“Presumption Cannot Replace Proof – Supreme Court Acquits Man Sentenced to Death for Rape and Murder of Minor Over ‘Glaring Gaps’ in Prosecution’s Case”

"The right to a fair trial is not a formality; it is a constitutional guarantee which becomes even more sacred when the shadow of the noose looms large" – On October 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment, acquitted the appellant who had been sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a 7-year-old girl, holding that the trial was vitiated by grave violations of fair trial rights, unreliable circumstantial evidence, and procedural irregularities. The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta delivered a scathing critique of the investigation and trial, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, thereby quashing the conviction and death sentence imposed on the appellant.

"Trial Was Conducted in Hot Haste and Grossly Violated the Mandate of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution"

The Court’s ruling began with a critical observation on fair trial rights, stating that the appellant was not provided legal representation when charges were framed, and that the legal aid counsel was appointed only four days before the commencement of evidence. Within one and a half months, 30 prosecution witnesses were examined, and on the same day the judgment of conviction was pronounced (February 19, 2018), the appellant was sentenced to death.

Holding this process as "a gross violation of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 207 CrPC," the Court observed:

“In a case where an accused is facing charges for offences which carry capital punishment, this constitutional mandate becomes even more sacrosanct... The legal aid counsel so appointed should be given sufficient opportunity to go through the record and prepare the matter for carrying out effective cross-examination…”

Referring to its previous rulings in Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) and Santa Singh v. State of Punjab (1976), the Court stressed that death sentencing requires meticulous compliance with constitutional safeguards, which were wholly bypassed in the present case.

From Missing Child to Death Sentence – The Origin of a Flawed Case

The appellant, Dashwanth, was accused of kidnapping, raping, and murdering a 7-year-old girl, who went missing on February 5, 2017, from her residence in Chennai. The prosecution alleged that the appellant – a neighbour – had lured the child to his flat, sexually assaulted her, killed her by smothering, and later burnt her body to destroy evidence.

The Trial Court, in Special Sessions Case No. 33 of 2017, convicted the appellant under multiple sections of the IPC and POCSO Act, including Section 302 IPC (murder) and Section 6 r/w Section 5(m) of POCSO (aggravated penetrative sexual assault), awarding capital punishment. The Madras High Court, in confirmation proceedings, affirmed the death sentence on July 10, 2018. These judgments became the subject of appeal before the Supreme Court.

“Chain of Circumstantial Evidence Not Just Incomplete – It Was Broken, Tainted, and Implausible”

The Supreme Court, after a detailed review of evidence and legal standards, held that the entire prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence, which failed to satisfy the standard laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra (1984).

“The chain of incriminating circumstances must be complete, conclusive and should exclude every hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused...,” the Court reiterated.

Key aspects of the judgment include:

“Last Seen Together Theory Appears Planted and Concocted”

Murugan (PW-3), the alleged eyewitness to the "last seen" theory, claimed he saw the appellant playing with the victim before her disappearance. However, he never disclosed this fact to the police or the victim’s parents immediately after the incident, raising serious questions.

“The glaring omission on the part of Murugan (PW-3)... is nothing but a sheer concoction, bereft of credibility,” the Court observed.

“CCTV Footage Was Neither Collected Nor Exhibited – Appears Fictional”

The prosecution claimed that CCTV footage from a nearby temple showed the appellant carrying a suspicious bag on a motorcycle. However, no footage was ever presented, and contradictions between the complainant and temple in-charge (PW-6) rendered the claim unreliable.

“Failure to collect the data from the Digital Video Recorder (DVR) of the CCTV camera creates a grave doubt on the bonafides of the Investigation Agency.”

“Confessional Statements Fabricated – Details Were Already Known to Police Before Alleged Disclosure”

The Court found that the confessional statements were not voluntary, and incriminating facts were already known to the police before the supposed confession was recorded.

The Village Administrative Officer (PW-7) candidly admitted that the police told her in advance what the accused was going to confess:

“At that time police told me that Dashwanth was going to tender confession statement regarding molesting of a girl child… and murdering her by setting her ablaze.”

The complainant (PW-1) also confirmed that he was informed of the murder by police before the confession was recorded, demolishing the prosecution’s claim that the recovery of the victim’s body was made in consequence of disclosure under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

“Death Sentence Delivered on Same Day Without Mandatory Sentencing Procedure – Violation of Bachan Singh Guidelines”

The bench also condemned the manner in which the death sentence was awarded on the same day as conviction without conducting a proper sentencing hearing, without any psychological assessment, jail conduct report, or analysis of mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

“The sentencing procedure is in direct conflict with the judgments of this Court in Bachan Singh, Santa Singh, Allauddin Mian, Malkiat Singh, and Dattaraya...”

“DNA and Forensic Reports Compromised by Broken Chain of Custody – Evidence Unreliable”

The Court also found that the DNA evidence linking the appellant to the crime was unreliable, as there was no chain of custody, no evidence of sealing or storage, and unexplained delays in collection.

Citing Prakash Nishad v. State of Maharashtra (2023), the Court held: “Since the sanctity of the samples was not proved by proper evidence, the scientific analysis loses significance and cannot be relied upon.”

Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction, Acquits Appellant

The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the four foundational pillars of its case — last seen theory, CCTV evidence, disclosure-led recoveries, and forensic evidence.

“It would not be safe to uphold the conviction of the appellant… The impugned judgments do not stand to scrutiny.”

Accordingly, the Court set aside the judgments of both the Trial Court and the High Court, acquitted the appellant, and directed his release forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

Date of Decision: October 08, 2025