# Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 1042
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-08-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2025
- **Bench:** Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, Sandeep Mehta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/putai-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-38466
- **Pages:** 28

## Headnote

The accused-appellants were convicted for the offences punishable
u/ss.376(2)(g), 201 and 302 of Penal Code, 1860. The High
Court dismissed the appeals against conviction preferred by the
accused-appellants.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.376(2)(g), 201 and 302 - Allegation
against the accused-appellants that they raped and murdered
a minor girl - Trial Court convicted the accused-appellants
for the offences punishable u/ss.376(2)(g), 201 and 302 of
Penal Code, 1860 - Accused no.1 was sentenced rigorous
life imprisonment u/s.376(2)(g) of IPC; seven years rigorous
imprisonment u/s.201 of IPC and death penalty u/s.302 of
IPC - Accused no.2 was sentenced rigorous life imprisonment
u/s.376(2)(g) of IPC; seven years rigorous imprisonment u/s.201
of IPC and rigorous life imprisonment u/s.302 of IPC - The
High Court answered the death reference in the affirmative,
confirming the death penalty awarded to accused no.1 and
dismissed the appeals against conviction preferred by the
accused-appellants - Correctness:
Held: 1. It is a settled tenet of criminal jurisprudence that in a
case based purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution
must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - The incriminating
circumstances must be such which point exclusively to the guilt of
the accused and are inconsistent with his innocence or the guilt of
anyone else - In the instant case, the evidence on the record has
fallen woefully short of proving the guilt of the accused-appellants
by clinching evidence which can be termed as proving the case
beyond all manner of doubt - Hence, appellants are acquitted by
giving them the benefit of doubt. [Paras 78-80]
* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
2109
Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh
2. A fact emerging from the statement of PW-1 is that he did
not mention that the underwear of the child victim was found in
the field of accused no.1 - The only fact in deposition of PW-1
which is alleged as incriminating against accused no.1, was the
narrative that his wife (PW-2) saw accused no.1 washing his
hands and face and going into his house - This Court finds that
there is nothing unnatural or unusual in this conduct of accused
no.1 as it is natural to carry out these ablutions upon returning
from work etc. - Further, accused no.1 has given an explanation
in his s.313 CrPC statement that his parents were ill and were
hospitalized on the date of the incident - In this background,
the fact that accused no.1 was seen by PW-2 rushing into his
house, changing clothes and going away cannot be treated to
be a suspicious conduct or a fact which inculpates him in the
crime. [Paras 28, 30, 35]
3. So far as the accused no. 2 is concerned, the theory set forth
by the prosecution, that the comb used by accused no. 2 was
recovered from the field and that the sniffer dog, after sniffing the
said comb, led the police team to the house of the accused no.
2 is also shrouded in a cloud of doubt - As there is a significant
contradiction regarding the colour of the comb which was recovered
by the police - Admittedly, there was no special feature in the
recovered comb which was an ordinary plastic comb - Further, the
procedure pertaining to the exercise of the sniffer dog and failure
to prepare any contemporary document for the search by the dog
squad makes the entire procedure doubtful - Hence, the theory
propounded by the prosecution that the comb found at the spot,
was of accused no. 2 falls flat to the ground and is unworthy of
credence. [Paras 36-39]
4. The aspect regarding the recovery of the underwear of the child
victim from the field of accused no.1 is concerned, the same seems
to be a planted recovery and a creation by the Investigating Officer
(PW-9) intended to give succor to the prosecution case - The fact
regarding the presence of the underwear would definitely have
been mentioned in the complaint (Exhibit K-1) filed by (PW 1)
to the police - Omission of the fact is far too significant to be
overlooked. [Para 43]
5. PW-7, being the medic

## Text

_Characters 0–39,665 of 61,567. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39665 for what follows._

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2108 : 2025 INSC 1042
Putai
v.
State of Uttar Pradesh
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 36-37 of 2019)
26 August 2025
[Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The accused-appellants were convicted for the offences punishable
u/ss.376(2)(g), 201 and 302 of Penal Code, 1860. The High
Court dismissed the appeals against conviction preferred by the
accused-appellants.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.376(2)(g), 201 and 302 - Allegation
against the accused-appellants that they raped and murdered
a minor girl - Trial Court convicted the accused-appellants
for the offences punishable u/ss.376(2)(g), 201 and 302 of
Penal Code, 1860 - Accused no.1 was sentenced rigorous
life imprisonment u/s.376(2)(g) of IPC; seven years rigorous
imprisonment u/s.201 of IPC and death penalty u/s.302 of
IPC - Accused no.2 was sentenced rigorous life imprisonment
u/s.376(2)(g) of IPC; seven years rigorous imprisonment u/s.201
of IPC and rigorous life imprisonment u/s.302 of IPC - The
High Court answered the death reference in the affirmative,
confirming the death penalty awarded to accused no.1 and
dismissed the appeals against conviction preferred by the
accused-appellants - Correctness:
Held: 1. It is a settled tenet of criminal jurisprudence that in a
case based purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution
must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - The incriminating
circumstances must be such which point exclusively to the guilt of
the accused and are inconsistent with his innocence or the guilt of
anyone else - In the instant case, the evidence on the record has
fallen woefully short of proving the guilt of the accused-appellants
by clinching evidence which can be termed as proving the case
beyond all manner of doubt - Hence, appellants are acquitted by
giving them the benefit of doubt. [Paras 78-80]
* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
2109
Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh
2. A fact emerging from the statement of PW-1 is that he did
not mention that the underwear of the child victim was found in
the field of accused no.1 - The only fact in deposition of PW-1
which is alleged as incriminating against accused no.1, was the
narrative that his wife (PW-2) saw accused no.1 washing his
hands and face and going into his house - This Court finds that
there is nothing unnatural or unusual in this conduct of accused
no.1 as it is natural to carry out these ablutions upon returning
from work etc. - Further, accused no.1 has given an explanation
in his s.313 CrPC statement that his parents were ill and were
hospitalized on the date of the incident - In this background,
the fact that accused no.1 was seen by PW-2 rushing into his
house, changing clothes and going away cannot be treated to
be a suspicious conduct or a fact which inculpates him in the
crime. [Paras 28, 30, 35]
3. So far as the accused no. 2 is concerned, the theory set forth
by the prosecution, that the comb used by accused no. 2 was
recovered from the field and that the sniffer dog, after sniffing the
said comb, led the police team to the house of the accused no.
2 is also shrouded in a cloud of doubt - As there is a significant
contradiction regarding the colour of the comb which was recovered
by the police - Admittedly, there was no special feature in the
recovered comb which was an ordinary plastic comb - Further, the
procedure pertaining to the exercise of the sniffer dog and failure
to prepare any contemporary document for the search by the dog
squad makes the entire procedure doubtful - Hence, the theory
propounded by the prosecution that the comb found at the spot,
was of accused no. 2 falls flat to the ground and is unworthy of
credence. [Paras 36-39]
4. The aspect regarding the recovery of the underwear of the child
victim from the field of accused no.1 is concerned, the same seems
to be a planted recovery and a creation by the Investigating Officer
(PW-9) intended to give succor to the prosecution case - The fact
regarding the presence of the underwear would definitely have
been mentioned in the complaint (Exhibit K-1) filed by (PW 1)
to the police - Omission of the fact is far too significant to be
overlooked. [Para 43]
5. PW-7, being the medical jurist did not give any opinion regarding
the cause of death of the child victim - She claimed to have taken
two vaginal swabs and two vaginal smear slides, which were sent
2110
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
for examination of spermatozoa and gonococci - PW-7 did not
state that the vaginal swabs and the slides were sealed - She did
not even mention the date on which these vital forensic materials
were handed over for onward transmission - The witness (PW8-doctor) stated that he collected part of scalp hair with skin for
DNA, a piece of sternum bone and eight slides of smear and
swabs - Not a single document pertaining to this procedure was
proved by the witness - Hence, the entire procedure of collecting
forensic samples becomes doubtful. [Paras 49, 51, 52]
6. As per the version of the Investigating Officer (PW-9), he had
immediately sealed the comb at the spot - Therefore, the same
could not have been available for the sniffer dogs to smell -
Evidence of PW-9 is that the personal articles of the child victim,
i.e., the frock and the underwear which he seized were never
forwarded to the FSL - The very fact that the Investigating Officer
(PW-9) did not consider it essential to send the articles to the FSL
gives rise to a strong suspicion that the recovery of these articles
was a planted recovery. [Paras 55, 56]
7. The DNA reports are totally inadmissible in evidence - There
is a total lack of evidence regarding the chain of custody of the
blood samples - There is a grave discrepancy in the evidence of
the two medical jurists, i.e., PW-7 and PW-8 regarding the number
of slides prepared for DNA examination - The conclusions in the
first DNA report and the supplementary DNA report are in stark
contradiction. [Para 65]
8. The material objects including the clothes of the child victim were
exhibited in the evidence of PW-9, but the same were not shown
to the parents, i.e., PW-1 and PW-2 for identification when they
stepped into the witness box - Hence, a doubt is created as to
whether the articles so recovered were actually of the child victim
or not - The prosecution has given no explanation whatsoever as
to why the clothes of the child victim were not forwarded to the
FSL for forensic examination. [Paras 67, 68]
9. In conclusion, there is no hesitation in holding that other than
the allegation that the child victim's chappals, underwear and
the water canister were found in the field which was cultivated
by accused no.1, the prosecution has failed to lead any credible
evidence whatsoever which can be considered to be incriminating
the accused-appellants for the crime in question. [Para 77]
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
2111
Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Evidence - Circumstantial Evidence - Distance between 'may
be proved' and 'must be proved':
Held: The distance between 'may be proved' and 'must be proved'
is small but has to be travelled before the prosecution can seek
conviction of the accused in a case based purely on circumstantial
evidence. [Para 69]
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Evidence
Act, 1872; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
List of Keywords
Evidence; Circumstantial evidence; May be proved and must
be proved; Incriminating circumstances; Forensic examination;
Credible evidence; DNA report; Plantation of articles; Recovery
of articles; Procedure of collecting samples; Benefit of doubt;
Beyond reasonable doubt; Rigorous punishment; Death penalty;
FSL; Inquest report.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
36-37 of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in CCN No. 3 and
CRLA No. 444 of 2014
With
Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2025
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv., Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Ms. Manasa
Ramakrishna, Abhishek Babbar, Mangesh Naik, Kabir Dixit, Varinder
Kumar Sharma, R. D. Rathore, S. K. Bandyopadhyay, Dhruva
Kumar, Rajiv Agnihotri, Jeevan R. Patil.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Shaurya Sahay, Aditya Kumar, Ms. Ruchil Raj.
2112
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Mehta, J.
1.
Heard.
2.
Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14th March,
2014 and 19th March, 2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No. 13, Lucknow1, in Sessions Case No. 61 of 2013,
the accused-appellants were convicted for the offences punishable
under Sections 376(2)(g), 201 and 302 of Indian Penal Code, 18602
and were sentenced in the terms below: -
Accused
Section(s)
Sentence awarded
Accused No.
1-Putai3
 •
376(2)(g) IPC
 •
201 IPC
 •
302 IPC
 •
R i g o r o u s l i f e
imprisonment along
with a fine of Rs
40,000/- and in default
to undergo an additional
one year of rigorous
imprisonment.
 •
Seven years rigorous
imprisonment along
with a fine of Rs
20,000/- and in default
to undergo an additional
6 months of rigorous
imprisonment.
 •
Death penalty along
with a fine of Rs
60,000/- and in default
to undergo an additional
one and a half year of
rigorous imprisonment.
1
Hereinafter, being referred to as the 'trial Court'.
2
Hereinafter, being referred to as the 'IPC'
3
Appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos. 36-37 of 2019.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
2113
Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Accused No.
2-Dileep4
 •
376(2)(G) IPC
 •
201 IPC
 •
302 IPC
 •
R i g o r o u s l i f e
imprisonment along
with a fine of Rs 40,000/-
and in default to undergo
an additional 1 year of
rigorous imprisonment.
 •
7 years rigorous
imprisonment along
with a fine of Rs
20,000/- and in default
to undergo an additional
6 months of rigorous
imprisonment.
 •
R i g o r o u s l i f e
imprisonment along
with a fine of Rs
60,000/- and in default
to undergo an additional
one and a half year of
rigorous imprisonment.
3.
The trial Court made a reference5 to the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad6 for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to accused
No.1-Putai under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
19737. The accused-appellants also preferred separate appeals8 for
assailing their conviction and the sentences awarded to them by
the trial Court. The High Court answered the death reference in the
affirmative, confirming the death penalty awarded to accused No.1Putai and dismissed the appeals against conviction preferred by the
accused-appellants vide judgment dated 11th October, 2018, which
is subject matter of challenge in these appeals by special leave.
4
Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2025.
5
Capital Sentence No. 3 of 2014.
6
Hereinafter, being referred to as 'High Court'.
7
Hereinafter, being referred to as 'CrPC'.
8
Accused No.1-Putai preferred Criminal Appeal No. 444 of 2014 and accused No.2-Dileep preferred Crl.
Appeal No. 597 of 2014.
2114
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Brief facts: -
4.
The facts in nutshell necessary and essential for disposal of these
appeals are noted hereinbelow.
5.
Mst. S, minor daughter9 (aged about 12 years) of Munna (PW-1)
and Smt. Chandravati (PW-2) had gone out to attend the call of
nature in the late evening of 4th September, 2012. When the girl
did not return, the parents got alarmed and a search operation was
launched, but to no avail.
6.
In the morning of 5th September, 2012, the child victim's chappals,
water canister, underwear and blood stains were seen spread around
in Bhaktisharan's field which was under cultivation of accused No.1Putai. The denuded dead body of the child victim was found lying
amidst the rice crop growing in Harikrishna Sharma's field. Munna
(PW-1), the father of the child victim submitted a complaint10 to
the Inspector of Police on 5th September, 2012 at around 08:30
AM alleging that some unknown persons had committed rape and
thereafter, murdered his minor daughter. Based on the same, an
FIR bearing Case Crime No. 318 of 201211 came to be registered
at Police Station Mohanlalganj, Lucknow for the offences punishable
under Sections 302, 201 and 376 of IPC.
7.
The investigation commenced and was assigned to Sub-Inspector
Narad Muni Singh (PW-9)12. He inspected the crime scene; prepared
the rough site map13 and vide seizure memo14 collected the following
articles from the fields of Bhaktisharan and Harikrishna which were
taken on rent for cultivation by accused No.1-Putai and Radheyshyam
Maurya respectively: -
i.
Plain soil.
ii.
Blood-stained soil.
iii.
Blood-stained grass.
9
Hereinafter, being referred to as 'child victim'.
10
Exhibit K-1.
11
Exhibit K-5
12
Hereinafter, referred to as the 'Investigating Officer (PW-9)'
13
Exhibit K-8.
14
Exhibit K-7.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
2115
Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh
iv.
A pair of pink hawaai chappals.
v.
Blue colour undergarment.
vi.
A water canister.
vii. A sky-blue colour frock.
viii. A small male comb.
8.
All these articles were seized and sealed in three separate packets.
As per the rough site map, the dead body of the child victim was
found in the field of Harikrishna Sharma whereas, the chappals, water
canister, and underwear of the child-victim were found in the field of
Bhaktisharan. A brick road passed between the aforesaid two fields.
9.
The prosecution claims that the dog squad was called to the place
of occurrence. The sniffer dog sniffed the small male comb and led
the police team to the house of accused No. 2-Dileep.
10. The inquest report of the dead body of the child victim was prepared15
which was then subjected to post mortem by a Medical Board of
which, Dr. Geeta Chaudhary (PW-7), Dr. Akhilesh Chandra (PW-8)
and Dr. Anant Prakash Mishra were members.
11. The medical board conducted autopsy and issued the postmortem
reports16 opining that the child victim had been subjected to grave
violence and sexual assault and died as a result of asphyxia due to
strangulation. As many as nine ante mortem injuries were noticed
on the child victim's body including numerous on her nether regions.
12. From the statements of various witnesses examined by the
Investigating Officer (PW-9), the needle of suspicion turned towards
the accused-appellants who were arrested on 7th September, 2012.
However, it may be noted that the prosecution did not exhibit the
arrest memos of the accused-appellants.
13. The prosecution claims that the blood samples of the accusedappellants were collected under orders of the Court on 26th November,
2012 for the purpose of DNA comparison. The DNA report17 was
received as per which, the comparison did not yield any conclusive
15
Exhibit K-9.
16
Exhibit K-5 and K-6.
17
Exhibit K-14.
2116
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
results. After conclusion of investigation, chargesheet was laid against
the accused-appellants for the offences punishable under Sections
376(2)(g), 201 and 302 IPC. The offences being sessions triable,
the case was committed and made over to the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Lucknow, for trial where charges were
framed for the above offences against the accused-appellants, who
abjured their guilt and claimed trial.
14. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses, exhibited 17
documents and 5 material objects to prove its case. The team leader
of the dog squad, namely, Tribhuvan Narayan Jaiswal was examined
as Court Witness No.1. Statements of the accused-appellants were
recorded under Section 313 CrPC, and they were confronted with
the allegations as appearing against them in the prosecution case.
They denied the same and claimed to be innocent. Three witnesses
were examined in defence.
15. Upon hearing the arguments advanced by the Public Prosecutor and
the defence counsel and after appreciating the evidence on record, the
trial Court proceeded to convict and sentence the accused-appellants
as stated supra. The reference for confirmation of the death sentence
awarded to accused No.1-Putai by the trial Court was answered in
affirmative by the High Court, whereas the appeals preferred by the
accused-appellants were rejected vide common judgment dated 11th
October, 2018, passed by the High Court which is assailed in these
appeals by special leave.
Submissions on behalf of accused-appellants.
16. Shri. Shadan Farasat, learned senior counsel appearing for the
accused No.1-Putai, and Shri Varinder Kumar Sharma, learned
counsel representing the accused No. 2-Dileep, vehemently and
fervently contended that the conviction of the accused-appellants by
the Trial Court, and affirmed by the High Court, is based purely on
conjectures and surmises. The prosecution case is totally based on
circumstantial evidence and that the prosecution could not lead proper/
reliable evidence to establish the complete chain of incriminating
circumstances establishing the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond
all manner of doubt. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses
is full of inherent contradictions and improbabilities and does not
inspire confidence.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
2117
Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh
17. It was further submitted that the prosecution has tried to place
reliance on the so-called suspicious conduct of accused No.1-Putai
in order to draw an inference regarding his culpable state of mind.
As per Shri Farasat, the fact that the accused-appellants was seen
behaving abnormally was introduced by way of a sheer improvement
because, in the complaint filed by Munna (PW-1), no such allegation
was levelled.
18. It was further submitted that the blind reliance placed by the trial Court
and the High Court upon the DNA report is absolutely unjustified. The
prosecution failed to lead proper evidence to establish the sanctity of
the samples from the time of seizure till the time the same reached
the Forensic Science Laboratory18.
19. He further contended that the first DNA report dated 18th January,
2014 did not inculpate the accused-appellants. However, during
the pendency of appeals before the High Court, the prosecution
produced a supplementary DNA report dated 2nd December, 2014
by way of an affidavit but the same was never put to the accusedappellants under Section 313 CrPC. Furthermore, the expert witness
who conducted the DNA profiling and issued the supplementary DNA
report was not examined in evidence and hence, the subsequent
DNA report is inconsequential and inadmissible in evidence. It was
further contended that since the glaring discrepancies in the two
reports of DNA profiling have not been explained by the prosecution,
the High Court committed grave error in placing reliance on the
same.
20. On these grounds, learned counsel representing the accusedappellants, implored the Court to accept the appeals, set aside the
impugned judgments passed by the High Court as well as the trial
Court and acquit the accused-appellants of the charges levelled
against them.
Submissions on behalf of respondent-State
21. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent-State,
vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by
the counsel appearing for the accused-appellants. It was contended
18
Hereinafter, referred to as the 'FSL'
2118
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
that the material witnesses and the accused-appellants are close
neighbours. The material witnesses who hail from a rustic background
had no reason whatsoever to falsely implicate the accused-appellants
in the case. These witnesses have given natural and truthful
evidence regarding the suspicious conduct of the accused-appellants
corresponding to the time of the incident. The present case emanates
from a gruesome incident wherein the minor daughter of Munna
(PW-1) and Smt. Chandravati (PW-2) was raped and murdered in
a very brutal manner and thus, trivial inconsistencies in evidence of
the witnesses were bound to occur and no advantage thereof can
be gained by the accused-appellants. It was submitted that the FIR
was lodged without any delay in the morning of the 5th September,
2012, soon after the dead body of the child victim was found and
hence, the family members would have been in a deep state of shock.
Thus, omission of trivial facts from the FIR cannot be a ground to
discard the entire prosecution case.
22. It was further submitted that the underwear and other personal
articles i.e., chappals and water canister of the child victim were
recovered from the field which accused No.1-Putai was admittedly
cultivating. Hence, by virtue of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, the burden would shift on to the accused- appellants to
explain the circumstances under which, these gravely incriminating
articles, were found in his field.
23. It was further submitted that the prosecution witnesses, i.e.,
Munna (PW1) and Smt. Chandravati (PW-2) have given convincing
evidence to prove the suspicious conduct of the accused-appellants
corresponding to the time of the incident. Since, there was no
animosity whatsoever between these witnesses and the accusedappellants, there could not have been any reason for them to falsely
implicate the accused-appellants for the rape and murder of their
minor child. They, therefore, urged that the conviction of the accusedappellants as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High
Court is based on apropos appreciation of evidence available on
record. The impugned judgments are well reasoned and have been
rendered after thorough evaluation of evidence. The same do not
suffer from any infirmity or perversity and hence, the appeals being
devoid of merit should be dismissed.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
2119
Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Analysis: -
24. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgments
and material placed on record.
25. The following facts are admitted from the record: -
i.
The child victim went missing on 4th September, 2012 at around
07:00 PM. She had gone out for attending the call of nature
and was not found alive thereafter.
ii.
The parents and neighbours conducted a search for the child
victim throughout the night, but no clue was forthcoming
regarding her whereabouts.
iii.
As per the FIR19, the denuded dead body of the child victim
was found in the field of Harikrishna Sharma whereas, some
of her personal articles i.e., chappals, water canister and
underwear were found in the field of Bhaktisharan. The report
is silent regarding any suspicious act/conduct of the accusedappellants which may have been noticed or perceived by any
of the prosecution witnesses. Rather, the report does not cast
suspicion on anyone.
iv.
Both the accused-appellants were arrested on 7th September,
2012 and their blood samples were drawn on 26th November,
2012, i.e., after a gap of almost two and a half months.
v.
The first DNA examination report dated 18th January, 2014
i.e., Exhibit K-14, remained inconclusive. The prosecution
produced a supplementary DNA report dated 2nd December,
2014 during pendency of the appeals before the High Court
by way of an affidavit dated 12th April, 2017. However, notably,
the first DNA report was totally silent regarding any pending
tests or the requirement for re-examination of the samples.
The supplementary DNA report was not put to the accusedappellants, and they were denied opportunity to rebut the same.
vi.
The prosecution did not examine the carrier who transmitted
the samples from the police station to the FSL. Not a single
19
Exhibit K-2.
2120
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
document pertaining to safe keeping or transmission of the
samples viz. maalkhana register, roznamcha entry, forwarding
letter or the receipt issued from the FSL was exhibited or brought
on record by the prosecution during the course of the trial.
26. Keeping the above admitted facts in mind, we now proceed to
appreciate the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses.
27. Munna (PW-1), the informant, being the father of the child victim,
testified that his daughter, Mst. S, informed her mother and went to
ease herself in the field at about 07:00 PM. When she did not return
for quite some time, the family members got worried and launched
a search for her. The child's mother, Smt. Chandravati (PW-2) kept
on waiting at the house. She claims to have seen accused No.1Putai washing his hands and face and going into his house during
this period. The search party claims to have seen stains of blood
and marks of dragging in the field of Bhaktisharan which was being
cultivated by accused No.1-Putai. The chappals of the child victim
were also found in the same field. Likewise, the water canister which
the child victim had taken with herself was also found in a culvert
near the field which accused No.1-Putai used to cultivate.
28. A very important fact emerging from the statement of Munna (PW1) is that he did not mention that the underwear of the child victim
was also found in the field of accused No.1-Putai. Furthermore,
none of the three incriminating articles, i.e., the chappals, the water
canister or the underwear were exhibited during the evidence of
Munna (PW-1) and Smt. Chandravati (PW-2) being the parents of
the child victim. However, the Investigating Officer (PW-9) claims to
have recovered the underwear of the child victim from the field which
was under cultivation of accused No.1-Putai. We shall consider the
import of this discrepancy later.
29. It is also relevant to mention here that Munna (PW-1) did not utter
a single word regarding any procedure of using the dog squad to
find out the suspect.
30. Thus, the only fact in deposition of Munna (PW-1) which is alleged
as incriminating against accused No.1-Putai, was the narrative that
his wife, Smt. Chandravati (PW-2) saw accused No.1-Putai washing
his hands and face and going into his house. We find that there is
nothing unnatural or unusual in this conduct of accused No.1-Putai.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
2121
Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Any labourer or farmer would be naturally inclined to carry out these
ablutions upon returning from work and before entering one's home.
The actions as stated above are absolutely natural and would not
raise any suspicion nor could the same be treated as incriminating
conduct on the part of accused No.1-Putai.
31. Smt. Chandravati (PW2) being the mother of the child victim also
gave evidence almost on the same lines as that of Munna (PW-1).
In addition, she stated that she also went to the field in search of
her daughter i.e., the child victim. Later, the efforts to search shifted
to the homes of the relatives, but the same proved to be futile. She
further alleged that she saw accused No.1-Putai who was looking
disgruntled. He entered his house, changed his clothes and went
away on his cycle. The witness stated that accused No.1-Putai
did not make any enquiry whatsoever regarding the reason for the
commotion being caused owing to the child victim having gone
missing. This indifference shown by accused No.1-Putai has been
treated to be an incriminating conduct by the trial Court as well
the High Court on the ground that in the natural course of events,
accused No.1-Putai should have got concerned and would definitely
have enquired as to why the family members of the child victim were
acting in a panic mode.
32. Be that as it may, we find that this version as set out in the evidence
of Smt. Chandravati (PW-2) that accused No.1-Putai came rushing
and he went inside his house, and changed the clothes, in addition
to being an exaggeration/improvement from her previous statement
under Section 161 CrPC cannot be considered to be an incriminating
circumstance against accused No.1-Putai in isolation.
33. All that can be inferred from the statement of Smt. Chandravati
(PW-2) is that accused No.1-Putai came to his house, changed his
clothes and went away without demonstrating any interest whatsoever
regarding the commotion which was prevailing on account of the
child victim having gone missing.
34. To reiterate, there was nothing unusual in the conduct of accused
No.1-Putai if he entered into his own house, even in haste, washed
his face and hands and then, went away.
35. Accused No. 1-Putai has given an explanation in his Section 313
CrPC statement that his parents were ill and were hospitalized on
2122
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the date of the incident. This fact was admitted by Smt. Chandravati
(PW-2) in her cross-examination. The accused has taken a specific
defence that he was with his parents at the time of the incident. In
this background, the fact that accused No.1-Putai was seen by Smt.
Chandravati (PW-2) rushing into his house, changing clothes and
going away cannot be treated to be a suspicious conduct or a fact
which inculpates him in the crime.
36. So far as the accused No. 2-Dileep is concerned, Smt. Chandravati
(PW-2) admitted in her cross-examination that accused No. 2-Dileep's
house is at a significant distance from her house. The theory set forth
by the prosecution, that the comb used by accused No. 2-Dileep
was recovered from the field of Harikrishna Sharma, and that the
sniffer dog, after sniffing the said comb, led the police team to the
house of the accused No. 2-Dileep is also shrouded in a cloud of
doubt and unacceptable on the face of record and we have strong
reasons for observing so.
37. Firstly, there is a significant contradiction regarding the colour of the
comb which was recovered by the police. Munna (PW-1) stated that
the comb was of bluish-green color. Gaya Prasad (PW-3) stated
that the comb was dirty and light red coloured. Raushan Lal (PW5) stated that the comb was of sky-blue color. Narad Muni Singh
(PW-9) stated that the comb was of green colour. These contrasting
versions of the witnesses regarding the colour of the comb make
the recovery by itself doubtful.
38. Secondly, the theory put forth in the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses that they had seen accused No. 2-Dileep using the comb
and thus they could identify and link the recovered comb to him is
absolutely farfetched and unbelievable. Admittedly, there was no
special feature in the recovered comb which was an ordinary plastic
comb. Thousands of combs of similar design and colour are readily
available in the market. Thus, it is impossible to believe that any
person could identify the comb to be that of accused No. 2-Dileep
simply on seeing him using the same. The emphatic version of the
witnesses that the comb belonged to accused No. 2-Dileep is a
strong indicator of the fact that the prosecution was hell bent upon
implicating the accused No. 2-Dileep in this case by hook or by crook.
39. Lastly, at the cost of repetition, it may be stated that the procedure
pertaining to the exercise of the sniffer dog taking the police team
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
2123
Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh
from the place of incident to the house of accused No.2 Dileep was
not documented and was sought to be proved in the oral evidence
of Tribhuvan Narayan Jaiswal (CW-1). Failure to prepare any
contemporary document for the search by the dog squad makes
the entire procedure doubtful. Hence, the theory propounded by
the prosecution that the comb found at the spot, was of accused
No. 2- Dileep falls flat to the ground and is unworthy of credence.
40. The next prosecution witness on which the Courts below placed
reliance was Gaya Prasad (PW-3) who is closely related to Munna
(PW-1). The witness stated that, on the date of the incident, i.e.,
4th September, 2012, he was at his field, which was located at a
distance of about half a kilometer from the village. While returning
home at around 08:00 PM, he saw accused No.1-Putai moving
anxiously. When he reached home, he came to know that the child
victim had gone out to ease herself but had not returned back. The
parents of the child victim and few others gave him this information.
The witness (PW-3) then joined the search for the child victim with
the family members. The search continued till 10 o'clock in the
night but the child victim was nowhere to be found. The search
was resumed the next morning. While searching, they reached the
field of accused No.1-Putai and saw a cot lying inside the hut. The
witness claims to have seen blood on the ground below the cot. A
sickle, a spade, a pillow, a plastic bottle, one underwear and a pair
of chappals were also seen lying on the floor. A water canister was
seen lying at some distance. The witness claims that he was the first
to observe all these articles. Little later, the police team also reached
the spot. The body of the child victim was located at around 09:00
AM in the field of Harikrishna Sharma which was under cultivation
of one Radheyshyam Maurya.
41. Importantly, the witness (PW-3) admitted that accused No.1-Putai
used to do farming and was also working in a factory where asbestos
sheets used to be manufactured. On some days, he worked in the
factory from 03:30 PM to 11:00 PM while on other days, he worked
from 11:30 PM to 08:00 AM in the morning. The witness admitted
that neither did he see accused No.1-Putai taking away the child
victim nor did he see him killing her.
42. What can be culled out from the evidence of this witness is that the
incriminating articles which were recovered from the field of accused
2124
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
No. 1-Putai, had already been seen by the search party before the
police arrived at the spot. The said fact assumes importance when
we see the complaint (Exhibit K-1) wherein, all that is mentioned is
that the chappals and water canister of the child victim and some
blood stains were seen in the field of Bhaktisharan which was under
cultivation of accused No. 1-Putai. There is a total omission of the
fact that the underwear of the child victim and other incriminating
articles had already been noticed in the same field.
43. If at all, the search party which included the informant Munna (PW-1)
and Gaya Prasad (PW-3) had noticed the minute details about the
presence of chappals and water canister of the child victim and some
blood stains, then it is impossible to believe that the presence of
the underwear belonging to the child victim in the same field, would
have escaped detection. In that eventuality, the fact regarding the
presence of the underwear would definitely have been mentioned
in the complaint (Exhibit K-1) filed by Munna (PW-1) to the police.
Omission of the fact is far too significant to be overlooked. We,
therefore, feel that so far as the aspect regarding the recovery of
the underwear of the child victim from the field of accused No.1Putai is concerned, the same seems to be a planted recovery and a
creation by the Investigating Officer (PW-9) intended to give succor
to the prosecution case.
44. Bablu (PW-4) stated that he used to work as a mason and was
residing at a distance of about 100 meters from the house of Munna
(PW-1). He came to know on the day of the incident that Munna's
(PW-1) daughter was missing. He alleged that on 4th September,
2012, accused No. 2-Dileep came to his house between 08:00 PM
to 09:00 PM and asked for a fawda (garden spade), but the witness
did not accede to the said request. The witness further stated that
accused No.1-Putai had taken the field of Bhaktisharan on crop
sharing basis.
45. The statement of this witness (PW-4) is hardly of any relevance to the
prosecution case. The simple act of asking for a spade by accused
No. 2-Dileep cannot be construed to be incriminating in nature.
Furthermore, there is a material contradiction in the deposition of
the said witness since during the examination-in-chief, the witness
stated that he did not give the spade to accused No. 2-Dileep, but
in cross-examination, he stated that he gave the fawda (garden
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
2125
Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh
spade) to accused No. 2-Dileep which he never received back. This
contradiction goes to the root of the matter and makes the testimony
of the witness (PW-4) highly doubtful.
46. Raushan Lal (PW-5) stated that in the morning after the incident,
the villagers told him that Munna's (PW-1) daughter i.e., the child
victim had gone missing at around 7 o'clock on the previous night.
The entire village was searching for the child victim in the field of
Bhaktisharan which accused No.1-Putai was cultivating. A cot was
kept at the staging. There were blood stains on the cot and blood
drops were strewn around it. An underwear and a pair of chappals
were seen lying towards the north of the hut with a sickle and a
bottle lying nearby. Near a shrub, a water canister was found. The
denuded dead body of the child victim was found near the ridge, in
the corner of the paddy field belonging to Harikrishna Sharma and
a frock was found lying at some distance from the dead body.
47. The witness (PW-5) further stated that a sky-blue coloured comb was
found near the frock and the comb was of accused No. 2-Dileep.
The sniffer dog sniffed the comb and went directly to accused No.
2-Dileep's house. He stated that he had himself seen accused No.
2-Dileep combing his hair using that comb. In cross-examination,
the witness admitted that many people were searching for the
child victim. The dead body of child victim was found in the field of
Harikrishna Sharma, at a distance of about 150 feet from the field
of accused No. 1-Putai and a brick lane was running between the
said two fields. Thus, the evidence of the witness (PW-5) is also
insignificant so far as the culpability of accused No.1-Putai in the
crime is concerned. Since, we have already discarded the recovery
of the comb as being that of accused No. 2-Dileep, the evidence of
the witness (PW-5) is of no worth to the prosecution case.
48. Girish Kumar (PW-6) posted as Constable at Police Station
Mohanlalganj, Lucknow, was a formal witness who registered the
FIR bearing Case Crime No. 318 of 2012 based on the complaint
given by Munna (PW-1). Nothing much turns on the statement of
the said witness.
49. Dr. Geeta Chaudhary (PW-7), being the medical jurist proved the
postmortem report (Exhibit K-5 and K-6). However, she did not give
any opinion regarding the cause of death of the child victim. A very
important fact which emerges from the evidence of the medical jurist
2126
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
is that she claimed to have taken two vaginal swabs and two vaginal
smear slides, which were sent for examination of spermatozoa and
gonococci. The significant fact which needs to be noted is that the
witness (PW-7) did not state that the vaginal swabs and the slides
were sealed. She did not even mention the date on which these
vital forensic materials were handed over for onward transmission.
50. Dr. Akhilesh Chandra (PW-8), was one of the members of the medical
board which conducted the postmortem examination upon the dead
body of the child victim. He stated that the body was brought for
postmortem examination by Constable Sunil Singh and Constable
Krishna Kumar Dwivedi posted at the Police Station Mohanlalganj.
The autopsy was carried out at about 04:15 PM and Dr. Anant
Prakash Mishra and Dr. Geeta Chaudhary (PW-7) were the other
members of the medical board who took part in the postmortem
examination. The medical jurist proved the presence of nine ante
mortem injuries on the private parts and other body parts of the child
victim. He also gave an opinion that the cause of death of the child
victim was cardiorespiratory arrest due to asphyxia on account of
ante mortem strangulation.
51. The witness (PW-8) stated that he collected part of scalp hair with
skin for DNA, a piece of sternum bone and eight slides of smear
and swabs.