“Trial Was Not Conducted in a Fair Manner”: Supreme Court Sets Aside Death Penalty in Child Rape-Murder Case Over Illegally Admitted Confession and DNA Evidence Lapses
Sanchayita Lahkar
A 3 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that the trial in a child rape and murder case was vitiated by procedural irregularities and denial of fair opportunity to the accused. The Court quashed the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court, and directed the immediate release of the appellant. The Court found that the confession of the accused was inadmissible and that the DNA and forensic evidence relied upon by the prosecution was rendered unreliable due to significant lapses in collection, sealing, and chain of custody procedures, combined with the non-examination of the scientific expert who prepared the report.
The appellant was tried before the Fast Track Court/Additional Sessions Judge/Special POCSO Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, in Special Sessions Trial No. 159 of 2016, for offences punishable under Sections 376A, 302, 366, 363, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. On 5th and 6th April 2017, the trial court convicted the appellant and awarded death sentences under Sections 376A and 302 IPC, along with other sentences of imprisonment and fines.
A reference was made to the High Court of Uttarakhand under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for confirmation of the death sentence. The appellant also filed an appeal. The High Court, by judgment dated 5th January 2018, confirmed the death sentence and dismissed the appeal.
According to the prosecution, the child-victim had gone missing from a Jagran function held on the night of 25th/26th June 2016. The FIR, lodged by her father the next morning, reported her disappearance. During the search, the dead body of the child-victim was found in a nearby field. It was suspected that the child had been subjected to forcible sexual assault and murder.
Investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer, Om Prakash Sharma (PW-14). Spot documents were prepared, witnesses were examined, and the body was sent for post-mortem. Dr. Madan Mohan (PW-7), who conducted the post-mortem, found multiple injuries and opined that the cause of death was asphyxia. The appellant was arrested on 28th June 2016 and a confessional statement was recorded through a Magistrate. A charge-sheet was filed and charges were framed on 5th November 2016.
Counsel for the appellant contended that the conviction was solely based on circumstantial evidence and was not supported by reliable or admissible proof. The confession was stated to have been obtained under coercion. It was submitted that the DNA expert was not examined, and the report could not be read in evidence. The defence further argued that the chain of custody was unproven, and that no test identification parade was conducted, despite the appellant being previously unknown to the key witnesses.
The prosecution relied on eyewitnesses of the alleged “last seen” circumstance, namely PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, PW-6, PW-8, and PW-11, who claimed to have seen the appellant with the child-victim during the Jagran function. The prosecution also submitted that the DNA samples matched those of the accused and the deceased.
However, the records revealed that the appellant was unrepresented through several key hearings, and only later was an amicus curiae appointed. The legal aid counsel was replaced mid-trial. Evidence of DNA sample collection, sealing, and dispatch was inconsistent or absent. No expert was examined to explain the DNA findings. The FSL reports were admitted without proving the conditions of receipt or authenticity. Several prosecution witnesses failed to identify the appellant in court, and some admitted they learned of his identity through newspapers. Additionally, there was no documentation presented to prove the chain of custody of critical forensic samples.
The Court recorded: “the present case is yet another classic example of undue haste resulting in denial of proper opportunity to the accused to be tried in a just and fair manner.”
It stated: “Apparently thus, proper opportunity was not given to the appellant before framing charges against him and sending him for trial.” The bench noted that the trial court failed to appoint a legal aid counsel for the appellant until much later, and the appointed lawyer had insufficient time to prepare.
On the admissibility of DNA evidence, the Court recorded: “The first flaw in the prosecution case on the aspect of DNA profiling is that the expert who conducted the DNA examination was not examined in evidence.” It stated further: “non-examination of the scientific expert who carried out the DNA profiling is fatal, and the DNA report cannot be admitted in evidence.”
The Court cited Rahul v. State of Delhi, (2023) 1 SCC 83, observing: “DNA profiling reports cannot be admitted in evidence ipso facto by virtue of Section 293 CrPC and it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the techniques of DNA profiling were reliably applied by the expert.”
Regarding the physical evidence, the Court noted: “the very procedure of collection and forwarding of DNA samples to the FSL is full of lacunae and loopholes.” The Court observed contradictions in testimonies regarding sealing of the samples and recorded: “there is every possibility of the samples being tampered/manipulated by the police officers so as to achieve a favourable result from the FSL, thereby, inculpating the appellant in the crime.”
On the last seen theory, the Court found: “the conduct of these witnesses in remaining silent and not disclosing to the police regarding they having seen the appellant taking away the child-victim with himself, completely demolishes the prosecution case regarding the theory of last seen.”
With respect to the confession, the Court held: “this procedure adopted by the trial Court in permitting a police officer to verbatim narrate the confession made by an accused during investigation is grossly illegal and contrary to the mandate of Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.”
The Court concluded: “Once, these reports of the FSL are eschewed from consideration, there remains no evidence on the record of the case so as to connect the appellant with the crime.”
The Supreme Court ordered that the judgments dated 5th April 2017 and 6th April 2017 passed by the trial court, and the judgment dated 5th January 2018 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand, be quashed and set aside.
It ordered: “The appellant is acquitted of the charges. He is in custody and shall be released from prison forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the criminal appeals filed by the appellant. It further directed: “Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Nishant Sanjay Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Ashish Singh, Adv., Mr. Sadashiv, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv., Mr. Shubham Arora, Adv., Mr. Manan Verma, AOR, Ms. Anubha Dhulia, Adv.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Uttarakhand
Neutral Citation: 225 INSC 444
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 630–631 of 2018
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Sandeep Mehta
[Read/Download order]
