The apex court said no document on the collection of blood samples from the two accused was produced and exhibited in evidence, rendering the DNA reports a “piece of trash paper.”
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta said the prosecution had “fallen woefully” short of proving the guilt of the two appellants with clinching evidence that could be termed as proving the case beyond all manner of doubt.
“We feel that the present case is yet another classic example of lackluster and shabby investigation and so also laconic trial procedure which has led to the failure of a case involving brutal rape and murder of an innocent girl child,” the verdict said.
The top court’s verdict came on appeals against an Allahabad High Court judgment of October 2018. The high court had confirmed the death penalty awarded to accused Putai by a trial court and dismissed the appeals filed by the accused against their conviction. The trial court had sentenced co-accused Dileep to life imprisonment in the case.
Dealing with the appeals, the apex court said it was conscious that the case involved a gruesome act of rape and brutal murder of a girl 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,” it said.
The bench said it was left with no option but to acquit the appellants by giving them the benefit of doubt.
The investigating officers, it noted, did not care to examine anyone from the neighbouring fields where the minor’s body was found.
“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,” it said.
The prosecution had claimed that the police’s dog sniffed a small male comb found at the crime scene, leading to the house of Dileep. But the top court underlined significant contradictions regarding the colour of the comb recovered by the police.
It said the procedure of the sniffer dog leading the police from the place of incident to the house of Dileep was not documented.
“Failure to prepare any contemporary document for the search by the dog squad makes the entire procedure doubtful,” it said.
The bench also found the first DNA examination report of January 2014 to be inconclusive, following which the prosecution produced a supplementary DNA report dated December 2, 2014 during the pendency of appeals before the high court.
Noting the “crucial flaws” in the prosecution’s case, the bench said the prosecution failed to lead any evidence to prove the procedure, date, or time of drawing blood samples of the accused for conducting the DNA comparison.
“No witness was examined by the prosecution to establish the complete unbroken chain of safe custody of the samples which were purportedly seized/drawn, preserved and then forwarded to scientific experts for DNA comparison,” it said.
The bench outlined “stark contradictions” in the conclusions of the first DNA report and the supplementary report.
The minor went missing on September 4, 2012, and her body was found in a field, following which the appellants were arrested later that same month.
About the Author
