Putai vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh

2025 INSC 1042
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 36-37 OF 2019
PUTAI ..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 154 OF 2025
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
Heard.
1.
2. Vide judgment of conviction and order of
th th
sentence dated 14 March, 2014 and 19 March,
2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions
1
Judge, Court No. 13, Lucknow , in Sessions Case
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RAJNI MUKHI
Date: 2025.08.26
16:42:49 IST
Reason:
1 Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘trial Court’.
1

No. 61 of 2013, the accused-appellants were
convicted for the offences punishable under
Sections 376(2)(g), 201 and 302 of Indian Penal
2
Code, 1860 and were sentenced in the terms below:
-

2 Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘IPC’
3 Appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos. 36-37 of 2019.
2
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

5
The trial Court made a reference to the High
3.
6
Court of Judicature at Allahabad for confirmation
of the death sentence awarded to accused No.1-
Putai under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal
7
Procedure, 1973 . The accused-appellants also
4
Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2025.
5
Capital Sentence No. 3 of 2014.
6 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘High Court’.
7 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘CrPC’.
3
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

8
preferred separate appeals 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
th
by the accused-appellants vide judgment dated 11
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.
9
5. Mst. S, minor daughter (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
th
evening of 4 September, 2012. When the girl did
8 Accused No.1-Putai preferred Criminal Appeal No. 444 of 2014 and
accused No.2-Dileep preferred Crl. Appeal No. 597 of 2014.
9 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘child victim’.
4
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

not return, the parents got alarmed and a search
operation was launched, but to no avail.
th
6. In the morning of 5 September, 2012, the
child victim’s chappals , water canister, underwear
and blood stains were seen spread around in
Bhaktisharan’s field which was under cultivation of
accused No.1-Putai. T he denuded dead body of the
child victim was found lying amidst the rice crop
growing in Harikrishna Sharma’s field . Munna (PW-
1), the father of the child victim submitted a
10 th
complaint to the Inspector of Police on 5
September, 2012 at around 08:30 AM alleging that
some unknown persons had committed rape and
thereafter, murdered his minor daughter. Based on
the same, an FIR bearing Case Crime No. 318 of
11
2012 came to be registered at Police Station
10 Exhibit K-1.
11 Exhibit K-5
5
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

Mohanlalganj, Lucknow for the offences punishable
under Sections 302, 201 and 376 of IPC.
7. The investigation commenced and was
assigned to Sub-Inspector Narad Muni Singh (PW-
12
9) . He inspected the crime scene; prepared the
13 14
vide
rough site map and seizure memo collected
the following articles from the fields of Bhaktisharan
and Harikrishna which were taken on rent for
cultivation by accused No.1-Putai and Radheyshyam
Maurya respectively: -
i. Plain soil.
ii. Blood-stained soil.
iii. Blood-stained grass.
iv. A pair of pink hawaai chappals .
v. Blue colour undergarment.
vi. A water canister.
vii. A sky-blue colour frock.
viii. A small male comb.
8. All these articles were seized and sealed in
three separate packets. As per the rough site map,
12
Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Investigating Officer (PW-9)’
13 Exhibit K-8.
14 Exhibit K-7.
6
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

the dead body of the child victim was found in the
field of Harikrishna Sharma whereas, the chappals ,
water canister, and underwear of the child-victim
were found in the field of Bhaktisharan. A brick
road passed between the aforesaid two fields.
9. The prosecution claims that the dog squad was
called to the place of occurrence. The sniffer dog
sniffed the small male comb and led the police team
to the house of accused No. 2-Dileep.
10. The inquest report of the dead body of the
15
child victim was prepared which was then
subjected to post mortem by a Medical Board of
which, Dr. Geeta Chaudhary (PW-7), Dr. Akhilesh
Chandra (PW-8) and Dr. Anant Prakash Mishra were
members.
11. The medical board conducted autopsy and
16
issued the postmortem reports opining that the
15 Exhibit K-9.
16 Exhibit K-5 and K-6.
7
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

child victim had been subjected to grave violence
and sexual assault and died as a result of asphyxia
due to strangulation. As many as nine ante mortem
injuries were noticed on the child victim’s body
including numerous on her nether regions.
12. From the statements of various witnesses
examined by the Investigating Officer (PW-9), the
needle of suspicion turned towards the accused-
th
appellants who were arrested on 7 September,
2012. However, it may be noted that the
prosecution did not exhibit the arrest memos of the
accused-appellants.
13. The prosecution claims that the blood samples
of the accused-appellants were collected under
th
orders of the Court on 26 November, 2012 for the
17
purpose of DNA comparison. The DNA report was
received as per which, the comparison did not yield
17 Exhibit K-14.
8
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

any conclusive results. After conclusion of
investigation, chargesheet was laid against the
accused-appellants for the offences punishable
under Sections 376(2)(g), 201 and 302 IPC. The
offences being sessions triable, the case was
committed and made over to the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Lucknow, for trial
where charges were framed for the above offences
against the accused-appellants, who abjured their
guilt and claimed trial.
14. The prosecution examined as many as 12
witnesses, exhibited 17 documents and 5 material
objects to prove its case. The team leader of the dog
squad, namely, Tribhuvan Narayan Jaiswal was
examined as Court Witness No.1. Statements of the
accused-appellants were recorded under Section
313 CrPC, and they were confronted with the
allegations as appearing against them in the
9
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

prosecution case. They denied the same and
claimed to be innocent. Three witnesses were
examined in defence.
15. Upon hearing the arguments advanced by the
Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and after
appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court
proceeded to convict and sentence the accused-
appellants as stated supra . The reference for
confirmation of the death sentence awarded to
accused No.1-Putai by the trial Court was answered
in affirmative by the High Court, whereas the
appeals preferred by the accused-appellants were
th
rejected vide common judgment dated 11 October,
2018, passed by the High Court which is assailed in
these appeals by special leave.
Submissions on behalf of accused-appellants.
Shri. Shadan Farasat, learned senior counsel
16.
appearing for the accused No.1-Putai, and Shri
10
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

Varinder Kumar Sharma, learned counsel
representing the accused No. 2-Dileep, vehemently
and fervently contended that the conviction of the
accused-appellants by the Trial Court, and affirmed
by the High Court, is based purely on conjectures
and surmises. The prosecution case is totally based
on circumstantial evidence and that the prosecution
could not lead proper/reliable evidence to establish
the complete chain of incriminating circumstances
establishing the guilt of the accused-appellants
beyond all manner of doubt. The testimony of the
prosecution witnesses is full of inherent
contradictions and improbabilities and does not
inspire confidence.
17. It was further submitted that the prosecution
has tried to place reliance on the so-called
suspicious conduct of accused No.1-Putai in order
to draw an inference regarding his culpable state of
11
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

mind. As per Shri Farasat, the fact that the
accused-appellants was seen behaving abnormally
was introduced by way of a sheer improvement
because, in the complaint filed by Munna (PW-1), no
such allegation was levelled.
18. It was further submitted that the blind reliance
placed by the trial Court and the High Court upon
the DNA report is absolutely unjustified. The
prosecution failed to lead proper evidence to
establish the sanctity of the samples from the time
of seizure till the time the same reached the
18
Forensic Science Laboratory .
19. He further contended that the first DNA report
th
dated 18 January, 2014 did not inculpate the
accused-appellants. However, during the pendency
of appeals before the High Court, the prosecution
nd
produced a supplementary DNA report dated 2
18 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘FSL’
12
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

December, 2014 by way of an affidavit but the same
was never put to the accused-appellants under
Section 313 CrPC. Furthermore, the expert witness
who conducted the DNA profiling and issued the
supplementary DNA report was not examined in
evidence and hence, the subsequent DNA report is
inconsequential and inadmissible in evidence. It was
further contended that since the glaring
discrepancies in the two reports of DNA profiling
have not been explained by the prosecution, the
High Court committed grave error in placing reliance
on the same.
20. On these grounds, learned counsel
representing the accused-appellants, implored the
Court to accept the appeals, set aside the impugned
judgments passed by the High Court as well as the
trial Court and acquit the accused-appellants of the
charges levelled against them.
13
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

Submissions on behalf of respondent-State
21. Per contra , learned counsel representing the
respondent-State, vehemently and fervently opposed
the submissions advanced by the counsel appearing
for the accused-appellants. It was contended that
the material witnesses and the accused-appellants
are close neighbours. The material witnesses who
hail from a rustic background had no reason
whatsoever to falsely implicate the accused-
appellants in the case. These witnesses have given
natural and truthful evidence regarding the
suspicious conduct of the accused-appellants
corresponding to the time of the incident. The
present case emanates from a gruesome incident
wherein the minor daughter of Munna (PW-1) and
Smt. Chandravati (PW-2) was raped and murdered
in a very brutal manner and thus, trivial
inconsistencies in evidence of the witnesses were
14
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

bound to occur and no advantage thereof can be
gained by the accused-appellants. It was submitted
that the FIR was lodged without any delay in the
th
morning of the 5 September, 2012, soon after the
dead body of the child victim was found and hence,
the family members would have been in a deep state
of shock. Thus, omission of trivial facts from the FIR
cannot be a ground to discard the entire
prosecution case.
22. It was further submitted that the underwear
chappals
and other personal articles i.e., and water
canister of the child victim were recovered from the
field which accused No.1-Putai was admittedly
cultivating. Hence, by virtue of Section 106 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden would shift
on to the accused- appellants to explain the
circumstances under which, these gravely
incriminating articles, were found in his field.
15
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

23. It was further submitted that the prosecution
witnesses, i.e., Munna (PW1) and Smt. Chandravati
(PW-2) have given convincing evidence to prove the
suspicious conduct of the accused-appellants
corresponding to the time of the incident. Since,
there was no animosity whatsoever between these
witnesses and the accused-appellants, there could
not have been any reason for them to falsely
implicate the accused-appellants for the rape and
murder of their minor child. They, therefore, urged
that the conviction of the accused-appellants as
recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High
Court is based on apropos appreciation of evidence
available on record. The impugned judgments are
well reasoned and have been rendered after
thorough evaluation of evidence. The same do not
suffer from any infirmity or perversity and hence,
16
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

the appeals being devoid of merit should be
dismissed.
Analysis: -
24. We have given our thoughtful consideration to
the submissions advanced at bar and have gone
through the impugned judgments and material
placed on record.
25. The following facts are admitted from the
record: -
th
i. The child victim went missing on 4
September, 2012 at around 07:00 PM.
She had gone out for attending the call of
nature and was not found alive thereafter.
ii. The parents and neighbours conducted a
search for the child victim throughout the
night, but no clue was forthcoming
regarding her whereabouts.
17
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

19
iii. As per the FIR , the denuded dead body
of the child victim was found in the field
of Harikrishna Sharma whereas, some of
her personal articles i.e., chappals , water
canister and underwear were found in the
field of Bhaktisharan. The report is silent
regarding any suspicious act/conduct of
the accused-appellants which may have
been noticed or perceived by any of the
prosecution witnesses. Rather, the report
does not cast suspicion on anyone.
iv. Both the accused-appellants were
th
arrested on 7 September, 2012 and their
th
blood samples were drawn on 26
November, 2012, i.e., after a gap of almost
two and a half months.
19 Exhibit K-2.
18
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

v. The first DNA examination report dated
th
18 January, 2014 i.e., Exhibit K-14,
remained inconclusive. The prosecution
produced a supplementary DNA report
nd
dated 2 December, 2014 during
pendency of the appeals before the High
th
Court by way of an affidavit dated 12
April, 2017. However, notably, the first
DNA report was totally silent regarding
any pending tests or the requirement for
re-examination of the samples. The
supplementary DNA report was not put to
the accused-appellants, and they were
denied opportunity to rebut the same.
vi. The prosecution did not examine the
carrier who transmitted the samples from
the police station to the FSL. Not a single
document pertaining to safe keeping or
19
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

transmission of the samples viz .
maalkhana register, roznamcha entry,
forwarding letter or the receipt issued
from the FSL was exhibited or brought on
record by the prosecution during the
course of the trial.
26. Keeping the above admitted facts in mind, we
now proceed to appreciate the evidence of the
material prosecution witnesses.
27. Munna (PW-1), the informant, being the father
of the child victim, testified that his daughter, Mst.
S, informed her mother and went to ease herself in
the field at about 07:00 PM. When she did not
return for quite some time, the family members got
worried and launched a search for her. The child’s
mother, Smt. Chandravati (PW-2) kept on waiting at
the house. She claims to have seen accused No.1-
Putai washing his hands and face and going into his
20
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

house during this period. The search party claims to
have seen stains of blood and marks of dragging in
the field of Bhaktisharan which was being cultivated
by accused No.1-Putai. The chappals of the child
victim were also found in the same field. Likewise,
the water canister which the child victim had taken
with herself was also found in a culvert near the
field which accused No.1-Putai used to cultivate.
28. A very important fact emerging from the
statement of Munna (PW-1) is that he did not
mention that the underwear of the child victim was
also found in the field of accused No.1-Putai.
Furthermore, none of the three incriminating
articles, i.e., the chappals , the water canister or the
underwear were exhibited during the evidence of
Munna (PW-1) and Smt. Chandravati (PW-2) being
the parents of the child victim. However, the
Investigating Officer (PW-9) claims to have recovered
21
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

the underwear of the child victim from the field
which was under cultivation of accused No.1-Putai.
We shall consider the import of this discrepancy
later.
29. It is also relevant to mention here that Munna
(PW-1) did not utter a single word regarding any
procedure of using the dog squad to find out the
suspect.
30. Thus, the only fact in deposition of
Munna (PW-1) which is alleged as incriminating
against accused No.1-Putai, was the narrative that
his wife, Smt. Chandravati (PW-2) saw accused
No.1-Putai washing his hands and face and going
into his house. We find that there is nothing
unnatural or unusual in this conduct of accused
No.1-Putai. Any labourer or farmer would be
naturally inclined to carry out these ablutions upon
returning from work and before entering one’s home.
22
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

The actions as stated above are absolutely natural
and would not raise any suspicion nor could the
same be treated as incriminating conduct on the
part of accused No.1-Putai.
31. Smt. Chandravati (PW2) being the mother of
the child victim also gave evidence almost on the
same lines as that of Munna (PW-1). In addition, she
stated that she also went to the field in search of her
daughter i.e., the child victim. Later, the efforts to
search shifted to the homes of the relatives, but the
same proved to be futile. She further alleged that
she saw accused No.1-Putai who was looking
disgruntled. He entered his house, changed his
clothes and went away on his cycle. The witness
stated that accused No.1-Putai did not make any
enquiry whatsoever regarding the reason for the
commotion being caused owing to the child victim
having gone missing. This indifference shown by
23
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

accused No.1-Putai has been treated to be an
incriminating conduct by the trial Court as well the
High Court on the ground that in the natural course
of events, accused No.1-Putai should have got
concerned and would definitely have enquired as to
why the family members of the child victim were
acting in a panic mode.
32. Be that as it may, we find that this version as
set out in the evidence of Smt. Chandravati (PW-2)
that accused No.1-Putai came rushing and he went
inside his house, and changed the clothes, in
addition to being an exaggeration/improvement from
her previous statement under Section 161 CrPC
cannot be considered to be an incriminating
circumstance against accused No.1-Putai in
isolation.
33. All that can be inferred from the statement of
Smt. Chandravati (PW-2) is that accused No.1-Putai
24
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

came to his house, changed his clothes and went
away without demonstrating any interest whatsoever
regarding the commotion which was prevailing on
account of the child victim having gone missing.
34. To reiterate, there was nothing unusual in the
conduct of accused No.1-Putai if he entered into his
own house, even in haste, washed his face and
hands and then, went away.
35. Accused No. 1-Putai has given an explanation
in his Section 313 CrPC statement that his parents
were ill and were hospitalized on the date of the
incident. This fact was admitted by Smt.
Chandravati (PW-2) in her cross-examination. The
accused has taken a specific defence that he was
with his parents at the time of the incident. In this
background, the fact that accused No.1-Putai was
seen by Smt. Chandravati (PW-2) rushing into his
house, changing clothes and going away cannot be
25
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

treated to be a suspicious conduct or a fact which
inculpates him in the crime.
36. So far as the accused No. 2-Dileep is
concerned, Smt. Chandravati (PW-2) admitted in her
cross-examination that accused No. 2-Dileep’s
house is at a significant distance from her house.
The theory set forth by the prosecution, that the
comb used by accused No. 2-Dileep was recovered
from the field of Harikrishna Sharma, and that the
sniffer dog, after sniffing the said comb, led the
police team to the house of the accused No. 2-Dileep
is also shrouded in a cloud of doubt and
unacceptable on the face of record and we have
strong reasons for observing so.
37. Firstly, there is a significant contradiction
regarding the colour of the comb which was
recovered by the police. Munna (PW-1) stated that
the comb was of bluish-green color. Gaya Prasad
26
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

(PW-3) stated that the comb was dirty and light red
coloured. Raushan Lal (PW-5) stated that the comb
was of sky-blue color. Narad Muni Singh (PW-9)
stated that the comb was of green colour. These
contrasting versions of the witnesses regarding the
colour of the comb make the recovery by itself
doubtful.
38. Secondly, the theory put forth in the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses that they had seen
accused No. 2-Dileep using the comb and thus they
could identify and link the recovered comb to him is
absolutely farfetched and unbelievable. Admittedly,
there was no special feature in the recovered comb
which was an ordinary plastic comb. Thousands of
combs of similar design and colour are readily
available in the market. Thus, it is impossible to
believe that any person could identify the comb to
be that of accused No. 2-Dileep simply on seeing
27
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

him using the same. The emphatic version of the
witnesses that the comb belonged to accused No. 2-
Dileep is a strong indicator of the fact that the
prosecution was hell bent upon implicating the
accused No. 2-Dileep in this case by hook or by
crook.
39. Lastly, at the cost of repetition, it may be stated
that the procedure pertaining to the exercise of the
sniffer dog taking the police team from the place of
incident to the house of accused No.2 Dileep was
not documented and was sought to be proved in the
oral evidence of Tribhuvan Narayan Jaiswal (CW-1).
Failure to prepare any contemporary document for
the search by the dog squad makes the entire
procedure doubtful. Hence, the theory propounded
by the prosecution that the comb found at the spot,
was of accused No. 2- Dileep falls flat to the ground
and is unworthy of credence.
28
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

40. The next prosecution witness on which the
Courts below placed reliance was Gaya Prasad (PW-
3) who is closely related to Munna (PW-1). The
witness stated that, on the date of the incident, i.e.,
th
4 September, 2012, he was at his field, which was
located at a distance of about half a kilometer from
the village. While returning home at around 08:00
PM, he saw accused No.1-Putai moving anxiously.
When he reached home, he came to know that the
child victim had gone out to ease herself but had not
returned back. The parents of the child victim and
few others gave him this information. The witness
(PW-3) then joined the search for the child victim
with the family members. The search continued till
10 o’clock in the night but the child victim was
nowhere to be found. The search was resumed the
next morning. While searching, they reached the
field of accused No.1-Putai and saw a cot lying
29
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

inside the hut. The witness claims to have seen
blood on the ground below the cot. A sickle, a spade,
a pillow, a plastic bottle, one underwear and a pair
of chappals were also seen lying on the floor. A water
canister was seen lying at some distance. The
witness claims that he was the first to observe all
these articles. Little later, the police team also
reached the spot. The body of the child victim was
located at around 09:00 AM in the field of
Harikrishna Sharma which was under cultivation of
one Radheyshyam Maurya.
41. Importantly, the witness (PW-3) admitted that
accused No.1-Putai used to do farming and was also
working in a factory where asbestos sheets used to
be manufactured. On some days, he worked in the
factory from 03:30 PM to 11:00 PM while on other
days, he worked from 11:30 PM to 08:00 AM in the
morning. The witness admitted that neither did he
30
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

see accused No.1-Putai taking away the child victim
nor did he see him killing her.
42. What can be culled out from the evidence of
this witness is that the incriminating articles which
were recovered from the field of accused No. 1-Putai,
had already been seen by the search party before
the police arrived at the spot. The said fact assumes
importance when we see the complaint (Exhibit K-1)
wherein, all that is mentioned is that the chappals
and water canister of the child victim and some
blood stains were seen in the field of Bhaktisharan
which was under cultivation of accused No. 1-Putai.
There is a total omission of the fact that the
underwear of the child victim and other
incriminating articles had already been noticed in
the same field.
If at all, the search party which included the
43.
informant Munna (PW-1) and Gaya Prasad (PW-3)
31
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

had noticed the minute details about the presence
of chappals and water canister of the child victim
and some blood stains, then it is impossible to
believe that the presence of the underwear belonging
to the child victim in the same field, would have
escaped detection. In that eventuality, the fact
regarding the presence of the underwear would
definitely have been mentioned in the complaint
(Exhibit K-1) filed by Munna (PW-1) to the police.
Omission of the fact is far too significant to be
overlooked. We, therefore, feel that so far as the
aspect regarding the recovery of the underwear of
the child victim from the field of accused No.1-Putai
is concerned, the same seems to be a planted
recovery and a creation by the Investigating Officer
(PW-9) intended to give succor to the prosecution
case.
32
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

44. Bablu (PW-4) stated that he used to work as a
mason and was residing at a distance of about 100
meters from the house of Munna (PW-1). He came to
know on the day of the incident that Munna’s (PW-1)
th
daughter was missing. He alleged that on 4
September, 2012, accused No. 2-Dileep came to his
house between 08:00 PM to 09:00 PM and asked for
a fawda (garden spade), but the witness did not
accede to the said request. The witness further
stated that accused No.1-Putai had taken the field of
Bhaktisharan on crop sharing basis.
The statement of this witness (PW-4) is hardly
45.
of any relevance to the prosecution case. The simple
act of asking for a spade by accused No. 2-Dileep
cannot be construed to be incriminating in nature.
Furthermore, there is a material contradiction in
the deposition of the said witness since during the
examination-in-chief, the witness stated that he did
33
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

not give the spade to accused No. 2-Dileep, but in
cross-examination, he stated that he gave the fawda
(garden spade) to accused No. 2-Dileep which he
never received back. This contradiction goes to the
root of the matter and makes the testimony of the
witness (PW-4) highly doubtful.
46. Raushan Lal (PW-5) stated that in the morning
after the incident, the villagers told him that
Munna’s (PW-1) daughter i.e., the child victim had
gone missing at around 7 o’clock on the previous
night. The entire village was searching for the child
victim in the field of Bhaktisharan which accused
No.1-Putai was cultivating. A cot was kept at the
staging. There were blood stains on the cot and
blood drops were strewn around it. An underwear
and a pair of chappals were seen lying towards the
north of the hut with a sickle and a bottle lying
nearby. Near a shrub, a water canister was found.
34
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

The denuded dead body of the child victim was
found near the ridge, in the corner of the paddy field
belonging to Harikrishna Sharma and a frock was
found lying at some distance from the dead body.
47. The witness (PW-5) further stated that a sky-
blue coloured comb was found near the frock and
the comb was of accused No. 2-Dileep. The sniffer
dog sniffed the comb and went directly to accused
No. 2-Dileep’s house. He stated that he had himself
seen accused No. 2-Dileep combing his hair using
that comb. In cross-examination, the witness
admitted that many people were searching for the
child victim. The dead body of child victim was
found in the field of Harikrishna Sharma, at a
distance of about 150 feet from the field of accused
No. 1-Putai and a brick lane was running between
the said two fields. Thus, the evidence of the
witness (PW-5) is also insignificant so far as the
35
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

culpability of accused No.1-Putai in the crime is
concerned. Since, we have already discarded the
recovery of the comb as being that of accused No. 2-
Dileep, the evidence of the witness (PW-5) is of no
worth to the prosecution case.
48. Girish Kumar (PW-6) posted as Constable at
Police Station Mohanlalganj, Lucknow, was a formal
witness who registered the FIR bearing Case Crime
No. 318 of 2012 based on the complaint given by
Munna (PW-1). Nothing much turns on the
statement of the said witness.
49. Dr. Geeta Chaudhary (PW-7), being the
medical jurist proved the postmortem report
(Exhibit K-5 and K-6). However, she did not give any
opinion regarding the cause of death of the child
victim. A very important fact which emerges from
the evidence of the medical jurist is that she
claimed to have taken two vaginal swabs and two
36
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

vaginal smear slides, which were sent for
examination of spermatozoa and gonococci. The
significant fact which needs to be noted is that the
witness (PW-7) did not state that the vaginal swabs
and the slides were sealed. She did not even
mention the date on which these vital forensic
materials were handed over for onward
transmission.
50. Dr. Akhilesh Chandra (PW-8), was one of the
members of the medical board which conducted the
postmortem examination upon the dead body of the
child victim. He stated that the body was brought
for postmortem examination by Constable Sunil

Singh and Constable Krishna Kumar Dwivedi posted
at the Police Station Mohanlalganj. The autopsy was
carried out at about 04:15 PM and Dr. Anant
Prakash Mishra and Dr. Geeta Chaudhary (PW-7)
were the other members of the medical board who
37
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

took part in the postmortem examination. The
medical jurist proved the presence of nine ante
mortem injuries on the private parts and other body
parts of the child victim. He also gave an opinion
that the cause of death of the child victim was
cardiorespiratory arrest due to asphyxia on account
of ante mortem strangulation.
51. The witness (PW-8) stated that he collected
part of scalp hair with skin for DNA, a piece of
sternum bone and eight slides of smear and swabs.
He went on to state that these articles were seized,
sealed, and handed over to Constable Sunil Singh
and Constable Krishna Kumar Dwivedi along with
the specimen of seal and other police papers.
52. However, not a single document pertaining to
this procedure was proved by the witness (PW-8),
nor was any memorandum of sealing or handing
over of the forensic material exhibited during his
38
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

evidence or in the evidence of any other prosecution
witness. Hence, the entire procedure of collecting
forensic samples becomes doubtful.
53. Narad Muni Singh (PW-9), Sub-Inspector,
Police Station Wazirganj, Lucknow, was the first
senior police officer to reach the place of the
incident upon receiving the information of the
crime. When he reached the spot, the villagers who
were gathered there informed him that Munna’s
(PW-1) daughter, i.e., the child victim had gone out
for defecation at about 07:00 PM the previous
evening and had not returned since then. The
villagers told that some blood stains, the chappals of
the child victim along with an underwear and a
water canister were seen lying in the field of
Bhaktisharan which was under cultivation of
accused No.1-Putai on crop sharing basis. He was
also informed that the body of the child victim had
39
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

been found in a naked state in the field of
Harikrishna Sharma. The father of the child victim
was sent to the police station to report the matter.
While the police team was conducting the inspection
of the crime scene, Constable Uma Shankar came to
20
the spot with the copy of the FIR along with the
register of inquest report and other documents.
Thereafter, the inquest memo and the site
inspection plan were prepared. He proceeded to
record the statements of the complainant, i.e.,
Munna (PW-1) and the other witnesses. The dog
squad was summoned for inspection of the place of
occurrence. The frock, the underwear, the chappals ,
the water canister of the child victim and a male
comb were recovered and seized, and the seizure
memo was prepared at the spot. The dead body of
the child victim was packed and sent to the KGMC
20 FIR bearing Case Crime No. 318 of 2012.
40
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

with Constable Sunil Singh, Constable Krishna
Kumar Dwivedi and Lady Constable Sandhya Singh.
Search was made for the suspects. Three sealed and
stamped packets of the mudamaal articles were
placed in the police malkhana . He proved the
seizure memo (Exhibit K-7) by which these articles
came to be seized.
54. During the evidence of the witness (PW-9), the
packets of the sealed articles, i.e., the frock, the
underwear, the chappals , the water canister, and the
comb were opened in the Court and the said
material objects were exhibited. The witness further
stated that the blood-stained and the plain soil
recovered from the place of the incident was sent to
the FSL. Subsequently, the witness handed over the
investigation of the case to Inspector Yogendra Singh
(PW-11). During cross-examination conducted on
behalf of accused No. 2-Dileep, the witness (PW-9)
41
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

stated that the needle of suspicion turned towards
accused No. 2-Dileep as the sniffer dog after
smelling the comb recovered from the place of
occurrence, went up directly to the house of the said
accused.
55. We may note that as per the version of the
Investigating Officer (PW-9), he had immediately
sealed the comb at the spot. Therefore, the same
could not have been available for the sniffer dogs to
smell. However, the fact remains that nothing in
respect of the inspection by dog squad has been
recorded in any of the documents prepared by the
th
Investigating Officer (PW-9) at the crime scene on 5
September, 2012. In cross-examination, the witness
also stated that the dead body of the child victim
had been located by the public and was lying at a
distance of 80 meters from the brick lane, in
42
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

between the fields of Bhaktisharan and Harikrishna
Sharma.
56. A very important fact which emerges from the
evidence of Narad Muni Singh (PW-9) is that the
personal articles of the child victim, i.e., the frock
and the underwear which he seized were never
forwarded to the FSL. It is indeed surprising that in
a case of such grave nature, the Investigating Officer
(PW-9) did not care to forward these crucial articles
to the FSL. The scientific analysis of these articles
might have provided vital evidence for proving the
guilt of the accused-appellants or otherwise. The
very fact that the Investigating Officer (PW-9) did not
consider it essential to send the articles to the FSL
gives rise to a strong suspicion that the recovery of
these articles was a planted recovery.
57. Suresh Chandra Mishra (PW-10), Sub-
Inspector, Police Station Sigra, Varanasi also
43
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

accompanied Investigating Officer (PW-9) to the
th
crime scene on 5 September, 2012. He gave
evidence almost on same lines as Investigating
Officer (PW-9). He was a witness to the inquest
proceedings. He sealed and placed the dead body of
the child victim in a white cloth bag. Thereafter, the
dead body was forwarded to the medical college, i.e.,
KGMC for postmortem examination with Constable
Sunil Singh and Constable Krishna Kumar Dwivedi.
Nothing significant was stated by this witness,
which can have a bearing on the outcome of the
case.
21
58. Yogendra Singh (PW-11) who was posted as
the Inspector and Officer-in-Charge of the Police
Station Mohanlalganj stated that he recorded the
statements of the witnesses Gaya Prasad (PW-3),
Ajai, Anil, Bablu (PW-4), Raushan Lal (PW-5),
21 Hereinafter, referred to as “Investigating Officer (PW-11)”
44
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

th
Khilawan and Munna (PW-1) on 6 September,
2012. The accused-appellants i.e., Putai and Dileep
th
were apprehended on 7 September, 2012 and were
th
interrogated. On 9 September, 2012, statements of
some more witnesses were recorded. The witness
claims to have prepared a memorandum No. 5 and
dispatched the blood-stained soil and the slides to
the FSL after preparing the documents for forensic
examination and obtaining the signatures of the
Circle Officer.
59. In cross-examination, the witness admitted
that he was not present at the police station on the
date of the incident. He got the information about
th
the incident over mobile phone on 5 September,
2012 at about 02:00 PM. In his absence, Narad
Muni Singh (PW-9), Sub-Inspector, had been
authorised to conduct the investigation. The witness
stated that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow
45
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

th
passed an order on 26 October, 2012 mandating
that the accused-appellants should be summoned
for the drawing of the blood samples on the very
same day and directed the Chief Medical Officer,
Lucknow to make arrangements for collection of the
blood samples of the accused-appellants so that the
same could be forwarded to the FSL for DNA
comparison. He feigned ignorance as to the date and
time on which the blood samples of the accused-
appellants were actually collected. The witness
admitted that charge-sheet was filed without
receiving the DNA report because the remand period
of 90 days was running out.
60. The most important fact which is seen from the
evidence of this witness is that neither he gave out
the date on which the blood samples of the accused-
appellants were actually collected, nor did he prove
any document prepared for carrying out this
46
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

procedure. Further, it is pertinent to mention that
the consent of the accused-appellants was
purportedly taken before the drawing of the blood
samples, but no document proving such consent,
was exhibited in evidence. Hence, we have no
hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed
to prove the relevant documentation which should
have mandatorily been prepared before collection of
the blood samples of the accused-appellants for
DNA comparison. Failure to do so makes the entire
exercise of collection of the blood samples, farce and
frivolous.
61. Dr. Archana Tripathy (PW-12), Deputy Director
(Serology), FSL, Lucknow, stepped into the witness
th
box on 18 January, 2014 and proved the DNA
report as Exhibit K-14. She stated that the blood
samples were received through a special messenger
in which, sample bearing Mark (1) (Ext. ES-3) was of
47
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

accused No.1-Putai and that having Mark (2) (Ext.
ES-4) was that of accused No. 2-Dileep. Marks ES-
1 and ES-2 was given to the slide and the swab. The
witness opined that male specific allele was found in
the Exhibits ES-1 and ES-2. The witness further
clarified that the origin of the blood on the soil
forwarded by the Investigating Officer (PW-11) could
not be determined.
62. In cross-examination, the witness (PW-12)
admitted that she received some of the samples in
October, 2012 and the remaining samples were
received in November, 2012. Then, she altered her
version and claimed that first set of samples was
st
received on 1 October, 2012 and second set was
th
received on 26 November, 2012. These sample
packets had been sent through Circle Officer,
Mohanlalganj, Lucknow. In the first tranche, four
sealed and stamped bundles were received, of which
48
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

two were of blood-stained soil and plain soil and the
other envelope contained the slide and the swabs of
the child victim collected during the postmortem
th
examination. The second packet received on 26
November, 2012 contained blood samples of the
accused-appellants i.e., Putai and Dileep. The DNA
report (Exhibit K-14) which the witness (PW-12)
proved, makes an interesting reading. On a perusal
thereof, it comes to light that male specific allele was
found in the slide and the swab, i.e., Exhibits ES-1
and ES-2. No opinion whatsoever was given
regarding the blood samples marked as Exhibits ES-
3 and ES-4. It was only mentioned that DNA profiles
were generated and ideal procedures were applied
for the same.
63. Furthermore, the witness (PW-12) did not state
in her evidence that any forensic material was
preserved for further examination. Surprisingly,
49
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

during the pendency of the appeal before the High
Court, the prosecution placed a supplementary DNA
nd
report dated 2 December, 2014 on record. We are
of the view that there was hardly any possibility of
any such supplementary DNA report being prepared
because in absence of evidence to the contrary, it
can be safely be presumed that the specimen
samples must have been consumed when the first
report, i.e., Exhibit K-14 was prepared. In any event,
once the samples were already opened, their
sanctity would no longer be secured/preserved for
any further analysis.
64. The supplementary DNA report narrates that
the material extracted from the slide ES-2 (collected
from the victim’s dead body) matched with the allele
of ES-3, which was the blood sample of accused
No.1-Putai. Furthermore, the very same slide ES-2
also gave matching profile with the blood sample
50
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

marked as ES-4 which belonged to the accused No.
2-Dileep. Two conclusions drawn in this report were
based on the Y-Filer Kit test in respect of the sample
of the accused No. 1-Putai, and the other based on
the HID Kit test in respect of the sample of the
accused No. 2-Dileep.
65. We find the following crucial flaws in the
prosecution case which make the DNA reports
totally inadmissible in evidence: -
(i) The prosecution failed to lead any
evidence whatsoever so as to prove the
procedure, date or time of drawing the
blood samples of the accused-appellants
for the purpose of conducting the DNA
comparison. Neither any oral evidence
was led to prove this procedure, nor did
the prosecution exhibit any document to
fortify the same. There is a total lack of
51
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

evidence regarding the chain of custody of
these blood samples.
(ii) As discussed above, there is a grave
discrepancy in the evidence of the two
medical jurists, i.e., Dr. Geeta Chaudhary
(PW-7) and Dr. Akhilesh Chandra (PW-8)
regarding the number of slides prepared
for DNA examination, when the
postmortem examination was conducted.
On the one hand, Dr. Geeta Chaudhary
(PW-7) stated that she took two vaginal
swabs and two vaginal smear slides,
whereas, on the other hand, Dr. Akhilesh
Chandra (PW-8) stated that he took eight
slides of smear and swabs.
(iii) No witness was examined by the
prosecution to establish the complete
unbroken chain of safe custody of the
samples which were purportedly
52
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

seized/drawn, preserved and then
forwarded to scientific experts for DNA
comparison.
(iv) Neither the malkhana In-charge of the
Police Station Mohanlalganj was
examined in evidence nor did the
prosecution care to examine the official/s
who carried the samples to the FSL.
(v) Not a single document pertaining to the
transmission of the samples to the FSL
was exhibited by the prosecution in its
evidence and hence, the DNA report
(Exhibit K-14) which is otherwise also
inconclusive, cannot be read in evidence.
nd
66. The supplementary DNA report dated 2
December, 2014, which was produced during
pendency of the appeals before the High Court is
also inconsequential and inadmissible because
neither did the prosecution bother to recall the
53
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

scientific expert, Dr. Archana Tripathy (PW-12) to
prove this report nor was this report put to the
accused-appellants by way of supplementary
questioning under Section 313 CrPC. That apart, we
have already taken note of the fact that the forensic
samples had already been opened/consumed when
the first DNA report (Exhibit K-14) was prepared
and thus, the sanctity thereof was breached. Hence,
there was no possibility whatsoever for preparation
of a supplementary DNA report.
67. As is apparent, the conclusions in the first
DNA report and the supplementary DNA report are
in stark contradiction. Hence, it was essential for
the prosecution to summon the expert concerned for
reconciling the grave discrepancy in the two DNA
reports. Having failed to do so, the prosecution
cannot be permitted to place reliance on the
54
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

subsequent DNA report to the prejudice of the
accused-appellants.
68. The material objects including the clothes of
the child victim were exhibited in the evidence of
Narad Muni Singh (PW-9), but the same were not
shown to the parents, i.e., Munna (PW-1) and
Chandravati (PW-2) for identification when they
stepped into the witness box. Hence, a doubt is
created as to whether the articles so recovered were
actually of the child victim or not. The prosecution
has given no explanation whatsoever as to why the
clothes of the child victim were not forwarded to the
FSL for forensic examination.
69. Even if it is assumed that some of these
material objects were found in the field of the
accused No.1-Putai, that by itself cannot be
considered to be an incriminating circumstance so
strong that even taken in isolation, the same would
55
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

prove the guilt of the accused No.1-Putai beyond
reasonable doubt. The distance between ‘may be
proved’ and ‘must be proved’ is small but has to be
travelled before the prosecution can seek conviction
of the accused in a case based purely on
circumstantial evidence. The fields where the
material objects allegedly belonging to the child
victim and her dead body were found is open and
accessible to all and sundry and hence, the
prosecution would have to rule out the possibility of
anyone other than the accused-appellants having
committed the ghastly act for it to succeed and to
bring home the charges against the said accused
persons.
70. As per the prosecution case, the dead body of
the child victim was found in the field of
Harikrishna Sharma whereas, the material objects
viz . chappals , water canister and underwear were
56
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

found in the field of accused No.1-Putai. These facts
may give rise to a strong suspicion that the child
victim might have been assaulted in the field of
accused No.1 Putai, but that by itself would not be
sufficient to establish that it was the accused No. 1-
Putai and none else who committed the ghastly
crime.
71. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that
the fact that Smt. Chandravati (PW-2), mother of the
child victim, claims to have seen the accused No.1-
Putai coming to his house, washing his face,
changing his clothes and going away cannot be
considered to be an incriminating circumstance. In
addition, thereto, it is apparent that this version of
Smt. Chandravati (PW-2) is an exaggeration. Had
iota
there been an of truth in her story, then this
fact would have definitely been incorporated in the
complaint filed by her husband i.e., Munna (PW-1).
57
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

72. Furthermore, had there been any substance in
the aforesaid allegation, then the Investigating
Officers would have definitely made an extensive
search of the house of the accused-appellants to
search for incriminating evidence. Evidently, no
such effort was made by the Investigating Officers,
which again establishes that the theory put forth in
the evidence of Smt. Chandravati (PW-2) is an
exaggeration and nothing beyond that. The failure of
the Investigating Officers to search the house of the
accused-appellants is another circumstance which
adds to our suspicion regarding the credibility of the
Investigating Officer’s actions, more particularly, in
respect of the alleged recoveries.
73. We feel that the present case is yet another
classic example of lackluster and shabby
investigation and so also laconic trial procedure
58
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

which has led to the failure of a case involving
brutal rape and murder of an innocent girl child.
74. The Investigating Officers did not care to
examine anyone from the neighbouring fields where
the dead body of the child victim was found. The
incident took place in the beginning of September,
2012 and the time of the incident was between
07:00 PM to 08:00 PM. In the beginning of the
month of September, darkness would fall somewhere
around 07:00 PM only. Thus, had the accused-
appellants indulged in such a ghastly act with the
child victim, then their act would not have gone
unnoticed by the persons residing in the locality.
However, not a single person from the
neighbourhood was examined by the Investigating
bonafides
Officers which creates a doubt on the of
their actions.
59
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

75. At the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned
that no document pertaining to collection of the
blood samples from the accused-appellants was
produced and exhibited in evidence, thereby,
rendering the DNA reports to be a piece of trash
paper. The prosecution failed to lead any credible
evidence for proving the chain of custody of the
forensic samples allegedly collected during
investigation and hence on this ground alone, the
DNA reports pale into insignificance. The first DNA
report was inconclusive, and supplementary DNA
nd
report dated 2 December, 2014 was tendered in
evidence by the prosecution during the pendency of
appeals before the High Court along with an
th
affidavit dated 12 April, 2017 of one Rajiv Paliwal,
then Deputy Director, FSL, Lucknow. We may note
that Rajiv Paliwal was not connected with the
issuance of the DNA report in any manner and
60
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

hence, he could not have been the relevant witness
to prove the same. That apart, the DNA report could
not have been proved through an affidavit. Section
22
293 of CrPC (Section 329 of BNSS, 2023 ) makes it
amply clear that only evidence of formal nature can
be given on affidavits. The DNA report is substantive
piece of evidence and hence, the same could not
have been tendered in evidence through an affidavit
and that too of an officer who was not connected
with the procedure in any manner.
76. If at all, the prosecution was desirous of relying
upon the supplementary DNA report, it was under
obligation to recall and re-examine on oath the
scientific expert, Dr. Archana Tripathy (PW-12), who
issued the same. Failure of the prosecution to do so
is fatal to its case.
22 The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023.
61
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

77. In conclusion, we have no hesitation in holding
that other than the allegation that the child victim’s
chappals , underwear and the water canister were
found in the field which was cultivated by accused
No. 1-Putai, the prosecution has failed to lead any
credible evidence whatsoever which can be
considered to be incriminating the accused-
appellants for the crime in question, what to say, of
evidence which is capable of proving the guilt of the
accused-appellants beyond all manner of doubt.
78. We are conscious that the case involves a
gruesome act of rape and brutal murder of a tender
girl child aged 12 years. However, it is a settled tenet
of criminal jurisprudence that in a case based
purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution
must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The
incriminating circumstances must be such which
point exclusively to the guilt of the accused and are
62
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

inconsistent with his innocence or the guilt of
anyone else.
79. Having considered and analyzed the evidence
available on record minutely, we feel that the
prosecution has fallen woefully short of proving the
guilt of the accused-appellants by clinching evidence
which can be termed as proving the case beyond all
manner of doubt.
80. Hence, we are left with no option but to acquit
the appellants by giving them the benefit of doubt.
81. The appeals thus succeed and are hereby
th
allowed. The impugned judgment dated 11 October,
2018 passed by the High Court and judgment of
th
conviction and order of sentence dated 14 March,
th
2014 and 19 March, 2014, passed by the trial
Court are hereby quashed and set aside.
The appellants, Putai and Dileep are acquitted
82.
of the charges. They are in custody and shall be
63
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025

released from prison forthwith, if not wanted in any
other case.
83. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 26, 2025.
64
Crl. App. No(s). 36-37 of 2019 with Crl. App. No(s). 154 of 2025