DNA Reports Without Proven Chain of Custody Are Trash Papers – Supreme Court Acquits Two on Death Row in Gruesome Child Rape-Murder Case

In a landmark judgment pronounced on August 26, 2025, the Supreme Court of India acquitted two men, who had been convicted and sentenced to death for the brutal rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl in Uttar Pradesh. While acknowledging the horror of the crime, the Court firmly held that the evidence marshalled by the prosecution fell "woefully short" of the legal threshold necessary to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. “Suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof,” the Court declared, while setting aside the conviction and ordering the immediate release of the appellants.

“The Entire Case Is Built on Conjectures and Planted Evidence” – Apex Court Indicts Investigating Officer for Fabricated Recoveries and Flawed Probe

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta delivered a scathing critique of the investigation, which the Court found was riddled with inconsistencies, procedural lapses, and deliberate attempts to implicate the accused. “This is yet another classic example of lacklustre 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,” the judgment stated.

The judgment not only dismantled the foundation of the prosecution’s narrative but also reaffirmed vital constitutional and evidentiary safeguards that stand as bulwarks against wrongful conviction, even in cases involving the most heinous offences.

The Case: A Shocking Crime and a Flawed Prosecution

The incident occurred on the evening of September 4, 2012, when the minor victim went missing after leaving home to relieve herself. Her dead body, naked and bearing nine ante-mortem injuries including signs of sexual violence, was discovered the next morning in a field. The prosecution alleged that her chappals, water canister, and underwear were found in a nearby field under the cultivation of Putai. A comb allegedly belonging to Dileep was also found and linked to him through a sniffer dog.

Relying on this circumstantial evidence, a trial court convicted both accused under Sections 302, 376(2)(g), and 201 of the IPC. Putai was awarded the death penalty. The Allahabad High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence in 2018. The matter reached the Supreme Court through appeals and death sentence reference.

“Circumstantial Evidence Must Form a Complete Chain of Guilt” – Supreme Court Finds Crucial Gaps in Prosecution’s Theory

The Court categorically held that the entire case rested on circumstantial evidence that failed to meet the standard laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra. The Court emphasized, “The distance between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be proved’ is small but must be travelled before the prosecution can seek conviction of the accused in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence.”

The so-called “incriminating conduct” of the accused—such as washing hands or changing clothes—was dismissed as normal, non-suspicious behaviour. The Court noted, “Any labourer or farmer would be naturally inclined to carry out these ablutions upon returning from work. There is nothing unnatural in such conduct.”

“DNA Report Cannot Be Filed Through an Affidavit Like a Casual Office Memo” – Supplementary DNA Report Declared Inadmissible

A significant plank of the prosecution’s case was a supplementary DNA report, filed years later during appellate proceedings. The Supreme Court rejected this as wholly inadmissible. It observed, “The DNA report is a substantive piece of evidence and hence 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.”

The Court further held that the first DNA report was inconclusive and that no effort was made to recall or re-examine the scientific expert to clarify discrepancies. Crucially, it observed, “The prosecution failed to lead any credible evidence for proving the chain of custody of the forensic samples allegedly collected during investigation and hence, on this ground alone, the DNA reports pale into insignificance.”

“Recovery Appears to Be a Creation by the Investigating Officer” – Underwear Not Mentioned in FIR or Identified by Parents

On the alleged recovery of the victim’s underwear from Putai’s field, the Court raised serious doubts. The item was not mentioned in the FIR, not identified by the victim’s parents during testimony, and never sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. “This recovery seems to be a planted recovery and a creation by the Investigating Officer (PW-9) intended to give succor to the prosecution case,” the Court concluded.

“Comb Theory Far-Fetched and Artificial” – Sniffer Dog Evidence Brushed Aside as Inadmissible and Undocumented

The prosecution’s reliance on a sniffer dog tracing Dileep’s home after sniffing a comb found near the body was given no credence by the Court. The judges held that the colour and features of the comb were described inconsistently by several witnesses, and the procedure involving the dog squad was never documented. “The entire procedure is doubtful. The theory falls flat to the ground and is unworthy of credence,” the Court held.

“Not a Single Neighbour Examined; No House Search Conducted” – Court Slams Lapses in Investigation

In a rebuke to investigative standards, the Court lamented the failure to examine neighbours or conduct even a basic search of the accused’s home. “Had the accused indulged in such a ghastly act, their conduct would not have gone unnoticed. Yet, not a single neighbour was examined. This omission creates grave doubt about the bona fides of the investigation,” the Court said.

Acquittal on Grounds of Reasonable Doubt

While expressing sympathy for the family of the victim, the Court reiterated the inviolable principle of criminal law—that no person shall be convicted unless their guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt.

In a powerful closing, the Court ruled: “Other than the allegation that the child victim’s chappals, underwear and the water canister were found in the field cultivated by accused No. 1-Putai, the prosecution has failed to lead any credible evidence whatsoever which can be considered incriminating.”

The appeals were allowed. The judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court were quashed. The accused, Putai and Dileep, were acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith.

Date of Decision: August 26, 2025