A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand, [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1482 : 2025 INSC 444. The Supreme Court reappraised a conviction based wholly on circumstantial evidence charging kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of a minor and quashed concurrent convictions and death sentences where the prosecution failed to establish essential linkages in the chain of circumstances.

The core pillars relied upon below: 

(i) last-seen witness testimony,

(ii) recoveries of garments and articles,

(iii) a confessional statement, and

(iv) DNA/FSL reports were critically examined. The Court found the last-seen evidence fatally weakened because witnesses did not report sightings to police at the scene or in the FIR and several identified the accused only after publicity; no identification parade was conducted.

The confessional statement was treated with skepticism, recorded and exhibited in a procedurally improper manner and not relied upon by lower courts. The DNA/FSL evidence was excluded for want of proof of chain of custody and because the scientific expert who prepared the report was not examined; samples were not shown to have been sealed and preserved, raising the real possibility of tampering.

Recoveries were held to be inherently improbable (appellant retaining soiled garments for two days) and thus susceptible to being planted. The trial suffered from undue haste late provision of materials and inadequate time for defence preparation producing a lopsided trial that denied a fair opportunity. Once FSL evidence was eschewed, the remaining circumstantial matrix failed to exclude all other hypotheses; conviction could not be sustained and the accused was acquitted.

Keywords: circumstantial evidence; last-seen; DNA/FSL; chain of custody; confession; POCSO; fairness of trial.

B) CASE DETAILS 

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

Factual matrix centers on disappearance during a village Jagran on night of 25/26 June 2016 and recovery of a minor’s dead body the next morning. Accused was engaged as sound-and-light operator at the event and arrested on 28 June 2016. Trial in a Fast Track Court produced convictions under ss.376A, 302, 366, 363, 201 IPC and ss.5/6 POCSO, with death sentences for sexual assault causing death.

The High Court affirmed. On appeal the Supreme Court reviewed whether the circumstantial edifice and forensic linkage met the strict standards required to sustain capital punishment, and whether trial irregularities late supply of documents, inadequate legal aid and procedural lapses vitiated fairness. The Court was required to balance the gravity of the crime and social outrage against constitutional mandates of proof beyond reasonable doubt, evidentiary safeguards for expert opinion (s.45 Evidence Act), and the sanctity of chain of custody for forensic material.

The prosecution’s case depended on:

(a) oral witnesses alleging last-seen presence with accused;

(b) recovered clothing allegedly soiled with blood/semen;

(c) a confession recorded under s.164 CrPC; and

(d) FSL/DNA reports matching samples from accused and deceased.

The Court re-evaluated each link, applying precedent that DNA opinion evidence must be proved by examining the expert and establishing the integrity of sample handling. Procedural fairness and admissibility of confession were separately scrutinized against ss.24–26 Evidence Act.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The child-victim disappeared from a Jagran and her body showing genital and head injuries was found in a field the next morning. Father lodged FIR on 26 June 2016. Post-mortem by Dr. Madan Mohan recorded multiple injuries and opined cause of death as asphyxia, noting evidence of sexual assault. Samples slides, blood, hair, clothes were collected from body and from accused during medical examination on 28 June 2016.

Accused was arrested near a petrol pump and allegedly had stained clothes which were seized. Investigating Officer (PW-14) obtained and exhibited an FSL/DNA report purportedly showing matching profiles between the deceased’s and accused’s samples. Several villagers (PWs 2,3,5,6,8,11) testified they last saw the victim with a person identified as the accused during the night; many admitted they did not know the accused previously and identified him only later after publicity and a newspaper photograph.

No identification parade was held. Confessional statement recorded under s.164 CrPC was narrated by police witnesses and exhibited, but lower courts did not rely on it. Trial progressed swiftly after belated provision of documents and with limited legal representation for accused; defence continuity and time to prepare were compromised.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED 

1. Whether convictions based entirely on circumstantial evidence can be sustained when essential links (last-seen, recovery, DNA, confession) are infirm?

2. Whether last-seen witness testimony that was not communicated to police at the scene and depended on post-publicity identification can be relied upon?

3. Whether DNA/FSL reports are admissible without proving chain of custody and by examining the scientific expert who prepared them?

4. Whether recoveries of incriminating garments may be treated as credible when improbabilities suggest planting?

5. Whether recital and exhibition of a confessional statement via police narration complies with ss.24–26 of the Evidence Act?

6. Whether the cumulative effect of procedural haste and denial of reasonable opportunity vitiates the trial?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The appellant’s counsel submitted that the prosecution’s case was entirely circumstantial and failed to exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence. Last-seen witnesses did not inform police at the spot nor identify the accused in court; identifications occurred after newspaper publicity, rendering testimony suspect. The DNA/FSL report was inadmissible because the FSL expert was not produced and chain of custody for samples was not proved; samples were not shown to have been sealed.

Recoveries were improbable since appellant would have discarded stained clothes rather than carry them for two days. The confession was extracted under duress and was not relied upon by lower courts. Further, the trial was rushed, accused lacked timely legal aid and opportunity to cross-examine, prejudicing defence rights.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

State counsel relied on combined weight of last-seen testimony and DNA/FSL matching to establish participation. The Investigating Officer and police witnesses testified to seizure and forwarding of exhibits to FSL; DNA report (Exhibit Ka-8/Ka-19) matched accused’s and deceased’s material, linking accused to crime. The prosecution argued recoveries and post-arrest statements corroborated guilt. It was contended that procedural formalities had been followed sufficiently for admissibility and that courts below rightly accepted the circumstantial mosaic.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

i. Indian Penal Code, 1860: ss.302, 376A, 366, 363, 201.
ii. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: ss.5, 6.
iii. Evidence Act, 1872: ss.24–26 (confessions), s.45 (expert opinion).
iv. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: ss.164, 173, 207, 366.

I) JUDGMENT 

The Court undertook a granular reassessment of each circumstantial link. Last-seen evidence was disbelieved: witnesses failed to disclose sightings to police at the scene; FIR contained no such allegations; identifications were after media publicity and no test parade occurred, undermining reliability.

The confession was procedurally tainted: police narration of the accused’s s.164 statement and its exhibition via a police witness contravened ss.24–26 Evidence Act; moreover, lower courts did not place reliance upon it. The DNA/FSL evidence collapsed on two fronts: non-examination of the FSL expert who generated the profile (thus depriving the prosecution of proving the reliability of techniques applied) and absence of proof of chain of custody.

Medical and police witnesses gave inconsistent accounts on sealing and handover; no forwarding letters, malkhana-in-charge, or FSL witness were produced to prove samples remained in self-same condition. The Court invoked Rahul v. State of Delhi to underline necessity of proving sanctity of sample handling and subject-matter expert testimony for admissibility of DNA reports. Recoveries were improbable and susceptible to planting; police chronology and the accused’s alleged carrying of soiled clothing for two days made the recoveries inherently unbelievable.

Procedural fairness was compromised: charge frames and trial began without adequate time for defence to receive materials or secure counsel, with multiple changes of amicus counsel during witness recording. Given exclusion of FSL reports, absence of reliable last-seen evidence, and infirm confession, the cumulative circumstantial matrix failed to eliminate reasonable doubt and did not satisfy the strict tests for conviction, especially for capital punishment. Accordingly, convictions and death sentences were quashed and appellant acquitted; Court ordered release if not wanted in other cases. The appeals were allowed.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The decisive legal proposition is that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain excluding all reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence; forensic opinion (DNA) cannot be admitted ipso facto the prosecution must prove the integrity of sample collection, sealing, transmission, and examination by producing link witnesses and the scientific expert to demonstrate reliable techniques.

Failure to prove chain of custody or to examine the analyst renders DNA opinion inadmissible. Further, identification evidence post-publicity without test parade is weak; police narration/exhibition of confession breaches ss.24–26 and undermines fairness. Where these infirmities exist, conviction cannot be sustained.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court emphasized that speedy trial must not become undue haste that deprives accused of reasonable opportunity; judicial vigilance is required to ensure evidence-gathering protocols for FSL materials are scrupulously followed, given the grave consequences of forensic opinion. Police should avoid creating reliance on extra-judicial confessions narrated by police witnesses. The Court reiterated safeguard that expert evidence carries variable probative value and must be tested in court.

c. GUIDELINES 

i. Forensic samples must be sealed, accompanied by forwarding letters, and their receipt at FSL proved by producing FSL officials or contemporaneous documents.
ii. DNA/profile reports require examination of the analyst to demonstrate methods and reliability.
iii. Identification evidence collected after media exposure must be treated with caution and test identification parades conducted.
iv. Confessions must be recorded and produced without police paraphrase; police narration should be avoided.
v. Courts should ensure accused receive copies and legal representation before framing charge; adequate time must be afforded for defence preparation.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment underscores judicial insistence on procedural rigor where forensic science is invoked. The Court applied established principles that expert opinion is not self-proving and that circumstantial matrices must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The decision is a caution against cavalier reliance on DNA reports without chain-of-custody proof and against procedural shortcuts that curtail defence rights.

In cases involving children and heinous crimes, the public interest in conviction must be balanced by adherence to evidentiary safeguards to prevent miscarriages of justice. The ruling reiterates that admissibility and reliability, not mere lab results, are determinative; where those fail, acquittal must follow despite social outrage.

K) REFERENCES 

a. Cases Referred

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

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

b. Statutes Referred

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (ss.363, 366, 302, 376A, 201).
2. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (ss.5, 6).
3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (ss.24–26, s.45).
4. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (ss.164, 173, 207, 366).