Back
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
(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.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of conviction and sentencing (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 2. arguments against conviction and evidence (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 3. court's analysis of evidence and findings (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) |
| 4. standard of proof required for conviction (Para 78 , 79) |
| 5. outcome of the appeals and acquittal (Para 80 , 81 , 82 , 83) |
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 a
(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 evid....
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in capital cases; failures in fair trial procedures and unreliable circumstantial evidence undermine convicti....
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimony and doubts over evidence credibility can lead to acquittal.
(1) Rape and murder – In view of Section 357(A), Cr.P.C., family members of deceased-victim would be entitled to compensation even though accused have been acquitted.(2) Extra-Judicial confession – C....
The prosecution must establish the identity and age of the victim beyond reasonable doubt in sexual offense cases, particularly involving minors, and the evidentiary value of DNA reports is contingen....
The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, with DNA and witness testimonies establishing the accused's guilt, affirming the death sentence as the case fell within the rarest of rare categor....
The prosecution's burden is to establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence; failure to do so leads to acquittal.
Circumstantial evidence, including reliable DNA findings, can substantiate convictions in serious crimes even without eyewitness testimony.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
