The Supreme Court of India has acquitted Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju, who was convicted and sentenced to death by the Fast Track Court at Rudrapur, Uttarakhand, for the rape and murder of a minor girl, citing serious lapses in the trial, including illegal reliance on a confession and deficiencies in DNA evidence. The decision delivered by the bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Background
The case originated from an incident on the intervening night of 25th–26th June 2016, when a minor girl went missing from a Jagran function in village Fasiyapura. Her body was discovered the next morning in a nearby field. An FIR was lodged by her father, alleging that she had been sexually assaulted and killed. Karandeep Sharma was arrested on 28th June 2016 and charged under Sections 376A, 302, 366, 363, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).
The trial court convicted the appellant and awarded the death penalty under Sections 376A and 302 IPC. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by the High Court of Uttarakhand on January 5, 2018. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court through special leave.
Appellant’s Arguments
Counsel for the appellant contended that the case was based solely on circumstantial evidence, particularly the ‘last seen’ theory and a forensic DNA report. It was argued that:
- The confession recorded under Section 164 CrPC was involuntary, extracted under duress, and was not relied upon by the trial or High Court.
- No test identification parade was conducted despite witnesses not knowing the accused beforehand.
- The DNA report was inadmissible as the expert who conducted the profiling was not examined during trial.
- The trial process was rushed, and the appellant was denied legal representation and adequate opportunity to defend himself.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued that multiple prosecution witnesses (PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, PW-6, PW-8, and PW-11) consistently testified that the victim was last seen with the appellant. It also relied on the DNA report which purportedly matched the DNA found on the victim’s clothes and body with the accused’s samples.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court found that the trial was conducted in a manner that severely prejudiced the rights of the accused:
- The trial court failed to provide the appellant with a legal aid counsel until after the charges were framed and evidence recording had commenced.
- The confession was admitted into evidence improperly, with the prosecution witness (a police officer) narrating it in court in violation of Sections 24–26 of the Indian Evidence Act.
- Witnesses who claimed to have seen the victim with the accused did not identify him in court, and no identification parade was conducted.
- There were serious gaps in the chain of custody and sealing of DNA samples. The court cited Rahul v. State of Delhi [(2023) 1 SCC 83], holding that mere exhibition of DNA reports is insufficient without examining the expert and proving reliable techniques were applied.
The bench observed, “There is not even a semblance of evidence on record to satisfy the Court that the samples/articles collected…were properly sealed or remained in a self-same condition till they reached the FSL.”
It concluded that “the DNA/FSL reports cannot be read in evidence,” and that the ‘last seen’ theory stood “completely demolished” due to the unexplained delay and silence of the witnesses in informing the police.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of both the trial court and the High Court. Karandeep Sharma was acquitted of all charges and directed to be released from custody unless wanted in any other case.
“The trial was not conducted in a fair manner and that the appellant was not provided with a reasonable opportunity to defend himself,” the Court stated.
Case: Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju vs State of Uttarakhand | Criminal Appeal Nos. 630-631 of 2018
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta
