The Supreme Court of India has acquitted two men, one of whom was on death row, for the 2012 gang rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl, holding that a DNA report becomes a “piece of trash paper” if the prosecution fails to prove the collection of blood samples in evidence. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta overturned the convictions, citing a “woefully short” prosecution case and a “lackluster and shabby investigation” that failed to prove the appellants’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to September 4, 2012, when the minor daughter of Munna (PW-1) and Smt. Chandravati (PW-2) went missing after going out to attend the call of nature in Lucknow. The following morning, her denuded dead body was discovered in a rice field. Personal belongings, including her chappals, water canister, and underwear, were found in an adjacent field cultivated by the accused, Putai.
An FIR was registered at Police Station Mohanlalganj for offences under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The investigation led to the arrest of the appellants, Putai and Dileep, on September 7, 2012.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, convicted both appellants on March 14, 2014. Putai was sentenced to death for murder, while Dileep received life imprisonment for the same charge. Both were also sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment for gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and seven years for the offence under Section 201 IPC. The Allahabad High Court, in a judgment dated October 11, 2018, confirmed Putai’s death sentence and dismissed the appeals filed by both convicts, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the appellants argued that the conviction was based purely on “conjectures and surmises” and that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of incriminating circumstances. They contended that the reliance on a supplementary DNA report, introduced during the appeal before the High Court, was unjustified as it was never put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and the expert who prepared it was not examined. They also highlighted the failure to establish the sanctity of the samples from seizure to forensic analysis.
The State of Uttar Pradesh countered that the witnesses, who were neighbours of the accused, had no reason to falsely implicate them and had given “natural and truthful evidence” regarding the suspicious conduct of the appellants around the time of the incident. The prosecution argued that the recovery of the victim’s articles from the field cultivated by Putai shifted the burden of proof onto him under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court, after a meticulous review of the evidence, found critical flaws in the prosecution’s case. The judgment, authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta, described the case as “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.”
Flawed DNA Evidence: The Court’s most scathing criticism was reserved for the handling of DNA evidence. It identified several “crucial flaws” that made the reports “totally inadmissible in evidence”:
- No Proof of Sample Collection: The prosecution failed to produce and exhibit in evidence any document pertaining to the “collection of the blood samples from the accused-appellants.” The Court stated this failure “renders the DNA reports to be a piece of trash paper.”
- Broken Chain of Custody: There was a “total lack of evidence regarding the chain of custody” of the samples. No witness, including the malkhana in-charge or the official who carried the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), was examined to establish an unbroken chain.
- Inadmissible Supplementary Report: A supplementary DNA report, which inculpated the accused, was produced for the first time during the High Court appeal via an affidavit. The Court held this was impermissible under Section 293 CrPC, stating, “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.” Furthermore, the report was never put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC, denying them an opportunity to rebut it.
- Contradictory Reports: The Court noted that the first DNA report was inconclusive, while the supplementary report was contradictory. The failure to recall the scientific expert to reconcile the “grave discrepancy” was deemed fatal to the prosecution’s case.
Other Lapses: The Court also dismissed other circumstantial evidence, including the alleged “suspicious conduct” of the accused and a theory involving a sniffer dog, as “unbelievable” and “shrouded in a cloud of doubt.” It highlighted that crucial articles like the victim’s frock and underwear were never sent to the FSL for analysis, giving rise to a “strong suspicion that the recovery of these articles was a planted recovery.”
The Final Decision
Concluding its analysis, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The bench observed, “The distance between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be proved’ is small but has to be travelled before the prosecution can seek conviction of the accused in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence.”
The Court stated, “Having considered and analyzed the evidence available on record minutely, we feel that the prosecution has fallen woefully short of proving the guilt of the accused-appellants by clinching evidence which can be termed as proving the case beyond all manner of doubt.”
Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court quashed and set aside the conviction and sentences handed down by the trial court and the High Court. The appellants, Putai and Dileep, were acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released from prison forthwith.
