SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 1786

VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, SANDEEP MEHTA
Dashwanth – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent


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.

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.


Table of Content
1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. arguments from the appellant's counsel regarding the prosecution's case. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 30 , 31)
3. court's observations on the prosecution's evidence and trial conduct. (Para 33 , 34 , 36 , 41 , 44 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 52 , 54 , 61 , 67 , 71 , 76 , 80 , 82)
4. principles regarding proof and burden in circumstantial evidence. (Para 40 , 42)
5. conclusion resulting in the acquittal of the appellant. (Para 83 , 84 , 85)

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, ref

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
        whatsapp-icon Back to top