Back
Acquits Death-Row Convict Citing , Doubtful DNA
In a stinging indictment of police investigation, the has acquitted Gurpreet @ Gopi, a man sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl, finding the riddled with contradictions and the DNA deeply suspect.
The division bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur set aside the conviction and , observing that the prosecution's case was built on a foundation of irreconcilable timelines, a suspiciously delayed "" witness, and forensic evidence whose integrity was fatally compromised. The Court did not mince words, concluding that the investigation appeared to have found an "easy prey" in the impoverished orphan accused.
Case Background: A Neighbour's House Turns Into a Crime Scene
The case originated on , when a 12½-year-old girl went missing while playing outside her home in Goraya, Jalandhar. As her family searched, they noticed their neighbour, Gurpreet @ Gopi, acting suspiciously. Upon entering his house, they found the child's blood-soaked body in a rear room. An FIR was registered under and .
The prosecution relied heavily on four pieces of evidence: recovery of the body from the accused's house, a "" witness, recovery of a hammer and slippers pursuant to the accused's , and a DNA report showing a mixed profile of the accused and victim on his pajama. The trial court accepted this evidence and imposed the , prompting the State to file a for confirmation and the accused to appeal.
The Investigation Under Scrutiny: A House of Cards
The High Court's judgment meticulously exposed profound contradictions. The official police version claimed information was received at 4:10 AM on , while all private witnesses consistently testified that police had arrived on the evening of February 13 itself and recovered the body in their presence—a version the investigating officers flatly denied. The Court found these "irreconcilable contradictions" fatal.
Even more striking, the complainant–father of the victim disowned his own initial statement (Ex.P1/PA) that formed the basis of the entire investigation. In Court, he asserted a materially different version (Ex.P2), pointing to one Vikas @ Sonu—who resided with the accused, held the house keys, and fled the village the next morning—as a prime suspect. The police never investigated this angle. The High Court held:
"The investigation and collection of evidence to prove a disowned statement, itself renders the entire investigation, as flawed."
The Unreliable Witness and the "Staged" Recovery
The Court found the "
" evidence—crucial in circumstantial cases—wholly unreliable. PW-2, the victim's uncle, claimed to have seen the accused leading her away around 3:45-4:00 PM, but he disclosed this only on February 16, two days after the body was recovered. Even when his sister informed him of the missing child, he did not share this information. The Court concluded his testimony
"fails to reflect normative behaviour of a prudent person"
and was introduced only to complete the chain.
Similarly, the recovery of a hammer and slippers on February 16, pursuant to the accused's
, was held to be staged. The site plans showed these items were at the exact same spot where the body was found—a location already visited and processed by police on February 14.
"The
thus carries no evidentiary value,"
the Court noted.
Medical Evidence and DNA Flaws: The Missing Links
The postmortem revealed no vulvovaginal injuries, no internal injuries, and critically, no semen or blood on the victim's swabs, slides, or clothes—despite a ruptured hymen. Semen and a mixed DNA profile were found only on the accused's pajama. The Court questioned how blood stains from a forehead injury could have reached the pajama during a sexual assault and noted that mere presence of semen stains could result from reasons other than rape.
Most damning was the chain-of-custody breakdown: the police recovery memo described a "navy blue trouser" with "Mavericks" written on it, but the parcel received at the 17 days later was described as a "black coloured pajama." Relying on
Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand
(2025), the Court held that this unexplained discrepancy
"reflects adversely on the sanctity of the seized material."
"An Easy Prey": The Court's Hard-Hitting Observations
The High Court made a powerful observation about the vulnerability of the accused, noting:
"It seems that the Investigating Agency found an easy prey in the appellant-accused Gurpreet @ Gopi who is an orphan and has no other member of the family and with no stable means of sustenance... The accused with no members of family to pursue his defence and with minimal means of defending himself thus have little shot."
Applying the Golden Principles of
Reiterating the five golden principles from
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
(1984), the Court held that the chain of
was incomplete. The recovery of the body from the accused's house—without proof of
(undermined by Vikas @ Sonu's residence) and without a complete chain—could not sustain a conviction for rape and murder. The Court firmly stated:
"It is settled position of law that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the character of proof."
Final Decision
Dismissing the state's
and allowing the accused's appeal, the Court set aside the conviction and
, holding that this was
"a case where
needs to be extended to the respondent-accused."
The judgment serves as a stark reminder that the
rests squarely on the prosecution, and a
cannot be papered over by the gravity of the offence.
