Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Three-Judge Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta allowed the criminal appeals, quashed the High Court judgment affirming the trial court’s conviction and capital sentence, and directed the immediate release of the appellants unless required in any other case. The Court recorded that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and therefore extended the benefit of doubt. It ordered that the impugned High Court judgment dated 11 October 2018 and the trial court’s judgment of conviction dated 14 March 2014 with the order on sentence dated 19 March 2014 stand set aside, and disposed of pending applications.

The matter arose from a prosecution concerning offences under Sections 376(2)(g), 201 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial court convicted two accused and imposed, inter alia, the death penalty on one accused. The conviction and sentences were detailed as follows: for Accused No.1, punishment for offences under Sections 376(2)(g), 201 and 302 IPC included rigorous life imprisonment with fines for the first two counts and a death sentence with fine for Section 302; for Accused No.2, punishments included rigorous life imprisonment and fines for Sections 376(2)(g) and 302, and seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine for Section 201.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Class A Andhra Pradesh Forest Service Officers Held to Be State Forest Service | Forest Range Officers To Be Considered for Promotion to Indian Forest Service

As the trial court imposed a capital sentence on Accused No.1, a statutory reference was made to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for confirmation. The accused also filed separate appeals against the conviction and sentences. The High Court confirmed the death sentence and dismissed both appeals by judgment dated 11 October 2018.

The factual background appears from the record summarized by the Court. The minor victim, a girl of about 12 years, went out in the late evening of 4 September 2012 and did not return. A search ensued. The next morning, 5 September 2012, her chappals, water canister, underwear and blood stains were seen in a field under cultivation by Accused No.1. The denuded body was found in an adjacent field. A First Information Report was registered that morning at Police Station Mohanlalganj for offences under the IPC, upon a complaint alleging rape and murder by unknown persons.

Investigation commenced under a Sub-Inspector (PW-9), who inspected the crime scene, prepared a site map, and seized, under a seizure memo, items including plain and blood-stained soil, blood-stained grass, a pair of pink chappals, a blue undergarment, a water canister, a sky-blue frock, and a small male comb. As per the site map, the body was found in one field and the victim’s personal effects in another, with a brick road between the two fields. The prosecution asserted that a dog squad was called; after sniffing the comb, the dog led the police to the house of Accused No.2.

An inquest was conducted and the body sent for autopsy by a medical board comprising three doctors. The post-mortem reports opined that the victim had suffered grave violence and sexual assault and died of asphyxia due to strangulation, with nine ante-mortem injuries noted, including injuries to the private parts.

From witness statements, suspicion turned towards the accused, who were arrested on 7 September 2012. The prosecution did not exhibit the arrest memos. Blood samples of the accused were later obtained by court order for DNA comparison, but the initial DNA report did not yield conclusive results. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed for offences under Sections 376(2)(g), 201, and 302 IPC; the case being triable by the Sessions Court, charges were framed, the accused pleaded not guilty, and trial ensued. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses, exhibited 17 documents and 5 material objects; the dog squad team leader was examined as Court Witness No.1; statements under Section 313 CrPC were recorded; three defence witnesses were examined.

At trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 13, Lucknow) convicted both accused in Sessions Case No. 61 of 2013, imposing the sentences described above.

Upon reference under Section 366 CrPC and appeals by the accused, the High Court confirmed the death penalty for Accused No.1 and dismissed both criminal appeals on 11 October 2018.

The Supreme Court’s record of submissions captures the core contentions. On behalf of the accused, it was urged that reliance on the DNA report was unjustified because the prosecution failed to prove the sanctity of samples from seizure to the forensic laboratory; the initial DNA report did not inculpate the accused; a supplementary DNA report was later produced before the High Court by affidavit, not put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC, and the relevant expert was not examined, rendering the document inconsequential and inadmissible.

For the State, it was argued, inter alia, that material witnesses and accused were close neighbours; the witnesses had no reason to falsely implicate; the suspicious conduct of the accused was naturally deposed; minor inconsistencies were expected; the FIR was prompt; and, because the victim’s personal articles were recovered from a field cultivated by Accused No.1, the burden to explain circumstances shifted to the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Having heard the parties, the Supreme Court proceeded to assess the record, including witness testimonies, seizures, forensic steps, site-plan features, dog-squad movement claim, autopsy findings, and the two DNA reports. The Court ultimately concluded that the prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and that the incriminating circumstances were not established to the requisite standard.

The Supreme Court examined the factual matrix and the evidence on record. It recorded: "The following facts are admitted from the record: The child victim went missing on 4th September, 2012 at around 07:00 PM. She had gone out for attending the call of nature and was not found alive thereafter... The denuded dead body of the child victim was found in the field of Harikrishna Sharma whereas, some of her personal articles i.e., chappals, water canister and underwear were found in the field of Bhaktisharan."

On the DNA reports, the Court stated: "The first DNA examination report dated 18th January, 2014 remained inconclusive. The prosecution produced a supplementary DNA report dated 2nd December, 2014... However, notably, the first DNA report was totally silent regarding any pending tests or the requirement for re-examination of the samples. The supplementary DNA report was not put to the accused-appellants, and they were denied opportunity to rebut the same."

It observed that no documents proving safe custody, transmission, or collection of blood samples were produced. "Failure to do so makes the entire exercise of collection of the blood samples, farce and frivolous." The Court further recorded: "Neither the malkhana In-charge of the Police Station Mohanlalganj was examined in evidence nor did the prosecution care to examine the official/s who carried the samples to the FSL. Not a single document pertaining to the transmission of the samples to the FSL was exhibited by the prosecution in its evidence."

With respect to the reliance on suspicious conduct of accused No. 1, the Court noted: "There was nothing unusual in the conduct of accused No.1-Putai if he entered into his own house, even in haste, washed his face and hands and then, went away." On the testimony regarding the comb allegedly belonging to accused No. 2, it found contradictions about its colour and concluded: "The emphatic version of the witnesses that the comb belonged to accused No. 2-Dileep is a strong indicator of the fact that the prosecution was hell bent upon implicating the accused No. 2-Dileep in this case by hook or by crook."

The Bench critically remarked on the investigation: "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."

Also Read: Punjab and Haryana High Court | Army Authorities Pulled Up for Misrepresenting Facts | Denial of Regularisation to Military Farm Personnel with 30+ Years’ Service Held Illegal

It concluded on the evidence: "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."

The Court allowed the appeals, quashed the conviction, and set aside the sentence imposed. It directed: "Hence, we are left with no option but to acquit the appellants by giving them the benefit of doubt." The Bench ordered: "The appeals thus succeed and are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 11th October, 2018 passed by the High Court and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14th March, 2014 and 19th March, 2014, passed by the trial Court are hereby quashed and set aside." Further, it mandated: "The appellants, Putai and Dileep are acquitted of the charges. They are in custody and shall be released from prison forthwith, if not wanted in any other case." The pending applications stood disposed of.

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: 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 the Respondents: Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR; Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv.; Ms. Ruchil Raj, Adv.

Case Title: Putai vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1042

Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 36-37 of 2019 with Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2025

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Sandeep Mehta