DNA Report Inadmissible Without Expert's Examination; Unfair Trial Vitiates Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man on Death Row - 2025-07-02

Supreme Court Acquits Death Row Convict, Cites "Lopsided" Trial and Unproven DNA Evidence

New Delhi – In a significant ruling emphasizing the sacrosanct right to a fair trial, the Supreme Court has acquitted Karandeep Sharma , a man sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a minor girl in 2016. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta , overturned the concurrent judgments of the Uttarakhand High Court and the trial court, citing a "lopsided" investigation, an unfair trial conducted in "undue haste," and the inadmissibility of crucial DNA evidence.

The Court held that a DNA report cannot be admitted as evidence without the examination of the scientific expert who prepared it, and that the prosecution must prove an unbroken chain of custody for forensic samples.

---

Case Background: A Gruesome Crime and a Flawed Investigation

The case dates back to June 2016, when a minor girl went missing from a ' Jagran ' function in Fasiyapura, Uttarakhand. Her body was discovered in a nearby field the next morning. The appellant, Karandeep Sharma , who was managing the sound and light system at the event, was arrested and charged with kidnapping, rape, and murder under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of "last seen" witnesses, a confessional statement, and a DNA report that purportedly linked Sharma to the crime. A trial court convicted him and imposed the death penalty in April 2017, a decision upheld by the Uttarakhand High Court in January 2018.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

The appellant’s counsel argued that the chain of circumstantial evidence was weak and unreliable. It was contended that the "last seen" witnesses were untrustworthy, the confession was coerced, and most critically, the DNA report was inadmissible as the expert who conducted the profiling was never examined in court, preventing any cross-examination on the reliability of the techniques used.

The State of Uttarakhand vehemently defended the conviction, asserting that the "last seen" evidence from multiple witnesses was unimpeachable and that the DNA report conclusively established the appellant's guilt.

Court's Scrutiny: A Trial Riddled with Flaws

The Supreme Court, in its detailed judgment authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta , systematically dismantled the prosecution's case, highlighting grave procedural infirmities and evidentiary gaps.

An Unfair Trial

The bench described the trial as a "classic example of undue haste resulting in denial of proper opportunity to the accused." The Court noted several critical lapses: - The appellant was not provided with copies of the case documents for over a month after the charge sheet was filed. - Charges were framed on the very day the documents were finally supplied, with the appellant having no legal representation. - A legal aid counsel was appointed on the same day that the recording of evidence began, affording "no possibility that the defense counsel could have had a reasonable opportunity to prepare the matter."

"it is established beyond the pale of doubt that the trial was not conducted in a fair manner and that the appellant was not provided with a reasonable opportunity to defend himself." - Supreme Court of India

'Last Seen' Theory Demolished

The Court disbelieved the testimony of six "last seen" witnesses, questioning their conduct. It observed that if these witnesses had truly seen the appellant with the victim, there was "no reason as to why they kept silent" and failed to inform the police who arrived at the crime scene on the morning the body was found. The FIR, lodged hours later, made no mention of the appellant.

DNA Evidence: Inadmissible and Tainted

The judgment delivered a crucial blow to the prosecution’s reliance on the DNA report. The Court found two fatal flaws:

1. Non-Examination of Expert : Citing its precedent in Rahul v. State of Delhi (2023) , the bench reiterated that DNA reports are not automatically admissible under Section 293 CrPC. The expert must be examined to prove the scientific reliability of the profiling. In this case, the report was merely exhibited by the Investigating Officer, which the Court deemed insufficient.

2. Broken Chain of Custody : The Court found the procedure of collecting, sealing, and transmitting the forensic samples to be "full of lacunae and loopholes." There was no evidence to show the samples were properly sealed, stored, or that they remained untampered from the point of collection to their arrival at the laboratory.

"The first flaw in the prosecution case on the aspect of DNA profiling is that the expert who conducted the DNA examination was not examined in evidence... non-examination of the scientific expert who carried out the DNA profiling is fatal, and the DNA report cannot be admitted in evidence." - Supreme Court of India

---

Final Verdict: Acquittal and Release

Finding that the "last seen" theory was demolished and the DNA report was inadmissible, the Court concluded that there was "no evidence on the record of the case so as to connect the appellant with the crime."

Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the judgments of the High Court and the trial court, acquitting Karandeep Sharma of all charges. The Court ordered his immediate release from prison, if not wanted in any other case.