Four acquitted in minor sisters’ rape-murder case as Punjab and Haryana High Court finds unreliable evidence and no DNA link despite death sentences

On the intervening night of 5–6 August 2021, two minor sisters, aged approximately 13 and 12 years, were taken to Satyavadi Raja Harishchander Hospital, Narela, where both died. Their mother initially informed the hospital and police that the girls had suffered snakebites; the earliest written information recorded on 6 August 2021 attributed the deaths to snakebite.

Post-mortem examinations found extensive genital injuries, abrasions and bruises indicating sexual assault, while toxicology detected pendimethalin, a herbicide, in the victims’ viscera.

On 9 August 2021, the mother submitted a second complaint alleging that Arun, Phool Chand, Dukhan and Ram Suhag had gang-raped the girls and forcibly administered poison to them.

Her statement under Section 164 CrPC, recorded on 10 August 2021, materially differed from the second complaint: she stated that she knew only one accused by the name “Sattu” and could identify the persons by face, without naming the four accused.

The trial court convicted all four accused under Sections 302/34, 328/34, 376DA, 506/34 and 120-B IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and imposed death sentences for rape and murder. The accused appealed, and the trial court made a murder reference for confirmation of the death sentences.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the four accused committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault or gang rape upon the two minor victims.

2. Whether the mother’s second complaint and her statement under Section 164 CrPC could be relied upon as substantive evidence despite her hostile testimony in court and the material inconsistencies between her statements.

3. Whether the alleged recoveries of the poison container and parna were legally admissible and sufficiently connected to the accused and the offences under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

4. Whether the medical, forensic and DNA evidence connected any of the accused with the sexual assault or the deaths of the victims.

5. Whether the prosecution established the accused persons’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt so as to sustain their convictions and death sentences.

The court applied Sections 302, 328, 376DA, 506, 120-B and 34 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, requiring the prosecution to prove each offence and the accused’s individual or shared participation beyond reasonable doubt.

An FIR under Section 154 CrPC is not substantive evidence and may ordinarily be used only to corroborate or contradict its maker; similarly, a statement under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence and may be used for corroboration or contradiction but not as a substitute for testimony tested by cross-examination.

The evidence of a hostile witness is not automatically effaced, but may be relied upon only to the extent it is credible and corroborated by other evidence.

Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, only that portion of information given by an accused in police custody which distinctly relates to a genuinely discovered fact is admissible; the discovery must be new, relevant, consequent upon the accused’s information, and not already known to the police.

The prosecution bears the continuing burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and where two reasonable views are possible, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted.

The court accepted that the victims had been sexually assaulted and had most likely died from poisoning, based on the post-mortem findings and toxicology reports.

However, the prosecution failed to prove the identity and participation of the four accused. The mother’s earliest account alleged snakebite, her second complaint named all four accused, her Section 164 statement did not name them, and her sworn trial testimony denied the prosecution version and failed to identify any accused.

Since the second complaint was not proved through reliable testimony, it could not independently establish the accused’s involvement.

The alleged recoveries were also found unreliable. The parna had already been noticed at the crime scene before the alleged disclosures, was recovered from a location different from the disclosed place, and its DNA did not match any accused.

The poison container had likewise been noted by the crime-scene team before the alleged disclosures; moreover, the earlier report described a metallic container whereas the later recovery was of a plastic bottle.

Consequently, the recoveries did not satisfy the requirements of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The DNA evidence excluded, rather than connected, the accused, and the alleged injuries on the accused were old scars, not fresh injuries caused by resistance.

In the absence of reliable eyewitness testimony, admissible discoveries, or scientific linkage, the prosecution failed to establish that these accused committed the rape, administered the poison, or caused the deaths.

The convictions and sentences on all charges were set aside, and all four accused were acquitted.

Criminal Appeal No. CRA-D-1522 of 2023 was allowed, while Murder Reference No. 9 of 2023 was dismissed.

The court directed their immediate release on furnishing personal bonds without sureties, subject to Section 481 BNSS, 2023, and issued directions concerning destruction of case property and transmission of the judgment to the Sessions Court.