The Supreme Court of India recently overturned the conviction and death sentence of a man accused of raping and murdering a minor. The top court raised serious concerns over how the trial was conducted and pointed out critical procedural violations that affected the fairness of the trial.

The bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta found that the trial court had wrongly accepted the accused's confessional statements as evidence. The investigating officer was allowed to narrate the confession during his examination-in-chief, which was then exhibited as part of the prosecution's evidence.

“The lopsided manner in which the trial was conducted is fortified from the evidence of Sub-Inspector Prahlad Singh (PW-12), who was allowed to narrate the entire confession of the appellant in his examination-in-chief. This procedure… is grossly illegal and contrary to the mandate of Sections 24, 25, and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.” — Supreme Court

Read Also:- Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case: No Evidence of Fraudulent Intent Behind Consent

The Court emphasized that only confessions recorded by a magistrate under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) are legally admissible. Any confession narrated by a police officer during the investigation, and then presented in court, holds no legal weight.

The investigating officer, in this case, was not only allowed to narrate the confession but also to "prove" it during trial. This approach, the Court said, showed a clear "lackadaisical" attitude by the trial judge and was in complete violation of evidentiary rules.

“The confessional statement made by the appellant and proved by the Investigating Officer (PW-14) reflects the total lackadaisical approach of the presiding officer who conducted the trial.” — Supreme Court

Another major flaw noted by the Supreme Court was the prosecution's failure to properly handle DNA evidence. The DNA report, which could have been crucial in linking the accused to the crime, was not supported by testimony from the scientific expert who performed the DNA profiling.

Read Also:- Karnataka High Court Seeks State's Response on Prajwal Revanna’s Bail Plea in Alleged Rape Case

According to the Court, this omission made the DNA report inadmissible under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The prosecution also failed to prove the "chain of custody" of forensic samples, which raises the possibility that the samples might have been tampered with.

“To make the DNA report admissible and reliable, the prosecution would first be required to prove the sanctity and chain of custody of the samples/articles from the time of their preparation/collection till they reached the FSL.” — Supreme Court

In fact, the Court noted that:

• No medical officer confirmed that the samples were properly sealed.
• No police witness proved that the samples were safely transferred.
• No witness from the forensic lab (FSL) confirmed that they received the samples in sealed condition.

“Evidently, there is not even a semblance of evidence on record to satisfy the Court that the samples/articles collected from the dead body of the child-victim and those collected from the appellant… were properly sealed or remained in the same condition till they reached the FSL.” — Supreme Court

The Supreme Court referred to its earlier ruling in Rahul v. State of Delhi, (2023) 1 SCC 83, where it had held that DNA profiling reports cannot be automatically admitted under Section 293 CrPC. The prosecution must prove that the techniques used for profiling were applied correctly and reliably.

Read Also:- Punjab & Haryana HC Refuses to Expunge Trial Court's Remarks Against Cop in False Rape Case Allegation

In this case, since the expert was not examined, the Court held that it would be "unsafe" to rely on the DNA report.

“Non-examination of the scientific expert who carried out the DNA profiling is fatal, and the DNA report cannot be admitted in evidence. The very procedure of collection and forwarding of DNA samples to the FSL is full of lacunae and loopholes.” — Supreme Court

Given these serious irregularities, the Court allowed the appeal and overturned both the conviction and the death sentence of the appellant. It concluded that the trial was not conducted in accordance with the law and the accused's confessions and the DNA report were not legally sustainable.

“In the facts and circumstances of the present case… we find that the prosecution’s case is full of procedural lapses and illegalities that make it unsafe to uphold the conviction.” — Supreme Court

Case Title: KARANDEEP SHARMA @ RAZIA @ RAJU VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Appearances:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nishant Sanjay Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashish Singh, Adv. Mr. Sadashiv, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shubham Arora, Adv. Mr. Manan Verma, AOR Ms. Anubha Dhulia, Adv.