1. Kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of a child — Conviction under IPC and POCSO Act — Death sentence awarded and confirmed. (Para 2 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 11 , 14 , 15 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1786
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Dashwanth – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 3633-3634 of 2024
Decided On : 08-10-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Adv. Ms. Manasa Ramakrishna, Adv. Mr. Vishwajeet Bhati, Adv. Ms. Trisha Chandran, Adv. Ms. Mamta Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. V.Krishnamurthy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Adv. Ms. Manasa Ramakrishna, Adv. Mr. Vishwajeet Bhati, Adv. Ms. Trisha Chandran, Adv. Ms. Mamta Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. V.Krishnamurthy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv.
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 convictions.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 363, 366, 354-B, 201 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 6, 7, 8 - Appellant convicted for sexually assaulting and murdering a seven-year-old girl, sentenced to death by Trial Court - Conviction and sentence affirmed by High Court - The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, finding that the prosecution's case was solely based on circumstantial evidence that did not meet the requisite standards of proof, and highlighted the lack of reliable evidence supporting the guilt of the accused. (Paras 40, 81, 83, 84)
(B) Rights of the Accused - Failure of fair trial - Appellant denied proper representation and opportunity to defend - Court emphasized that the constitutional right to a fair trial must be upheld, particularly in capital punishment cases, noting deficiencies in trial procedure including the appointment of legal aid counsel and the handling of evidence. (Paras 36, 37)
(C) Circumstantial Evidence - The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of evidence regarding the last seen theory and the confession leading to recovery - The doubts regarding the reliability of forensic evidence and procedures compromised the integrity of the trial. (Paras 41, 42, 81)
(D)
Result: Appeals allowed, conviction and death sentence set aside.
Judgement Key Points
The courts have emphasized that proper sealing of evidence is a crucial step in maintaining the integrity of the evidentiary chain. Sealed evidence ensures that the articles are protected from tampering, contamination, or substitution, which is vital for establishing their authenticity and reliability in court proceedings (!) . Additionally, thorough documentation of the seizure process, including signatures of witnesses and officers involved, as well as clear labeling with case details, is essential to create an unbroken chain of custody (!) (!) .
Any procedural lapses, such as failing to seal the evidence at the time of seizure or not properly recording the transfer and storage details, can cast serious doubts on the evidence’s credibility (!) (!) . Such deficiencies compromise the evidentiary value and can lead to questions about whether the evidence has been handled appropriately, which in turn can affect the fairness of the trial and the reliability of the conviction. Therefore, strict adherence to sealing and documentation protocols is fundamental to uphold justice and ensure that the evidence remains untainted throughout the process.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
-
practice and procedure
- criminal procedure
- evidence
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to conviction based on fabricated evidence, lack of fair trial, denial of legal aid, and failure to follow sentencing guidelines. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
3. Trial conducted in a lopsided manner without fair opportunity to defend — Circumstantial evidence chain broken — Recoveries planted — Chain of custody for forensic samples not established. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 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 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 81 , 82 )
4. In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and exclude every hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. (Para 42 )
5. Appeals allowed — Conviction and death sentence set aside — Appellant acquitted and ordered to be released. (Para 83 , 84 )
6. What constitutes a fair trial for an accused facing capital punishment?
A fair trial requires providing all relied-upon documents immediately, ensuring representation by an experienced lawyer (preferably with 10 years' experience for capital cases), and allowing sufficient time for preparation and effective cross-examination of witnesses. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 )
7. What are the requirements for conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence?
The circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, conclusive in nature, exclude every other possible hypothesis, and form a complete chain of evidence that leaves no reasonable ground for innocence. (Para 42 )
8. To what extent can a confessional statement of an accused be admitted in evidence?
Only the portion of a confessional statement that distinctly leads to the discovery of a material fact is admissible; reproducing the entire confession in evidence is illegal and prejudicial to the accused. (Para 61 , 63 )
9. How does a breach in the chain of custody affect the reliability of forensic reports?
Failure to prove the safe custody, sealing, and transit of samples from the point of seizure to the laboratory compromises the integrity of the evidence, rendering scientific and DNA reports unreliable. (Para 69 , 70 , 71 , 74 , 79 )
10. What mandatory exercises must a court undertake before awarding a death sentence?
The court must procure reports on aggravating and mitigating circumstances, conduct a psychological evaluation of the accused, and obtain a report concerning the accused's conduct in jail before passing the sentence. (Para 30 , 39 )
JUDGMENT
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. The appellant herein was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpet1[Hereinafter, referred to as ‘trial Court’] in Special Sessions Case No. 33 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 366, 354-B, 302, and 201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 18602[For short, ‘IPC’] and Section 8 read with Section 7 and Section 6 read with Section 5 (m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20123[For short, ‘POCSO Act’]. The trial Court, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19th February, 2018 convicted the accused-appellant4[Hereinafter, referred to as ‘appellant’.] for the aforementioned offences and sentenced him in the terms indicated below: -
| Section | Sentence |
| S. 363 IPC | 7 years |
| S. 366 IPC | 10 years |
| S. 354-B IPC | 7 years |
| S. 201 IPC | 7 years |
| S. 302 IPC | Death Penalty |
| S. 6 r/w S. 5 (m) of POCSO Act | 10 years |
| S. 8 r/w S. 7 of POCSO Act | 5 years |
3. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal5[Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 2018.] before the High Court of Judicature at Madras6[Hereinafter, referred to as ‘High Court’.] for assailing his conviction and the sentences awarded to him. The trial Court also forwarded a reference7[Referred Trial No. 1 of 2018.] under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19738[Hereinafter, referred to as ‘CrPC’.] for confirmation of the death sentence. The learned Division Bench of the High Court vide common judgment dated 10th July, 2018, dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and answered the reference in the affirmative thereby confirming the death sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial Court. The said judgment of the High Court is the subject matter of challenge in these appeals by special leave.
FACTUAL MATRIX: -
4. In brief, the story of the prosecution is that a seven-year old female child victim9[Hereinafter, referred to as ‘victim’ or ‘child victim’.], being the daughter of C.S.D. Babu (PW-1)10[Hereinafter, referred to as ‘complainant (PW-1)’.] and Sridevi (PW-2), went missing on 5th February, 2017. The parents had gone out shopping, and when they returned at about 7:15 p.m., they did not see their daughter around, upon which a search was made with the help of the neighbours including the appellant. The police were also informed, but the efforts to trace out the child did not yield any results. The hapless father, C.S.D. Babu (PW-1) filed a complaint11[Exhibit P-1] at Mangadu Police Station at around 10:00 p.m. on 5th February, 2017 itself and based upon the same, a missing persons’ case was registered. The complainant (PW-1), in his efforts to get clues about the whereabouts of his child, claims to have browsed video footage of a CCTV camera installed at a nearby temple which gave an indication as to the manner in which the child victim might have been kidnapped. The police also followed the lead provided by the complainant (PW-1) and went through the CCTV footage after which the needle of suspicion turned towards the appellant.
5. Based on this suspicion, the appellant was arrested on 8th February, 2017 at about 9 a.m. He allegedly confessed and made a disclosure statement12[Exhibit P-8] to N. Ravikumar, 1st Investigation Officer (PW-29)13[Hereinafter, referred to as ‘Investigation Officer (PW-29)’] in the presence of Sumathi (PW-7), Village Administrative Officer, Madanandhapuram Village, and Mohandass (PW-8) who is the assistant of PW-7.
6. The Investigating Officer (PW-29) claims that the charred body of the child victim was recovered on 8th February, 2017 in furtherance of the disclosure statement made by the appellant. The body was identified by Muneesekar (PW-14), the Administrative Officer of the school where the victim was studying. Based on the said recovery of the victim’s body, the missing persons’ case was converted to a crime report14[FIR bearing Crime No. 285 of 2017.] for the offenc
