“Classic example of lackluster and shabby investigation”; Supreme Court acquits two men, including death row convict, in 12-year-old’s rape and murder case

Supreme Court: In an appeal filed against the 2018 judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had upheld the convictions of two individuals, sentencing one to death and the other to life imprisonment for the rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl in Lucknow in 2012, a three-judge bench of Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ. acquitted both the convicts.

The Court came down heavily on the police and prosecution, attributing the failure of the case to a glaringly shoddy investigation and a lackadaisical trial process. It found that the case was damaged by serious procedural lapses, including the failure to prove the chain of custody of forensic samples, contradictory and unreliable witness testimonies, and the prosecution’s inability to eliminate the possibility of others committing the crime. Emphasising the settled principle that conviction in a case based solely on circumstantial evidence requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, the Court held that the evidence presented fell far short of that standard. Consequently, both convicts were acquitted and ordered to be released from custody.

Background

The incident occurred in September 2012, when a 12-year-old girl went missing after going out to attend to nature’s call. Despite efforts by her family members and villagers to locate her throughout the night, she remained untraceable. The following morning, her blood-stained underclothes, footwear, and a water container were found in a field cultivated by Convict No.1. Shortly thereafter, her naked body was discovered lying in an adjacent agricultural field.

A police complaint was lodged immediately, and a First Information Report (‘FIR’) was registered under Sections 302, 201 and 376 of the IPC. The investigation, led by Sub-Inspector, resulted in the seizure of various incriminating articles, including bloodstained soil, clothes, and a male comb. The sniffer dog squad traced the scent from the comb to the house of convict 2. The postmortem, conducted by a medical board confirmed sexual assault and death due to asphyxia by strangulation, with nine ante-mortem injuries.

Upon conclusion of the trial, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge (‘Trial Court’) the convicts were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g), 201 and 302 of Penal Code, 1860, The Trial Court made a reference to the Allahabad High Court under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to convict 1. The convicts also filed separate appeals challenging their convictions and sentences. The High Court, by judgment dated 11-10-2018, confirmed the death sentence of convict 1 and dismissed the appeals preferred by the convicts. This judgment is now under challenge in the present appeal.

Analysis and Decision

The Court examined the testimonies of the father of the child victim, and her mother, in the context of the alleged involvement of convict 1. The father deposed that his daughter had informed her mother and gone out around 7:00 PM to relieve herself, following which she did not return. While the family launched a search, he made no mention of any dog squad involvement, nor did he state that the underwear of the child was found in the field cultivated by the convict, although the Investigating Officer later claimed such recovery. Moreover, none of the incriminating articles allegedly recovered.

The only act attributed to the convict by the father was based on a witness statement that she saw convict 1 washing his hands and face and entering his house during the search. The Court noted that this conduct, on its own, was not unusual for a person returning from agricultural work and could not be treated as incriminating.

The mother of the child victim, in her deposition, echoed similar facts and added that convict 1 later changed his clothes and left on his bicycle, without enquiring into the ongoing commotion. The Trial and High Court had considered this indifference as incriminating. However, the Court found this behaviour to be neutral, noting that mere absence of concern or non-enquiry does not, in isolation, amount to incriminating conduct. Her claim that convict 1 looked disgruntled and left in a hurry was also considered an improvement from her earlier statement under Section 161 CrPC and not enough to establish guilt.

The Court concluded that the conduct of convict 1, such as washing up, entering his own house, or even leaving without making inquiries, was not unnatural and could not, by itself, give rise to a presumption of guilt.

The prosecution’s claim against convict 2 hinged on the recovery of a plastic comb allegedly belonging to him, found at the crime scene. The sniffer dog, upon sniffing the comb, purportedly led the police to his house. However, the Court found this entire sequence of events riddled with inconsistencies and lacking credibility, for the following reasons:

1. Multiple prosecution witnesses gave conflicting descriptions of the comb’s colour. These discrepancies rendered the identity and recovery of the comb doubtful.

2. The prosecution’s claim that the witnesses had seen convict 2 using the comb and could identify it as his was deemed farfetched and implausible. The Court observed that the comb was a common, mass-produced plastic item, lacking any distinctive features. As such, the assertion that it specifically belonged to convict 2 was not believable.

3. The Court noted that no official record or documentation was prepared regarding the dog squad operation that allegedly linked the comb to convict 2’s residence.

In conclusion, the Court held that the prosecution’s attempt to link convict 2 to the crime through the recovery of the comb and sniffer dog evidence was contrived and unreliable. The evidence was not worthy of credence and appeared to be an attempt to falsely implicate the accused.

Crucial flaws in prosecution’s case rendering DNA reports inadmissible:

1. No Proof of Blood Sample Collection:

   1. The prosecution failed to prove the procedure, date, or time of collecting the blood samples of the convicts for DNA testing.

   2. No oral or documentary evidence was produced to establish how or when the samples were drawn.

   3. There was a complete lack of chain of custody evidence for the blood samples.

2. Contradictions in Medical Testimony:

   1. Inconsistency between two medical jurists:

   2. This discrepancy raised serious doubt about the reliability and authenticity of the samples used for DNA testing.

3. No Proof of Sample Preservation and Forwarding:

   1. No witness was examined to establish the chain of custody, from seizure, preservation, to forwarding to the Forensic Science Lab (FSL).

   2. No documentation was provided to prove the safe handling and transfer of samples.

4. Failure to Examine Key Officials:

   1. The custodian of seized materials was not examined.

   2. The officials who transported the samples to the FSL were also not produced as witnesses.

5. No Documentation of Sample Transmission:

   1. Not a single document proving the transmission of samples to the FSL was exhibited.

   2. The primary DNA report was deemed inconclusive and thus inadmissible in evidence.

The Court found that the conclusions drawn in the first DNA report and the supplementary DNA report were in stark contradiction to each other. Despite this, the prosecution failed to summon the expert concerned to reconcile the discrepancy. As a result, the Court held that the prosecution could not be permitted to rely on the supplementary DNA report to the prejudice of the accused. This failure to clarify conflicting scientific evidence significantly weakened the evidentiary value of DNA reports.

Furthermore, the Court noted that although the material objects, including the clothes of the deceased child victim, were exhibited through the testimony of the investigating officer, they were never shown to the parents for identification during their deposition in court. This raised serious doubts as to whether the recovered articles actually belonged to the victim. To compound this deficiency, the prosecution offered no explanation for its failure to send the child’s clothes to FSL for examination. In a case involving grave charges, such a lapse in conducting basic forensic procedures was found to be a significant flaw in the investigation, further diminishing the credibility of the prosecution’s case.

The Court emphasised that even if it were assumed that certain material objects were indeed recovered from the field under the cultivation of convict 1, such recovery alone could not be treated as an incriminating circumstance strong enough to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In a case based solely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must bridge the gap between “may be proved” and “must be proved” before securing a conviction.

The Court highlighted that the fields where the child victim’s body and personal belongings were found were open and accessible to the public, meaning that anyone could have committed the crime. Therefore, the prosecution had a duty to eliminate all other possible hypotheses, including the involvement of persons other than the convicts.

The Court noted that although the child’s dead body was discovered in the field, and her chappals, water canister, and underwear were allegedly recovered from the field of convict 1, such facts might raise suspicion. However, suspicion, no matter how strong, could not substitute for proof. Without clear, cogent, and complete evidence ruling out the involvement of others, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to meet the legal standard required to hold the accused guilty.

The Court further noted that the testimony of the victim’s mother, claiming to have seen convict 1 washing his face and changing clothes after the incident, could not be treated as an incriminating circumstance. The Court found this version to be exaggerated, especially since it was not mentioned in the original complaint filed by her husband, Moreover, if there were any truth to this allegation, the investigating officers would have likely conducted a thorough search of the accused’s house to find evidence, but no such effort was made. This failure further discredited the reliability of the prosecution’s case and raised doubts about the conduct of the investigation.

The Court described the investigation as lackluster and poorly handled, particularly in a case involving the heinous rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl. It criticized the failure of the investigating officers to examine any witnesses from neighboring fields where the body was discovered, despite the fact that the incident occurred at a time when there would have been people in the vicinity. Their failure to speak to anyone from the area further cast doubt on the prosecution’s case.

The Court reiterated that no documents were produced regarding the collection of the convict’s blood samples, rendering the DNA reports inadmissible. It emphasised that the supplementary DNA report was introduced during the appeal process through an affidavit by an officer who had no connection with the report itself. Since the DNA report is a substantive piece of evidence, it could not have been introduced through an affidavit, particularly under Section 293 of the CrPC, which allows affidavits only for formal evidence.

The Court reaffirmed that in a case based solely on circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence must point exclusively to the guilt of the accused and must rule out any other possibility.

After thoroughly analysing the record, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to meet this standard. Therefore, the convicts were acquitted and ordered to be released from custody immediately if not wanted in any other case. The judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court were quashed and set aside, and any pending applications were disposed of.

[Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No(s). 36-37 of 2019, decided on 26-08-2025]

*Judgment Authored by: Justice Sandeep Mehta

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For Appellant(s): Mr. Sadan Farasat, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Adv. Ms. Manasa Ramakrishna, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Babbar, Adv. Mr. Kabir Dixit, AOR Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR

For Respondent(s): Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aman Jaiswal, Adv

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE

Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  HERE