Supreme Court acquits 2, including a death row convict, in the rape and murder of a 12-year-old, citing a lackluster and shabby investigation by the police and prosecution.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a landmark judgment on August 26, 2025, the Supreme Court acquitted two men, including a death row convict, in a case involving the rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl in Lucknow. The Court strongly critisized on the police and prosecution, blaming their “lackluster and shabby investigation” for the failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The case, Putai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, highlights the need for meticulous investigation and fair trial procedures, especially in matters involving heinous crimes.
Background of the Case
In September 2012, a 12-year-old girl went missing after she went out to attend to nature’s call. The following morning, her belongings, including footwear, a water container, and blood-stained undergarments, were discovered scattered in a field, and shortly thereafter, her naked body was found in an adjoining agricultural field.
A First Information Report (FIR) was registered under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code.
A postmortem confirmed that the victim was sexually assaulted and strangulated.
Investigation and Trial
The police claimed that a dog squad led them to two suspects, Putai and Dileep, both residents of the same locality. Both were arrested on September 7, 2012.
Blood samples were collected two months later for forensic comparison. The first DNA report (January 2014) was inconclusive. A supplementary DNA report (December 2014) allegedly linked the accused, but it was neither supported by expert testimony nor put to the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC.
Lower Court Convictions:
- 2014: The Trial court convicted both men, Putai was sentenced to death, while Dileep received life imprisonment.
- 2018: Allahabad High Court upheld the convictions.
The accused challenged the verdict before the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Appellants’ Contentions:
- The case was based purely on suspicion.
- The DNA report of 2014 was inconclusive.
- The supplementary DNA report was inadmissible due to procedural lapses.
State’s Counter-Arguments:
- Witnesses were simple villagers with no motive to falsely implicate.
- Minor inconsistencies in their testimonies were natural.
- The victim’s belongings were recovered from the accused’s field, attracting Section 106 of the Evidence Act, placing the burden of explanation on the accused.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta made the following key observations:
- Circumstantial Evidence Standard:
- Prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances.
- The evidence must point exclusively to the guilt of the accused.
- Forensic Evidence Flaws:
- Chain of custody for samples not established.
- No documents regarding storage or transmission were exhibited.
- Inconsistencies in medical testimony regarding collected samples.
- Failure of Prosecution:
- Beyond the recovery of belongings, no credible incriminating evidence was produced.
- Suspicion cannot replace proof.
“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.”
Supreme Court
Final Judgment:
The Supreme Court set aside the convictions and acquitted both appellants, holding that:
- The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Forensic lapses and a lack of credible evidence undermined the case.
- Strong suspicion cannot substitute legal proof.
Conclusion
This judgment highlights the critical importance of proper investigation, forensic accuracy, and adherence to due process in criminal trials. While the crime itself was heinous, the Court reiterated that the foundation of criminal jurisprudence is that no innocent person should be punished based on suspicion or faulty investigation.
Appearance:
For accused: Senior Advocate Sadan Farasat and Advocates Shreya Rastogi, Manasa Ramakrishna, Abhishek Babbar and Kabir Dixit
For respondents: Advocates Shaurya Sahay, Aditya Kumar and Aman Jaiswal
Case Title:
Putai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 36-37 OF 2019
READ JUDGMENT HERE
