Death Penalty In Child Rape-Murder Case Set Aside; Supreme Court Flags Illegal Admission Of Confession, Lapses In DNA Evidence

The Supreme Court recently overturned the conviction of a man accused of raping and causing the death of a minor, observing that the trial was conducted in a flawed and irregular manner. The Court noted that the trial judge had improperly allowed the investigating officer to narrate the accused's confessional statements during his examination-in-chief and admitted those statements as evidence.

The appellant-accused was sentenced to suffer the death penalty in connection with the offences punishable under Sections 376A (rape causing death), 302 (murder), 366 (kidnapping), 363 (kidnapping a minor), 201 (destruction of evidence) IPC, and Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act.

However, during the trial, aside from other discrepancies, the trial court permitted the investigating officer to narrate the accused's confessions during his examination-in-chief, recorded by him during the investigation. Furthermore, the court admitted these confessions as evidence through the prosecution witness.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta questioned the conduct of the trial, noting that the trial judge's decision to admit the accused's confessional statements, narrated by the investigating officer, into evidence was in violation of the law of evidence because under Section 164 of the CrPC, only those confessional statements which is recorded by a magistrate, even if in the presence of the police, are legally admissible.

“The lopsided manner in which 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 adopted by the trial Court in permitting a police officer to verbatim narrate the confession made by an accused during investigation is grossly illegal and contrary to the mandate of Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Not only this, the trial Court even allowed the confessional statement of the appellant, to be exhibited in the evidence of the witness, which further establishes that the trial was conducted in a totally distorted manner.”, the Court observed.

“Investigating Officer(PW-14) in his examinationin-chief, also made a detailed narration of the confessional statement made by the appellant and also proved the said confessional statement, which again reflects the total lackadaisical approach of the presiding officer who conducted the trial.”, the court added.

Non-Examination Of Scientific Expert Who Carried Out DNA Profiling Fatal To Prosecution's Case

The Court also highlighted the prosecution's failure to examine the Scientific expert who carried out DNA profiling, rendering the DNA report inadmissible as the expert was not examined to validate the methodology, violating Section 45 of the Evidence Act and the Court's ruling in Rahul v. State of Delhi, (2023) 1 SCC 83.

In the case of Rahul v. State of Delhi, while dealing with the issue concerning the evidentiary value of DNA report, the Court has held that DNA profiling reports cannot be admitted in evidence ipso facto by virtue of Section 293 CrPC and it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the techniques of DNA profiling were reliably applied by the expert.

The Court held that, in the absence of clarity regarding the technique used by the scientific expert in preparing the DNA report, it would be unsafe to place reliance on such evidence, because the possibility of tampering with the samples collected could not be ruled out when they were kept in police's malkhana section before being sent for examination.

After noting that the prosecution failed to establish the integrity of forensic samples, the medical officer did not confirm sealing samples, and police witnesses did not prove safe transmission to the FSL, the Court observed:

"In order to make the DNA report acceptable, reliable and admissible, the prosecution would first be required to prove the sanctity and chain of custody of the samples/articles right from the time of their preparation/collection till the time they reached the FSL. For this purpose, the link evidence would have to be established by examining the concerned witness.

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 which were later forwarded to the FSL were properly sealed or that the same remained in a self-same condition right from the time of the seizure till they reached the FSL. No witness from the FSL was examined by the prosecution to prove that the samples/articles were received in a sealed condition."

“Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, non-examination of the scientific expert who carried out the DNA profiling is fatal, and the DNA report cannot be admitted in evidence. That apart, we find that the very procedure of collection and forwarding of DNA samples to the FSL is full of lacunae and loopholes.”

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders convicting the Appellant.

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

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 398

Click here to read/download the judgment

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.