Supreme Court Acquits Convict in Double Murder, Finds Circumstantial Case and DNA Chain of Custody Unsustainable

A three-judge Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta heard the appeal by Kattavellai @ Devakar against the Madras High Court’s referral confirmation of his conviction and death sentence for offences under Sections 302, 376 and related provisions in connection with the murders of two young persons found at Suruli Falls. The appeal challenged the Trial Court and High Court findings on circumstantial evidence, confession and recovery, DNA evidence and identification procedures.

The Court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the convictions and death sentence and directed immediate release of the appellant if not wanted in any other case. The Bench found that the chain of circumstantial evidence was not complete and that material aspects of the prosecution case suffered from lacunae: the last-seen testimony by the principal witness was riddled with inconsistencies; the confession and subsequent recoveries lacked independent, reliable corroboration; the test identification parade was vitiated by prior exposure of the accused to the witness; and crucially the vaginal swabs and semen samples suffered unexplained delays and gaps in chain of custody, rendering DNA evidence unusable. The Court emphasised established principles on circumstantial evidence and caution in relying on extra-judicial confessions, and recorded that investigation-related lapses undermined the prosecution’s case. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Consequent to the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that none of the circumstances posited by the prosecution are found to be conclusively proved against the Appellant-convict. The chain of circumstantial evidence in no way points to a singular hypothesis, that is the guilt of the accused, ruling out his innocence or involvement of none else in the crime. As a result, the conviction of the Appellant-convict is vacated. He is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The appeal is allowed.” The judgment also quoted the warning that “A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and phantasy,” underscoring the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Background The prosecution case was that on 14 May 2011 two young persons left home and went to Suruli Falls, where they were later found dead (bodies discovered on 19 May 2011). A neighbour (PW‑5) said he saw the victims in the company of the accused at the falls and reported threats by him. The father of one victim lodged an earlier missing‑person complaint. The accused was arrested on 28 May 2011 after an alleged suicide attempt and made two extra‑judicial confessions; police reported recovery of various articles including a sickle and a gold chain. Vaginal swabs from the female victim were tested and a DNA report was produced linking semen to the accused. Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to death for one murder, life for the other, and other sentences; the High Court, on reference under Section 366 CrPC, affirmed conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court scrutinised evidence on last‑seen, arrest/confession/recovery, test identification parade, DNA and motive.

The Court found multiple infirmities: PW‑5’s delayed reporting and inconsistent account weakened the last‑seen theory; the test identification parade was unsafe because the witness had opportunities to see or learn the accused’s identity before the parade; the confessional statements and recoveries lacked adequate independent corroboration and forensic linkage (no blood or forensic link on recovered clothes, sickle not forensically tested); and forensic processes showed unexplained delays and gaps in the chain of custody for vaginal swabs and semen samples. The Court recorded that important witnesses (notably Bhagyalakshmi) were not examined and several other suspects were not fully explored, contributing to the conclusion of faulty investigation. Given these defects, the Court held the prosecution did not exclude other reasonable hypotheses and acquitted the appellant. The Bench also issued directions to police authorities and state DGPs to standardise and safeguard DNA sample collection, documentation and chain‑of‑custody procedures and to train investigating officers.

Case Details: Case No.: Crl.A.No.1672/2019 Case Title: Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamilnadu Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. V. Mohana, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Senior Counsel (for State)