Putai vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

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

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. Vide judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 14th March, 2014 and 19th March,

2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Signature Not Verified Judge, Court No. 13, Lucknow1, in Sessions Case Digitally signed by RAJNI MUKHI Date: 2025.08.26

1 Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘trial Court’. 16:42:49 IST Reason:

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

Code, 18602 and were sentenced in the terms below:

-

Accused Section(s) Sentence awarded Accused No.  376(2)(g)  Rigorous life 1-Putai3 IPC imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 40,000/- and in default to undergo an additional one year of rigorous imprisonment.

 201 IPC  Seven years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 20,000/- and in default to undergo an additional 6 months of rigorous imprisonment.

 302 IPC  Death penalty along with a fine of Rs 60,000/- and in default to undergo an additional one and a half year of rigorous imprisonment. Accused No.  376(2)(G)  Rigorous life

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 2-Dileep4 IPC imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 40,000/- and in default to undergo an additional 1 year of rigorous imprisonment.

 201 IPC  7 years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 20,000/- and in default to undergo an additional 6 months of rigorous imprisonment.

 302 IPC  Rigorous life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 60,000/- and in default to undergo an additional one and a half year of rigorous imprisonment.

3. The trial Court made a reference 5 to the High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad6 for confirmation

of the death sentence awarded to accused No.1-

Putai under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 19737. 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 preferred separate appeals8 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

by the accused-appellants vide judgment dated 11th

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.

5. Mst. S, minor daughter9 (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

evening of 4th 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.

6. In the morning of 5th 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. The 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

complaint10 to the Inspector of Police on 5 th

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

201211 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-

9)12. He inspected the crime scene; prepared the

rough site map13 and vide seizure memo14 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

child victim was prepared15 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

issued the postmortem reports16 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-

appellants who were arrested on 7th 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

orders of the Court on 26th November, 2012 for the

purpose of DNA comparison. The DNA report 17 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

rejected vide common judgment dated 11th October,

2018, passed by the High Court which is assailed in

these appeals by special leave.

Submissions on behalf of accused-appellants.

16. Shri. Shadan Farasat, learned senior counsel

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

Forensic Science Laboratory18.

19. He further contended that the first DNA report

dated 18th January, 2014 did not inculpate the

accused-appellants. However, during the pendency

of appeals before the High Court, the prosecution

produced a supplementary DNA report dated 2 nd

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

morning of the 5th 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

and other personal articles i.e., chappals 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: -

i. The child victim went missing on 4 th

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 iii. As per the FIR19, 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

arrested on 7th September, 2012 and their

blood samples were drawn on 26th

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

18th January, 2014 i.e., Exhibit K-14,

remained inconclusive. The prosecution

produced a supplementary DNA report

dated 2nd December, 2014 during

pendency of the appeals before the High

Court by way of an affidavit dated 12 th

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.,

4th 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.

43. If at all, the search party which included the

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)

daughter was missing. He alleged that on 4 th

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.

45. The statement of this witness (PW-4) is hardly

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

the spot with the copy of the FIR 20 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

Investigating Officer (PW-9) at the crime scene on 5 th

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

crime scene on 5th 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.

58. Yogendra Singh (PW-11)21 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 Khilawan and Munna (PW-1) on 6th September,

2012. The accused-appellants i.e., Putai and Dileep

were apprehended on 7th September, 2012 and were

interrogated. On 9th 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

the incident over mobile phone on 5 th 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 passed an order on 26th 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

box on 18th 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

received on 1st October, 2012 and second set was

received on 26th 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

examination. The second packet received on 26th

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

report dated 2nd 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.

66. The supplementary DNA report dated 2nd

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

there been an iota 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

Officers which creates a doubt on the bonafides 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

report dated 2nd December, 2014 was tendered in

evidence by the prosecution during the pendency of

appeals before the High Court along with an

affidavit dated 12th 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

293 of CrPC (Section 329 of BNSS, 2023 22) 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

allowed. The impugned judgment dated 11th October,

2018 passed by the High Court and judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 14 th March,

2014 and 19th March, 2014, passed by the trial

Court are hereby quashed and set aside.

82. The appellants, Putai and Dileep are acquitted

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