The Supreme Court set aside the death sentence in the horrific Tamil Nadu child murder case, citing grave procedural lapses and denial of fair trial. The ruling underscores that justice cannot exist without due process and effective legal defence.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court’s recent judgment revisits one of Tamil Nadu’s most horrifying criminal cases, the kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of a seven-year-old child. While the sheer brutality of the crime shook the nation, the Court’s focus was on an equally crucial issue: the right to a fair trial.
In this case, the Court carefully examined the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence and exposed serious procedural lapses, including the denial of proper legal representation and a rushed sentencing process. In the end, the ruling set aside the death penalty, sending a powerful message: even in the face of horrific crimes, justice must never come at the expense of due process.
Background of the Case
The Supreme Court in Dashwanth v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025 INSC 1203) examined a harrowing case involving the kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of a seven-year-old girl.
The appellant, Dashwanth, was convicted by the Mahila Court, Chengalpet, and sentenced to death for offences under the Indian Penal Code (Sections 363, 366, 354-B, 302, 201) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (Sections 6 r/w 5(m) and 8 r/w 7). The Madras High Court confirmed the conviction and death sentence. Aggrieved, the accused approached the Supreme Court through a special leave petition.
Facts of the Case:
- On 5 February 2017, the seven-year-old victim went missing.
- After three days, her charred body was recovered.
- The police alleged that the accused, who lived in the same building, had lured the child, sexually assaulted her, murdered her by smothering, and burned her body to destroy evidence.
- The trial court pronounced a conviction and death sentence on 19 February 2018 — the same day.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the trial was fair and in accordance with the constitutional guarantee under Articles 21 and 22(1).
- Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Whether the death penalty was imposed following due process and sentencing principles.
Arguments Before the Court
Arguments of the Appellant:
The counsel for the accused argued that the entire prosecution’s story was false and fabricated. It was contended that the so-called “last seen together” evidence was unreliable, the confessional statements were coerced, and the recoveries were planted.
Most significantly, the defence highlighted that the trial was conducted in haste:
“The entire procedure adopted by the trial Court right from the framing of charges to recording of evidence… is hasty and vitiated and tantamounts to denial of fair trial.”
The appellant had no lawyer when charges were framed and was provided a legal aid counsel only four days before the prosecution began its evidence.
ALSO READ: Ink & Chemicals Used in Lottery Ticket Printing Are Taxable: Supreme Court
The defence also cited major precedents like Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1983), Santa Singh v. State of Punjab (1976), and Anokhilal v. State of M.P. (2019), arguing that the right to effective legal representation is an inseparable part of a fair trial, especially in capital punishment cases.
Arguments of the State:
The State of Tamil Nadu opposed the appeal, asserting that the chain of circumstances, from the “last seen” evidence, the CCTV footage, and the recoveries, established the guilt of the accused beyond doubt.
The State argued:
“Immediately thereafter, the child victim went missing. Hence, the onus would shift onto the accused to explain the circumstances under which the child victim was found murdered and her body burnt.”
It contended that the recovery of the victim’s jewellery from the accused’s house justified the presumption of guilt under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
1. Unfair and Defective Trial
The Court was deeply critical of the manner in which the trial was conducted.
“Right from the stage of framing of the charges, the trial was conducted in a lopsided manner and without due deference to the principles of fair trial.”
Justice Mehta noted that the accused was not represented by any counsel when charges were framed and that legal aid was granted only days before the examination of witnesses.
“The legal aid counsel… could, by no stretch of imagination, have had a reasonable and effective opportunity to prepare the matter and conduct cross-examination.”
The Court emphasized that the constitutional right to defend oneself is not illusory:
“The constitutional right afforded to an accused charged with an offence to defend himself is not illusory or imaginary.”
2. Questionable Circumstantial Evidence
The judgment noted that the prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including “last seen together,” “CCTV footage,” and “confessional statement.”
However, the Court found all these circumstances unreliable.
On the “last seen” evidence, the Court observed:
“Apparently, the theory put forth in the evidence of Murugan (PW-3)… is nothing but a sheer concoction, bereft of credibility.”
Regarding the CCTV footage, the Court remarked:
“Failure to collect the data from the Digital Video Recorder (DVR)… creates a grave doubt on the bona fides of the Investigation Agency.”
The Court also found that the confession and recoveries were fabricated:
“It is apparent that the police had already created the entire story and later on tried to fit the same into a sequence by postponing the formal arrest of the appellant.”
3. Sentencing Procedure and Death Penalty
The Supreme Court severely criticized the manner in which the death sentence was imposed, noting that the trial court pronounced a conviction and sentence on the same day, without assessing aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
“The trial Court proceeded to pass the sentencing order in hot haste leaving much to be desired and would vitiate the death sentence.”
The Court noted that no psychological evaluation, no jail conduct report, and no separate sentencing hearing were conducted — violating established law laid down in Bachan Singh, Santa Singh, and Dattaraya v. State of Maharashtra (2020).
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the conviction and death sentence could not stand:
“Prejudice and denial of opportunity of effective defence to the accused are writ large on the face of the record.”
The Court emphasized that even in heinous crimes, justice must not be sacrificed for expediency:
“Justice must not only be done, but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”
Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction and death sentence, acquitting the appellant due to grave procedural irregularities and unreliable evidence.
Case Title:
DASHWANTH Versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Crl.A. No. 3633-3634/2024
Read Judgment:
