to place reliance on the subsequent DNA report to the prejudice of the accused-appellants.”
The Court noted that the material objects including the clothes of the child victim were exhibited in the evidence, but the same were not shown to the parents for identification when they stepped into the witness box and hence, a doubt is created as to whether the articles so recovered were actually of the child victim or not.
“The prosecution has given no explanation whatsoever as to why the clothes of the child victim were not forwarded to the FSL for forensic examination. … Even if it is assumed that some of these material objects were found in the field of the accused No.1-Putai, that by itself cannot be considered to be an incriminating circumstance so strong that even taken in isolation, the same would prove the guilt of the accused No.1-Putai beyond reasonable doubt”, it said.
The Court added that the distance between “may be proved” and “must be proved” is small but has to be travelled before the prosecution can seek conviction of the accused in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence.
“The fields where the material objects allegedly belonging to the child victim and her dead body were found is open and accessible to all and sundry and hence, the prosecution would have to rule out the possibility of anyone other than the accused-appellants having committed the ghastly act for it to succeed and to bring home the charges against the said accused persons”, it further observed.
The Court remarked that the failure of the Investigating Officers to search the house of the accused-Appellants is another circumstance which adds to the suspicion regarding the credibility of the Investigating Officer’s actions, more particularly, in respect of the alleged recoveries.
“… not a single person from the neighbourhood was examined by the Investigating Officers which creates a doubt on the bonafides of their actions. … At the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned that no document pertaining to collection of the blood samples from the accused-appellants was produced and exhibited in evidence, thereby, rendering the DNA reports to be a piece of trash paper. The prosecution failed to lead any credible evidence for proving the chain of custody of the forensic samples allegedly collected during investigation and hence on this ground alone, the DNA reports pale into insignificance”, it also noted.
Conclusion
The Court was of the view that the DNA report could not have been proved through an affidavit as the same is substantive piece of evidence and hence, the same could not have been tendered in evidence through an affidavit and that too of an officer who was not connected with the procedure in any manner.
“If at all, the prosecution was desirous of relying upon the supplementary DNA report, it was under obligation to recall and re-examine on oath the scientific expert, Dr. Archana Tripathy (PW-12), who issued the same. Failure of the prosecution to do so is fatal to its case”, it said.
The Court held that the prosecution failed to lead any credible evidence whatsoever which can be considered to be incriminating the accused Appellants for the crime in question, what to say, of evidence which is capable of proving the guilt of the accused-Appellants beyond all manner of doubt.
“… it is a settled tenet of criminal jurisprudence that in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The incriminating circumstances must be such which point exclusively to the guilt of the accused and are inconsistent with his innocence or the guilt of anyone else. we feel that the prosecution has fallen woefully short of proving the guilt of the accused-appellants by clinching evidence which can be termed as proving the case beyond all manner of doubt”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals, quashed the High Court’s Judgment, and acquitted the Appellants.
Cause Title- Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1042)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, AORs Varinder Kumar Sharma, Kabir Dixit, Advocates Shreya Rastogi, Manasa Ramakrishna, Abhishek Babbar, Mangesh Naik, R. D. Rathore, S. K. Bandyopadhyay, Dhruva Kumar, Rajiv Agnihotri, and Jeevan R. Patil.
Respondent: AOR Shaurya Sahay, Advocates Aditya Kumar, and Ruchil Raj.