Supreme Court Quashes Convictions in Child Rape-Murder Case Citing Shoddy Investigation and Unreliable DNA Evidence

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta heard appeals by two accused against convictions in a 2012 child rape‑murder case and a death‑reference confirmed by the Allahabad High Court. The appeals challenged trial convictions under Sections 376(2)(g), 201 and 302 IPC and the High Court’s confirmation of the death sentence awarded to one accused.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the trial and High Court judgments and acquitted both appellants on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found the investigation and forensic processes "shoddy" and the material on which conviction rested unreliable. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "However, it is a settled tenet of criminal jurisprudence that in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The incriminating circumstances must be such which point exclusively to the guilt of the accused and are inconsistent with his innocence or the guilt of anyone else." The bench further recorded that certain recoveries "seem to be a planted recovery" and that, because of procedural lacunae in handling forensic material, the DNA evidence and subsequent reports could not be relied upon — the judgment even characterised the flawed DNA record as amounting to a "piece of trash paper" for purposes of proof.

Background The child victim, aged about 12, went missing on the night of 4 September 2012; her denuded dead body was found next morning in a paddy field and some of her personal effects (chappals, water canister, underwear) were recovered from an adjacent field cultivated by accused No.1 (Putai). A comb allegedly linked to accused No.2 (Dileep) was also recovered. The trial court convicted both accused and sentenced Putai to death for murder; the High Court confirmed the death sentence and dismissed appeals. The accused obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The prosecution relied on oral testimony of local witnesses, inquest and post‑mortem reports and FSL DNA reports. The post‑mortem board recorded multiple ante‑mortem injuries and opined death due to asphyxia by strangulation. Investigating officers said a sniffer dog led them to accused No.2’s house after smelling the comb. The first FSL DNA report proved inconclusive; a supplementary report was later produced during the High Court proceedings.

Defence counsel contended that the case rested on circumstantial evidence, that witness statements contained contradictions and improvements, and that the forensic trail was broken: arrest memos were not produced, the prosecution did not prove chain of custody or safe transmission of samples to the FSL, the clothes and swabs seized were not forwarded or properly documented, and the supplementary DNA report was not produced or proved in accordance with procedure nor put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC. The Court accepted these submissions in large measure.

In applying legal principles, the Court emphasised that in circumstantial cases the prosecution must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. It scrutinised the timeline of seizures and forensic transmissions, discrepancies in witnesses’ descriptions (including inconsistent colours of the comb), the omission of key facts from the complaint, the failure to exhibit or forward clothes for forensic testing, and the absence of contemporaneous records of the dog‑squad exercise. The Court held that the underwear recovery "seems to be a planted recovery" and concluded that the cumulative defects rendered the prosecution case insufficient to convict.

Result and directions: The appeals succeeded; the trial and High Court judgments were quashed and set aside and both appellants were acquitted. The Court directed that the appellants be released from custody forthwith if they were not required in any other case. Pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 36‑37 of 2019 with Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2025 (Reportable; 2025 INSC 1042) Case Title: Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Shadan Farasat (Senior Counsel) for Putai; Shri Varinder Kumar Sharma for Dileep For the Respondent(s): Counsel for State of Uttar Pradesh (name not indicated in the judgment) Date of Judgment: 26 August 2025 Bench: Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.