A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This analysis examines Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand ([2025] 3 S.C.R. 1482 : 2025 INSC 444) with focus on the reliability of circumstantial proof in a child sexual assault, kidnapping and murder prosecution. The Supreme Court overturned concurrent findings of guilt and death sentence because the prosecution’s case rested entirely on fragile circumstantial strands: last seen testimony, alleged recoveries, a confession and DNA/FSL reports.

The Court found the last seen witnesses’ conduct specifically their failure to tell the police promptly that the victim had been seen leaving with the appellant and the absence of any identification parade, fatally undermined that theory. The confession was exhibited through police narration and not relied upon below; the trial court’s permitting a police officer to verbatim narrate and exhibit the accused’s Section 164 CrPC statement ran afoul of Sections 24–26 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The DNA/FSL evidence was inadmissible because the expert was not produced, chain-of-custody and sealing formalities were not proved, and transmission/receipt by the FSL was not established.

Taken together, once FSL reports were eschewed, no admissible evidence linked the accused to the offence; the trial was also conducted with undue haste denying meaningful defence preparation. The result: convictions and death sentence quashed and appellant acquitted.

Keywords: circumstantial evidence; last seen; DNA/FSL; confession; chain of custody; Section 164 CrPC; Evidence Act; fair trial; child sexual offence; POCSO Act.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The matter originated from the disappearance of a minor from a Jagran function on the intervening night of 25/26 June 2016. The victim’s dead body was recovered the morning after; post-mortem attributed death to asphyxia and recorded multiple injuries consistent with sexual assault. The police investigation culminated in arrest of the appellant on 28 June 2016, based on village rumours, alleged confessional statement and supposedly incriminating articles.

The trial court convicted the accused for offences under the IPC and POCSO, awarding death on the sexual-offence and murder counts; the High Court affirmed. Before the Supreme Court the defense challenged the reliability of the circumstantial fabric, highlighting lacunae in witness identification, non-production of the DNA expert, absence of proof of sealing/chain of custody and procedural unfairness including denial of legal aid and rushed framing/trial.

The State relied on the putative last-seen witnesses and the DNA/FSL report. The Supreme Court re-evaluated whether each circumstantial link met the stringent tests required to sustain conviction and whether the trial accorded a just and fair opportunity to the accused.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The child-victim attended a Jagran in Fasiyapura on 25 June 2016. She went missing that night; her body was found in a nearby field next morning. PW-1 (father) lodged FIR. Post-mortem by Dr. Madan Mohan (PW-7) reported injuries and asphyxia. Multiple villagers (PW-2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11) later testified they had seen the victim with a person operating sound-and-light at the Jagran (identified subsequently by press photographs as the appellant).

None of these witnesses told police at the scene that they had seen the victim leave with the appellant; several admitted they did not know the appellant before the event and identified him only after viewing a newspaper photograph. No test identification parade was conducted. Police arrested appellant on 28 June 2016; witnesses alleged his clothes bore blood and semen stains. Medical officer took forensic samples from both victim and accused; samples were later sent to FSL. The investigating officer (PW-14) recorded and exhibited the accused’s Section 164 CrPC statement, and the police witness narrated the confession in chief.

The FSL report purportedly matched DNA from accused’s shirt and hair with victim samples. Trial proceeded hastily: charge-sheet filed 24 Sept 2016, charges framed and evidence recorded rapidly with amicus/defence counsel appointed late, hampering meaningful cross-examination. Trial court convicted and sentenced; High Court confirmed. Supreme Court re-assessed evidentiary sufficiency and fairness of trial processes.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether convictions based solely on circumstantial evidence last seen, recoveries, confession and DNA/FSL report satisfy the legal standard of exclusion of all reasonable hypotheses of innocence?
ii. Whether last seen testimony is admissible and reliable when witnesses did not inform police contemporaneously and identification was based on post-event publicity?
iii. Whether the FSL/DNA report is admissible absent production of the scientific expert and proof of chain of custody and sealing?
iv. Whether permitting a police officer to narrate and exhibit an accused’s Section 164 CrPC statement and using it in evidence violated Sections 24–26 of the Evidence Act and vitiated a fair trial?
v. Whether procedural haste and denial of reasonable opportunity to defence amount to a lopsided trial warranting acquittal?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. Counsels for Petitioner submitted that the prosecution’s case was purely circumstantial and inherently precarious, failing the test of excluding every other reasonable hypothesis.
ii. They contended that witnesses of last-seen were not credible: they did not inform police at the scene, made identifications after exposure to press pictures, and no test identification parade was held.
iii. They argued that the confession was recorded under duress; its narration by police in court and exhibition as prosecution evidence was illegal and unreliable.
iv. They maintained that DNA/FSL conclusions were inadmissible since the expert was not produced, sealing and chain-of-custody were not proved, and forwarding documents/receipts were absent.
v. They asserted that the trial was rushed; defence had no adequate time or legal aid to prepare, compromising fair trial rights.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. Counsels for Respondent submitted that multiple independent villagers witnessed the victim going away with the appellant, providing reliable last seen support.
ii. They relied on the FSL report which matched DNA from accused’s garments/hair with victim’s biological material as conclusive forensic linkage.
iii. They submitted that the confessional material and recoveries, together with medical evidence of sexual assault and timing, formed a coherent circumstantial chain linking appellant to the crime.
iv. They urged that concurrent findings below deserved deference and were based on assessment of witness credibility.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

i. Indian Penal Code, 1860 — §§ 302, 376A, 366, 363, 201.
ii. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — §§ 5, 6.
iii. Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 24–26 (confessions); Section 45 (expert evidence); Section 293 CrPC interplay re: documents.
iv. CrPC, 1973 — Section 164 (recording of confession by Magistrate); Sections 207, 173(2) (copies of police report and charge-sheet).

I) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court undertook a methodical appraisal of each circumstantial strand. It emphasized that circumstantial proof must be complete, compelling, and exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. On last seen, the Court highlighted the witnesses’ silence to police at the scene, absence of test identification parade, identification only post-publicity, and internal contradictions factors that significantly eroded reliability.

The appellant’s confession was addressed: trial practice permitting a police officer to verbatim narrate the statement in examination-in-chief and to exhibit the Section 164 CrPC statement was condemned as illegal, contrary to Sections 24–26 of the Evidence Act, and indicative of a lopsided trial. On forensic evidence, the Court relied on precedents (notably Rahul v. State of Delhi (2023) 1 SCC 83) to stress that DNA profiling is opinion evidence under Section 45 and cannot be proved by mere production of a laboratory report by an investigating officer unconnected with the analysis.

The non-production of the DNA scientist, lack of documentary proof of sealing and forwarding, non-examination of malkhana in-charge, and silence on receipt in sealed condition by the FSL created a substantial possibility of tampering; consequently the Court ruled the DNA/FSL reports inadmissible. Procedural unfairness delays in supplying documents, late appointment and change of amicus/defence counsel, and rapid recording of prosecution evidence further demonstrated denial of reasonable opportunity.

With the confession discarded and DNA evidence excluded, no admissible material remained linking the accused to the crime beyond suspicion. The Court therefore quashed convictions and set aside death sentences, directing the appellant’s release if not wanted in other cases.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The decisive principles are:

(i) circumstantial evidence convictions require a complete chain where each link is proved beyond reasonable doubt and excludes other hypotheses;

(ii) last seen evidence loses weight if witnesses fail to disclose contemporaneously to police, rely on post-event publicity for identification, or if no identification parade is conducted;

(iii) DNA/FSL reports are opinion evidence requiring proof of reliability and provenance the scientist who performed the tests must be produced and the chain of custody/sealing/transmission to the laboratory must be established;

(iv) confessions must be treated in strict conformity with Sections 24–26 of the Evidence Act and court must not permit police narration/exhibition that vitiates fair trial;

(v) procedural fairness and reasonable opportunity to defence are essential, and undue haste can nullify trial integrity. Applying these tenets, the Court found the prosecution case unsustainable.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court observed in obiter that forensic science, while powerful, requires transparent processes, proper documentation, and witness proof of each link in the custody chain to avoid miscarriages. It stressed judicial vigilance where police narration of confessional material occurs and signalled that lower courts must ensure adherence to CrPC and Evidence Act safeguards. The Court further cautioned against reliance on public rumours and press-aided identifications when assessing identification evidence. These comments serve as guidance though they were not strictly necessary to the dispositive result.

c. GUIDELINES 

i. Courts must insist on production of the forensic expert who conducted DNA profiling to establish methods, controls and reliability of results.
ii. Prosecution must prove sealing, malkhana deposit, forwarding letters, and receipt in sealed condition at FSL; malkhana-in-charge and forwarding constables should be examined where relevant.
iii. Identification evidence must be corroborated and contemporaneous statements to police considered; test identification parade should be resorted to where identity is critical.
iv. Confessional statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC must not be made the subject of police narration in court; courts must follow Sections 24–26 of the Evidence Act and ensure voluntariness.
v. Trial courts must ensure accused has time, legal aid and effective opportunity to peruse documents and prepare defence before framing and recording evidence.
vi. Where trial is conducted with undue haste or procedural irregularities are shown, courts should scrutinize whether prejudice to defence warrants acquittal.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s judgment underscores rigorous standards for circumstantial and forensic proof in criminal law, particularly in capital cases and offences under POCSO. The decision reinforces three inter-related safeguards: evidentiary completeness, forensic transparency, and procedural fairness. Practically, the judgment signals prosecutorial duties beyond mere production of laboratory certificates to narrate chain of custody, produce experts, and account for malkhana and forwarding formalities.

It warns trial courts against procedural casualness: late or piecemeal supply of prosecution documents, hurried framing and witness recording, and permitting police to export confessional narratives into evidence will attract appellate correction. For defence strategy, the case illustrates effective attack points: exposing gaps in identification, challenging DNA admissibility when chain is imperfect, and highlighting trial prejudice.

For judicial policy, the ruling invites systemic strengthening of forensic protocols, training for magistrates and trial judges on Section 164 safeguards, and greater insistence on contemporaneous documentation to prevent sample tampering.

Ultimately, the acquittal was a product of cumulative infirmities not a finding of innocence based on alternative positive proof but the judgment preserves the fundamental criminal law principle: conviction must rest on legally admissible, reliable proof beyond reasonable doubt, failing which the liberty of the accused cannot be sacrificed.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand, [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1482 : 2025 INSC 444.

2. Rahul v. State of Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr., (2023) 1 SCC 83.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (¶§ 302, 376A, 366, 363, 201).

2. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (¶§ 5, 6).

3. Evidence Act, 1872 (¶§ 24–26, 45).

4. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (¶§ 164, 173, 207, 293).