Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (Aug. 26) set aside the conviction of two men in a case involving the rape and murder of a minor in Uttar Pradesh, noting that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the case, built entirely on circumstantial evidence, was marred by inconsistencies, procedural lapses, and serious investigative flaws.

“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 court said.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta set aside the conviction of the Appellants, who were sentenced to death and rigorous life imprisonment, respectively, based on the supplementary DNA Report, which was admitted in evidence via affidavit without examining the scientific expert to verify its credibility.

The judgment authored by Justice Mehta noted that a significant procedural lapse was about the chain of custody of DNA evidence collected during the evidence and preparation of DNA reports, without producing documents pertaining to collection of the blood samples from the accused-appellants. Furthermore, the supplementary DNA report, forming a substantive piece of evidence was improperly admitted via affidavit without recalling and examining the scientific expert, and was never put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC.

“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.”, the court said.

“That apart, the DNA report could not have been proved through an affidavit. Section 293 of CrPC (Section 329 of BNSS, 2023) makes it amply clear that only evidence of formal nature can be given on affidavits. The DNA report 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”, the court added.

Furthermore, the Court expressed displeasure with the investigation carried out by the police, stating that:

“The Investigating Officers did not care to examine anyone from the neighbouring fields where the dead body of the child victim was found. The incident took place in the beginning of September, 2012 and the time of the incident was between 07:00 PM to 08:00 PM. In the beginning of the month of September, darkness would fall somewhere around 07:00 PM only. Thus, had the accused-appellants 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. However, not a single person from the neighbourhood was examined by the Investigating Officers which creates a doubt on the bonafides of their actions.”

Other relevant observations made by the Court:

“In conclusion, we have no hesitation in holding that other than the allegation that the child victim's chappals, underwear and the water canister were found in the field which was cultivated by accused No. 1-Putai, the prosecution has 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.”

“We are conscious that the case involves a gruesome act of rape and brutal murder of a tender girl child aged 12 years. However, 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.”

“Hence, we are left with no option but to acquit the appellants by giving them the benefit of doubt.”, the court held.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

The Square Circle Clinic, NALSAR University of Law, provided legal assistance to the appellant.

Cause Title: PUTAI VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 841

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Adv. Ms. Manasa Ramakrishna, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Babbar, Adv. Mr. Mangesh Naik, Adv. Mr. Kabir Dixit, AOR Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. R. D. Rathore, Adv. Mr. S. K. Bandyopadhyay, Adv. Mr. Dhruva Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Agnihotri, Adv. Mr. Jeevan R. Patil, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv. Ms. Ruchil Raj, Adv.