The Supreme Court of India has acquitted Dashwanth, a man sentenced to death for the sexual assault and murder of a seven-year-old girl, after finding that the trial was conducted in a “lopsided manner” and that the prosecution “miserably failed” to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. A three-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta set aside the judgments of the Madras High Court and the trial court, citing patent infirmities, denial of a fair trial, and a complete failure by the prosecution to establish the chain of circumstantial evidence.
Case Background
The case originated with the disappearance of a seven-year-old girl on February 5, 2017. Her father, C.S.D. Babu (PW-1), filed a missing person complaint with the Mangadu Police Station. The investigation turned towards the appellant, Dashwanth, a resident of the same apartment building, based on suspicion arising from CCTV footage from a nearby temple.
The appellant was arrested on February 8, 2017. According to the prosecution, he made a disclosure statement that led to the recovery of the victim’s charred body, her undergarments, and other items. The appellant resided in a flat on the second floor of the same building where the victim’s family lived on the first floor.
The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpet, convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 363, 366, 354-B, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and relevant sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. He was sentenced to death for the murder charge under Section 302 IPC. The Madras High Court subsequently dismissed his appeal and confirmed the death sentence, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.
Appellant’s Arguments: A Fabricated Case and Unfair Trial
Counsel for the appellant argued that the entire prosecution case was “false and fabricated,” riddled with “improbabilities and loopholes.” The key submissions were:
- Unreliable ‘Last Seen’ Witness: The testimony of Murugan (PW-3), the sole witness for the “last seen together” circumstance, was attacked as “highly unnatural.” It was argued that despite allegedly seeing the victim with the appellant shortly before she went missing, he failed to disclose this crucial information to the parents or the police during the initial search, in which the appellant himself participated. The court noted this information was first divulged to the second Investigating Officer more than two months after the incident.
- Planted Recoveries: The defense contended that the recoveries, including the victim’s body and ornaments, were planted. It was argued that the appellant was taken into illegal custody on February 7, 2017, and forced to sign blank papers, and the narrative of discovery was concocted later.
- Denial of Fair Trial: A significant ground of challenge was the violation of the appellant’s right to a fair trial. Counsel pointed out that charges were framed on October 24, 2017, but the necessary documents under Section 207 CrPC were provided only on December 13, 2017. A legal aid counsel was appointed on the same day, and the prosecution evidence, involving 30 witnesses, commenced just four days later. The sentencing to death was done on the very same day as the conviction, which was argued to be a “gross contravention to the tenets of fair trial.”
State’s Submissions: Unimpeachable Evidence
The State, represented by senior counsel, vehemently opposed the appeal. It was argued that:
- The testimony of the “last seen together” witness, Murugan (PW-3), was truthful and “unimpeachable.”
- The recovery of the victim’s burnt body and her jewellery from the appellant’s house in furtherance of his disclosure statement created a strong presumption of guilt under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
- The appellant failed to offer any explanation for the incriminating recoveries, justifying the conviction by the lower courts.
Supreme Court’s Analysis: A Scathing Indictment of the Investigation and Trial
The Supreme Court conducted a detailed analysis of the evidence and trial proceedings, finding serious flaws that went to the root of the case.
1. On the Fairness of the Trial:
The Court found that the trial was conducted in a “lopsided manner and without due deference to the principles of fair trial.” It noted that the appellant was unrepresented when charges were framed, and a legal aid counsel was appointed very late, with insufficient time to prepare. The Court observed, “prejudice and denial of opportunity of effective defence to the accused are writ large on the face of the record.”
The bench stated that in capital punishment cases, the constitutional mandate for a fair trial is “even more sacrosanct.” The hasty sentencing process, completed on the same day as the conviction without seeking mandatory reports on aggravating and mitigating circumstances, was held to have vitiated the death penalty.
2. On the Circumstantial Evidence:
The Court examined each link in the chain of circumstantial evidence and found it to be weak and unproven.
- Last Seen Together Theory: The Court found the evidence of Murugan (PW-3) to be a “sheer concoction, bereft of credibility.” The glaring omission of this witness to mention seeing the victim with the appellant at the earliest opportunity, and the significant delay in recording his statement on this point, led the Court to conclude that the circumstance was “created by the Investigating Officer… in order to lend credence to the otherwise weak case of the prosecution.”
- CCTV Footage: The prosecution relied on oral testimony regarding CCTV footage allegedly showing the appellant’s suspicious movements. However, the Court noted, “the Investigating Agency did not care to procure the recording of the said camera and exhibit the same in evidence.” Finding material contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses on this point and the failure to produce the primary evidence, the Court drew an “adverse inference against the prosecution for withholding a vital piece of evidence.”
- Confession and Recoveries: The Court found the prosecution’s claim that the victim’s body was discovered pursuant to the appellant’s disclosure statement to be completely demolished by the testimony of the victim’s father (PW-1). PW-1 stated that the police had informed him of the minute details of the crime, including the location of the body, on the morning of February 8, 2017, before the appellant’s confession was officially recorded. The Court concluded, “it is apparent that the police had already created the entire story and later on, tried to fit the same into a sequence by postponing the formal arrest of the appellant in order to implicate him in this case.”
The Court also noted a “gross legal and procedural flaw” where the trial court allowed the entire confessional statement of the appellant to be reproduced in the testimony of the Investigating Officer, in clear violation of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
- Forensic and DNA Evidence: The Court cast serious doubt on the scientific evidence, including the DNA report matching semen found on the victim’s undergarment to the appellant. It held that the prosecution had “miserably failed to prove the chain of custody of the forensic articles/samples right from the time of seizure till they reached the FSL.” Without proving the sanctity of the samples and an unbreached chain of custody, the scientific reports “lose significance and cannot be relied upon.”
The Verdict
In its concluding remarks, the Supreme Court stated that while the case pertains to a heinous offence, it could not “ignore or bypass the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is duty-bound to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.” The Court lamented the investigative lapses, stating, “regrettably, the prosecution has miserably failed to do so in the instant case, leaving the Court with no choice but to acquit the appellant, despite the heinous nature of the crime.”
The judgment emphasized that courts cannot punish an accused based on “moral convictions or conjectures” and must adjudicate cases “in strict conformity with the law, without yielding to public sentiment and external pressures.”
As a result, the appeals were allowed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were set aside. The Court ordered his immediate release from custody.
