Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-003955-003956 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 46174/2019 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedents: Sharad Birdhichand Sharda; Bachan Singh; Machhi Singh |
| Type of Law | Criminal law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The prosecution must establish a complete, unbroken chain of circumstances pointing only to the accused’s guilt; any lacuna undermines conviction. Scientific evidence, such as DNA profiling, must rest on unimpeachable procedures and a lawful arrest and custody chain. In capital cases, courts must apply the “rarest of rare” doctrine and conduct a scrupulous evaluation of all aggravating and mitigating factors before awarding death. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All courts in India (including High Courts and subordinate courts) |
| Follows | Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra; Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Circumstantial evidence convictions demand an unbroken chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence.
- DNA/report-based convictions require strict proof of lawful arrest, proper sample custody, and consistent test results; any discrepancy (e.g., semen in cervical swab but not in smear) undermines admissibility.
- Failure to examine pivotal witnesses (e.g., the first informer who located the body) invites adverse inferences and can collapse the prosecution’s “last seen” link.
- Arrests and detentions must be recorded and authorised; unverified call-detail claims or secret sources risk tainting subsequent forensic material.
- Death sentences must follow the “rarest of rare” standard with rigorous consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors; mechanical imposition at sentencing vitiates capital punishment.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The prosecution’s case rested purely on circumstantial evidence (motive, last-seen, DNA) and required a complete chain excluding innocence.
- Motive was unsupported: witness testimony (e.g., shop-owners) was inconsistent and recorded only after body recovery.
- “Last seen” collapsed due to belated witness statements and non-examination of the cousin who first pinpointed the body’s location.
- The purported arrest in Ludhiana, and call-detail surveillance, lacked lawful authorisation, contemporaneous diary entries, and proof linking mobiles to the accused.
- Forensic evidence was unreliable: DNA found in cervical swab but not in corresponding smear; blood-stain patterns contradicted medical opinion; chain of custody and analyst credentials were suspect.
- Applying Sharad Sharda, any break in the chain demands acquittal.
- Under Bachan Singh, capital sentences require scrupulous sentencing hearings evaluating mitigating factors, absent which the death penalty cannot stand.
- Conclusion: chain of circumstances broken, forensic evidence tainted → convictions and death sentence set aside; accused acquitted.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Accused-Appellants)
- Prosecution built on inconsistent circumstantial proof; motive never established.
- “Last seen” witnesses introduced only after body recovery; key informer not examined.
- Arrest procedures were illegal and contrived; call records procured late.
- DNA evidence was contradictory (semen absent in smear) and tests were tampered.
- Trial court failed to weigh mitigating circumstances before death sentence.
Respondent (State)
- Arrest based on mobile surveillance and STF technical support; lawful.
- Post-mortem and inquest conclusively proved sexual assault‐homicide.
- DNA profiling unequivocally matched accused’s semen to victim samples.
- Multiple eyewitnesses saw accused near crime scene; absconding corroborates guilt.
- Chain of circumstances was complete; High Court correctly applied law.
Factual Background
A minor girl vanished from a wedding function on 20 November 2014; her father lodged an FIR under Section 365 IPC. Four days later, her body—bearing fatal sexual-assault wounds—was found near the Gaula River. Investigation led to two arrests—one in Ludhiana, one locally—based on mobile-tracking, a confession, and DNA matches. Trial court convicted both, imposing a death sentence under Section 376A IPC on one accused; the High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court, however, identified multiple investigative and forensic flaws and set aside all convictions and sentences.
Statutory Analysis
- IPC Sections: 363 (kidnapping), 376A (gang rape), 201 (evidence tampering), 212 (harbouring offender), 120B (conspiracy).
- POCSO Act: Sections 4–7 (sexual offences against a child).
- IT Act Section 66C (identity theft).
- CrPC Section 53-A: statutory basis for medical examination and DNA profiling in rape cases.
- Criminal jurisprudence on circumstantial evidence and capital sentencing standards under Bachan Singh.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed