A defendant's right to a fair trial includes adequate legal representation and reliable evidence; DNA reports must be validated through expert testimony to be admissible.

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. The accused-appellant, [NEETU KHAJURIA 1 Hereinafter. Referred to as the appellant] was tried by the Fast Track Court/Additional Sessions Judge/Special POCSO Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, Hereinafter, referred to as the trial Court in Special Sessions Trial No. 159 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 376A , 302, 366, 363 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code , 18603 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘IPC’. and Sections 5 /6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 20124 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘POCSO Act’.. Vide judgment dated 5th April, 2017 and 6th April, 2017, he was convicted and sentenced in the terms below:

3. The trial Court forwarded a reference, [Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2017.] under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 19736 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘CrPC’. to the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital7 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘High Court’., for confirmation of the death sentence. The appellant also preferred an appeal⁸ Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 2017 assailing his conviction. The High Court vide judgment dated 5^th January, 2018 dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and answered the reference in the affirmative thereby confirming the penalty of 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 at the instance of the accused-appellant.

4. The case of the prosecution as unfurling from the record is that the child-victim, i.e., Ms. A9 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘child-victim’. went missing from a Jagran function which was organized in the village Fasiyapura on the intervening night of 25th/26th June, 2016. The father of the victim(PW-1), [Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘complainant(PW-1)’.] lodged an FIR, [FIR No. 236 of 2016 (Exhibit Ka-1).] to the effect that his daughter had gone missing from the Jagran function and all their efforts to trace out the girl proved futile. While he was continuing the search operations, someone told him that the body of a girl child was lying in a nearby field. On this, the complainant(PW-1) along with his family members rushed to the location and identified the dead body to be that of his daughter (child-victim). The complainant(PW-1) suspected that the child-victim had been subjected to forcible sexual assault before being killed. On receiving the FIR, Om Prakash Sharma, Investigating Officer(PW-14) commenced investigation. Spot documents were prepared, and an inquest was carried out on the child-victim’s dead body. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The body of the child-victim was sent for post-mortem examination. Dr. Madan Mohan, medical officer(PW-7) conducted autopsy upon the dead body and issued the post-mortem report12 Exhibit Ka-2. , taking note of multiple injuries on the private parts and the head of the child-victim. He opined that the cause of death of the child-victim was asphyxia. Statements of the material witnesses were recorded. The appellant was apprehended on 28^th June, 2016. It is alleged that the Investigating Officer(PW-14) got the confession, [Exhibit Ka-11.] of the appellant recorded through the Magistrate concerned. After concluding the investigation, a charge- sheet14 Exhibit Ka-17. came to be filed against the appellant and he was subjected to trial. Upon completion of trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

5. The appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction a