1. Rape and murder of a minor girl — Conviction under Sections 302, 201, and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code based on circumstantial evidence. (Para 2 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 13 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1266
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Putai – Appellants
VERSUS
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 36-37 of 2019 With Criminal Appeal No(s). 154 of 2025
Decided On : 26-08-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sadan Farasat, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Adv. Ms. Manasa Ramakrishna, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Babbar, Adv. Mr. Kabir Dixit, AOR Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aman Jaiswal, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sadan Farasat, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Adv. Ms. Manasa Ramakrishna, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Babbar, Adv. Mr. Kabir Dixit, AOR Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aman Jaiswal, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) DNA report is substantive piece of evidence and same could not have been tendered in evidence through affidavit – Only evidence of formal nature can be given on affidavits.
(2) Circumstantial evidence – In a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376(2)(g), 201 and 302 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 – Section 329 – Gang rape, murder and disappearance of evidence – Child victim – Death sentence – Failure to prepare any contemporary document for search by dog squad makes entire procedure doubtful – Theory propounded by prosecution that comb found at the spot, was of accused falls flat to ground and is unworthy of credence – Very fact that Investigating Officer did not consider it essential to send articles to FSL gives rise to strong suspicion that recovery of articles was a planted recovery – Prosecution has failed to prove relevant documentation which should have mandatorily been prepared before collection of blood samples of accused-appellants for DNA comparison – Failure to do so makes entire exercise of collection of blood samples, farce and frivolous – Prosecution failed to lead any evidence so as to prove procedure, date or time of drawing blood samples of accused-appellants for the purpose of conducting DNA comparison – There was no possibility for preparation of supplementary DNA report – Failure of Investigating Officers to search house of accused-appellants is another circumstance which adds to suspicion regarding credibility of Investigating Officer’s actions, more particularly, in respect of alleged recoveries – Not a single person from neighbourhood was examined by Investigating Officers – DNA report is substantive piece of evidence and same could not have been tendered in evidence through affidavit – Only evidence of formal nature can be given on affidavits – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside and appellants acquitted. (Paras 38, 39, 56, 60, 65, 66, 72, 74, 75, 79, 80 and 81)
(B) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Circumstantial evidence – In a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Incriminating circumstances must be such which point exclusively to guilt of accused and are inconsistent with his innocence or guilt of anyone else. (Para 78)
Facts of the case:
Accused-appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g), 201 and 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to death which was confirmed by High Court in Death Reference.
Findings of Court:
Prosecution has fallen woefully short of proving guilt of accused-appellants by clinching evidence which can be termed as proving the case beyond all manner of doubt.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to conviction based on incomplete circumstantial chain, unreliable DNA reports, and failure to establish the chain of custody for forensic samples. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
3. Investigation found lackluster; DNA reports inadmissible due to broken chain of custody and procedural lapses; circumstantial evidence failed to establish an exclusive chain of guilt. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 )
4. In circumstantial evidence cases, incriminating circumstances must point exclusively to the accused's guilt and be inconsistent with any other hypothesis. (Para 69 , 78 , 79 )
5. Appeals allowed — Conviction and sentence quashed — Appellants acquitted of all charges. (Para 80 , 81 , 82 )
6. What is the legal standard for conviction based on circumstantial evidence?
The prosecution must prove a complete chain of incriminating circumstances that point exclusively to the guilt of the accused and are inconsistent with their innocence or the guilt of anyone else. (Para 69 , 78 , 79 )
7. When is a DNA report considered inadmissible in criminal proceedings?
A DNA report is inadmissible if the prosecution fails to prove the chain of custody, the specific procedure for sample collection, and the safe transmission of samples to the forensic laboratory. (Para 60 , 65 , 75 )
8. Can a supplementary forensic report be used for conviction if not put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC?
No. A supplementary report is inadmissible if it is not put to the accused during their examination under Section 313 CrPC, as this denies them the opportunity to rebut the evidence. (Para 19 , 25 , 66 )
9. Can substantive forensic evidence be proved via affidavit under Section 293 CrPC?
No. Under Section 293 CrPC, only evidence of a formal nature can be given on affidavits; substantive evidence, such as a DNA report, must be proved by examining the expert on oath. (Para 75 , 76 )
JUDGMENT
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14th March, 2014 and 19th March, 2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Lucknow [Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘trial Court’], in Sessions Case No. 61 of 2013, the accused-appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(g), 201 and 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 [Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘IPC’] and were sentenced in the terms below:-
| Accused | Section(s) | Sentence awarded |
| Accused No. 1-Putai [Appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos. 36-37 of 2019] | · IPC 376(2)(g) | · Rigorous life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 40,000/- and in default to undergo an additional one year of rigorous imprisonment. |
| · 201 IPC | · Seven years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 20,000/- and in default to undergo an additional 6 months of rigorous imprisonment. · Death penalty along with a fine of Rs 60,000/- and in default to undergo an additional one and a half year of rigorous imprisonment. | |
| · 302 IPC | · Death penalty along with a fine of Rs 60,000/- and in default to undergo an additional one and a half year of rigorous imprisonment | |
| Accused No. 2-Dileep [Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2025.] | · 376(2)(G) IPC | · Rigorous life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 40,000/- and in default to undergo an additional 1 year of rigorous imprisonment. |
| · 201 IPC | · 7 years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 20,000/- and in default to undergo an additional 6 months of rigorous imprisonment. | |
| · 302 IPC | · Rigorous life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 60,000/- and in default to undergo an additional one and a half year of rigorous imprisonment. |
3. The trial Court made a reference [Capital Sentence No. 3 of 2014.] to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad [Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘High Court’.] for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to accused No.1- Putai under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘CrPC’.]. The accused-appellants also preferred separate appeals [Accused No.1-Putai preferred Criminal Appeal No. 444 of 2014 and accused No.2-Dileep preferred Crl. Appeal No. 597 of 2014] for assailing their conviction and the sentences awarded to them by the trial Court. The High Court answered the death reference in the affirmative, confirming the death penalty awarded to accused No.1-Putai and dismissed the appeals against conviction preferred by the accused-appellants vide judgment dated 11th October, 2018, which is subject matter of challenge in these appeals by special leave.
Brief facts: -
4. The facts in nutshell necessary and essential for disposal of these appeals are noted hereinbelow.
5. Mst. S, minor daughter [Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘child victim’] (aged about 12 years) of Munna (PW-1) and Smt. Chandravati (PW-2) had gone out to attend the call of nature in the late evening of 4th September, 2012. When the girl did not return, the parents got alarmed and a search operation was launched, but to no avail.
6. In the morning of 5th September, 2012, the child victim’s chappals, water canister, underwear and blood stains were seen spread around in Bhaktisharan’s field which was under cultivation of accused No.1-Putai. The denuded dead body of the child victim was found lying amidst the rice crop growing in Harikrishna Sharma’s field. Munna (PW- 1), the father of the child victim submitted a complaint [Exhibit K-1] to the Inspector of Police on 5th September, 2012 at around 08:30 AM alleging that some unknown persons had committed rape and thereafter, murdered his minor daughter. Based on the same, an FIR bearing Case Crime No. 318 of 2012 [Exhibit K-5] came to be registered at Police Station Mohanlalganj, Lucknow for the offences punishabl
