Holding

The prosecution failed to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, rendering the circumstantial and forensic evidence insufficient, leading to their acquittal.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the conviction of two accused, Putai and Dileep, for the rape and murder of a 12‑year‑old girl, based solely on circumstantial evidence and forensic material. The trial and High Courts had upheld the death penalty for Putai and life imprisonment for Dileep, relying on recovered items, a sniffer‑dog lead, and DNA reports. The Court found serious deficiencies: the alleged recovery of the victim’s underwear appeared planted, the comb evidence was unreliable, the forensic chain‑of‑custody was not established, and the DNA reports were inadmissible. It held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as the circumstantial facts did not exclusively point to the accused. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the convictions and sentences were set aside, and the accused were acquitted and ordered to be released.

Issues considered

The prosecution’s circumstantial evidence must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The admissibility and reliability of forensic evidence, including DNA reports and recovered articles.
Whether the recovery of the victim’s underwear and other items was a planted recovery.
The relevance of the accused’s conduct (washing hands, changing clothes) as incriminating evidence.
The propriety of confirming the death penalty on the basis of the evidence presented.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 293, s. 313, s. 329
Evidence Act, 1872s. 106
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302, s. 376(2)(g)

Headnote

Issue for Consideration The accused-appellants were convicted for the offences punishable u/ss.376(2)(g), 201 and 302 of Penal Code, 1860. The High Court dismissed the appeals against conviction preferred by the accused-appellants. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.376(2)(g), 201 and that they raped and murdered a minor girl – Trial Court convicted the accused-appellants for the offences punishable u/ss.376(2)(g), 201 and 302 of Penal Code, 1860 – Accused no.1 was sentenced rigorous life imprisonment u/s.376(2)(g) of IPC; seven years rigorous

Subjects

EvidenceCircumstantial evidenceMay be proved and must be provedIncriminating circumstancesForensic examinationCredible evidenceDNA reportPlantation of articlesRecovery of articlesProcedure of collecting samplesBenefit of doubtBeyond reasonable doubtRigorous punishmentDeath penaltyFSLInquest report

Judgment

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2108 : 2025 INSC 1042

Putai
v.
State of Uttar Pradesh
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 36-37 of 2019)
26 August 2025
[Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
The accused-appellants were convicted for the offences punishable
u/ss.376(2)(g), 201 and 302 of Penal Code, 1860. The High
Court dismissed the appeals against conviction preferred by the
accused-appellants.

Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.376(2)(g), 201 and 302 – Allegation
against the accused-appellants that they raped and murdered
a minor girl – Trial Court convicted the accused-appellants
for the offences punishable u/ss.376(2)(g), 201 and 302 of
Penal Code, 1860 – Accused no.1 was sentenced rigorous
life imprisonment u/s.376(2)(g) of IPC; seven years rigorous
imprisonment u/s.201 of IPC and death penalty u/s.302 of
IPC – Accused no.2 was sentenced rigorous life imprisonment
u/s.376(2)(g) of IPC; seven years rigorous imprisonment u/s.201
of IPC and rigorous life imprisonment u/s.302 of IPC – The
High Court answered the death reference in the affirmative,
confirming the death penalty awarded to accused no.1 and
dismissed the appeals against conviction preferred by the
accused-appellants – Correctness:
Held: 1. 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 inconsistent with his innocence or the guilt of
anyone else – In the instant case, the evidence on the record 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 – Hence, appellants are acquitted by
giving them the benefit of doubt. [Paras 78-80]

* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2109

Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2. A fact emerging from the statement of PW-1 is that he did
not mention that the underwear of the child victim was found in
the field of accused no.1 – The only fact in deposition of PW-1
which is alleged as incriminating against accused no.1, was the
narrative that his wife (PW-2) saw accused no.1 washing his
hands and face and going into his house – This Court finds that
there is nothing unnatural or unusual in this conduct of accused
no.1 as it is natural to carry out these ablutions upon returning
from work etc. – Further, accused no.1 has given an explanation
in his s.313 CrPC statement that his parents were ill and were
hospitalized on the date of the incident – In this background,
the fact that accused no.1 was seen by PW-2 rushing into his
house, changing clothes and going away cannot be treated to
be a suspicious conduct or a fact which inculpates him in the
crime. [Paras 28, 30, 35]
3. So far as the accused no. 2 is concerned, the theory set forth
by the prosecution, that the comb used by accused no. 2 was
recovered from the field and that the sniffer dog, after sniffing the
said comb, led the police team to the house of the accused no.
2 is also shrouded in a cloud of doubt – As there is a significant
contradiction regarding the colour of the comb which was recovered
by the police – Admittedly, there was no special feature in the
recovered comb which was an ordinary plastic comb – Further, the
procedure pertaining to the exercise of the sniffer dog and 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 falls flat to the ground and is unworthy of
credence. [Paras 36-39]
4. The aspect regarding the recovery of the underwear of the child
victim from the field of accused no.1 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 – The fact
regarding the presence of the underwear would definitely have
been mentioned in the complaint (Exhibit K-1) filed by (PW 1)
to the police – Omission of the fact is far too significant to be
overlooked. [Para 43]
5. PW-7, being the medical jurist did not give any opinion regarding
the cause of death of the child victim – She claimed to have taken
two vaginal swabs and two vaginal smear slides, which were sent
2110 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

for examination of spermatozoa and gonococci – 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 – The witness (PW-
8-doctor) stated that he collected part of scalp hair with skin for
DNA, a piece of sternum bone and eight slides of smear and
swabs – Not a single document pertaining to this procedure was
proved by the witness – Hence, the entire procedure of collecting
forensic samples becomes doubtful. [Paras 49, 51, 52]
6. 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 –
Evidence of 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 – 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. [Paras 55, 56]
7. The DNA reports are totally inadmissible in evidence – There
is a total lack of evidence regarding the chain of custody of the
blood samples – There is a grave discrepancy in the evidence of
the two medical jurists, i.e., PW-7 and PW-8 regarding the number
of slides prepared for DNA examination – The conclusions in the
first DNA report and the supplementary DNA report are in stark
contradiction. [Para 65]
8. The material objects including the clothes of the child victim were
exhibited in the evidence of PW-9, but the same were not shown
to the parents, i.e., PW-1 and 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. [Paras 67, 68]
9. In conclusion, there is 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, 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. [Para 77]
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2111

Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Evidence – Circumstantial Evidence – Distance between ‘may
be proved’ and ‘must be proved’:

Held: 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. [Para 69]

List of Acts

Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Evidence
Act, 1872; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

List of Keywords

Evidence; Circumstantial evidence; May be proved and must
be proved; Incriminating circumstances; Forensic examination;
Credible evidence; DNA report; Plantation of articles; Recovery
of articles; Procedure of collecting samples; Benefit of doubt;
Beyond reasonable doubt; Rigorous punishment; Death penalty;
FSL; Inquest report.

Case Arising From

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
36-37 of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in CCN No. 3 and
CRLA No. 444 of 2014
With
Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2025

Appearances for Parties

Advs. for the Appellant:
Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv., Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Ms. Manasa
Ramakrishna, Abhishek Babbar, Mangesh Naik, Kabir Dixit, Varinder
Kumar Sharma, R. D. Rathore, S. K. Bandyopadhyay, Dhruva
Kumar, Rajiv Agnihotri, Jeevan R. Patil.

Advs. for the Respondent:
Shaurya Sahay, Aditya Kumar, Ms. Ruchil Raj.
2112 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

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
Judge, Court No. 13, Lucknow1, in Sessions Case 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) IPC • Rigorous life
1-Putai3 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.

1 Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘trial Court’.
2 Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘IPC’
3 Appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos. 36-37 of 2019.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2113

Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Accused No. • 376(2)(G) IPC • Rigorous life
2-Dileep4 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 reference5 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 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.

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’.
8 Accused No.1-Putai preferred Criminal Appeal No. 444 of 2014 and accused No.2-Dileep preferred Crl.
Appeal No. 597 of 2014.
2114 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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 5th 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 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.

9 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘child victim’.
10 Exhibit K-1.
11 Exhibit K-5
12 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Investigating Officer (PW-9)’
13 Exhibit K-8.
14 Exhibit K-7.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2115

Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh

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, 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 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 report17 was
received as per which, the comparison did not yield any conclusive

15 Exhibit K-9.
16 Exhibit K-5 and K-6.
17 Exhibit K-14.
2116 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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 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.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2117

Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh

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 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 2nd 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.

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

18 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘FSL’
2118 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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.
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, the appeals being
devoid of merit should be dismissed.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2119

Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh

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 4th 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.
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.
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 12th 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

19 Exhibit K-2.
2120 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

document pertaining to safe keeping or 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 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 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.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2121

Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Any labourer or farmer would be naturally inclined to carry out these
ablutions upon returning from work and before entering one’s home.
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 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 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
2122 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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 (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 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
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2123

Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh

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.
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 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 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
2124 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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) 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.
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 4th 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 not give the spade to accused No. 2-Dileep, but
in cross-examination, he stated that he gave the fawda (garden
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2125

Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh

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. 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 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
2126 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

is that she claimed to have taken two vaginal swabs and two 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 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 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
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2127

Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh

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 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 FIR20 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 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) 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

20 FIR bearing Case Crime No. 318 of 2012.
2128 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

dog squad has been recorded in any of the documents prepared by
the Investigating Officer (PW-9) at the crime scene on 5th 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 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 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), 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

21 Hereinafter, referred to as “Investigating Officer (PW-11)”
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2129

Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh

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 5th 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 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 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 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
2130 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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, 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 marked as ES-4 which belonged to the
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2131

Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh

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 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 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
2132 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

prosecution bother to recall the 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
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 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
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2133

Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh

objects viz. chappals, water canister and underwear were 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).
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
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
2134 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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.
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 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,
202322) 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.
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.

22 The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2135

Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh

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 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 14th 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 released from prison forthwith, if not
wanted in any other case.
83. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeals allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan