In a gripping judgment that stirred strong emotions inside the courtroom, the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday commuted the death sentence awarded to Dashwanth, a young man from Chennai convicted for the rape and murder of a seven-year-old girl. The bench led by Justice Mehta held that the trial was conducted in “hot haste” and violated basic principles of a fair trial. The Court said that such lapses “strike at the root of justice itself.”
Background
The 2017 crime had shocked Tamil Nadu. The child, daughter of a software employee, was reported missing from her home in Mangadu. Hours later, her charred remains were found near the Anakaputhur bypass. The accused, a 23-year-old living in the same apartment complex, was arrested after police claimed he confessed to the crime.
The trial moved swiftly - too swiftly, as the apex court later noted. Within barely two months of charges being framed, the Chengalpattu Mahila Court concluded proceedings and sentenced the accused to death in February 2018. The Madras High Court confirmed that sentence the same year.
The Supreme Court, however, took a hard look at the process, not just the crime.
Court’s Observations
Justice Mehta, delivering the judgment, minced no words:
“The trial was conducted in a lopsided manner and without due deference to the principles of fair trial,” the bench observed.
The Court found that Dashwanth had no lawyer when charges were framed and was given a legal aid counsel only days before prosecution evidence began. “The counsel had just four days to prepare for a case involving capital punishment - that is no representation at all,” the bench said, emphasizing the right of every accused to effective defence under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
The bench noted several irregularities: failure to supply documents before trial, hasty examination of 30 witnesses in barely six weeks, and absence of a proper sentencing hearing. “The manner in which the trial judge rushed through the case leaves much to be desired,” the order stated.
On the evidence, the Court also pointed out glaring contradictions. The so-called “last seen” witness spoke up nearly three months after the incident; CCTV footage that police relied upon was never produced in court; and recoveries allegedly made at the accused’s instance were dubious. “The chain of circumstances was not unbroken,” the Court remarked, adding that “prosecution’s story appeared more manufactured than proven.”
Decision
While the Court did not declare Dashwanth innocent, it ruled that the death sentence could not stand. The bench observed that both the trial court and the High Court “failed to comply with the mandatory exercise of considering mitigating and aggravating factors, or obtaining psychological evaluation before awarding capital punishment.”
“The death sentence, awarded in hot haste, is vitiated,” Justice Mehta said, commuting it to life imprisonment. The Court also underlined that in cases involving extreme punishments, procedural fairness is not a formality but a constitutional guarantee.
The decision closed an eight-year-long legal journey, marked by public anger, investigative controversy, and judicial reflection. For many watching in court, it was a reminder that even the most disturbing cases cannot justify shortcuts to justice.
Case Title: Dashwanth v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025 INSC 1203)
Case Type: Criminal Appeal Nos. 3633–3634 of 2024
Appellant: Dashwanth
Respondent: State of Tamil Nadu
Date of Judgment: 2025