Supreme Court Acquits Accused, Holds Trial and Forensic Failures Fatally Undermined Circumstantial Case

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta heard appeals by special leave against a Madras High Court order confirming conviction and the death sentence in a trial arising from the abduction, sexual assault and death of a seven‑year‑old girl. The appeals challenged both the merit of the circumstantial case and the legality and fairness of the trial and sentencing process.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments of conviction and sentence of the trial court and the High Court, and acquitted the appellant, directing his immediate release if not wanted in any other case. The Court found that the prosecution relied entirely on a chain of circumstantial evidence which was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and that several procedural and investigative lapses — including defects in compliance with Section 207 (BNSS), denial of effective legal representation at the outset, failure to collect or produce the alleged CCTV footage, serious doubts about the voluntariness and use of the so‑called confession, and an unproved chain of custody for forensic samples — vitiated the prosecution case. The Court observed that “prejudice and denial of opportunity of effective defence to the accused are writ large on the face of the record.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established... (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused... (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused…” The Court also noted that “the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the vital circumstances” relied upon.

Background The case arose after a seven‑year‑old girl went missing on 5 February 2017. Her parents filed a missing‑person complaint; CCTV leads and subsequent police investigation focused suspicion on the neighbour, who was arrested in early February 2017. Police recorded a disclosure allegedly leading to recovery of the child’s charred body, garments, bottles said to contain petrol, and jewellery, and later forensic tests purportedly linked semen on the victim’s underwear to the accused. The Sessions Judge at Chengalpet convicted the accused for offences under Sections 302, 363, 366, 354‑B and 201 IPC and relevant POCSO provisions and awarded death; the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the death sentence. Before the Supreme Court the appellant argued false implication, planting of recoveries, denial of time and counsel under Section 207 BNSS, coerced confessions and defective sentencing procedure; the State relied on last‑seen evidence, alleged CCTV leads, the disclosure and forensic reports. The Supreme Court examined witness credibility, the absence of the CCTV recording on the record, contradictions in police testimony, the timing and circumstances surrounding the claimed confession and recoveries, and significant lacunae in chain‑of‑custody and forensic transmission. The Court applied settled law on circumstantial proof (Sharad Birdhichand Sharda and authorities) and on capital sentencing procedure (Bachan Singh and others), concluded that the circumstantial edifice collapsed, and held the conviction unsafe. The appeals succeeded; the judgments of the trial court and High Court were set aside, the appellant was acquitted and ordered released if not detained in other matters. Pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1203; Criminal Appeal Nos. 3633‑3634 of 2024 Case Title: Dashwanth v. State of Tamil Nadu Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in judgment]