Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand

Read Judgment : https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/gogy/

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Fair Trial – DNA Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Confession – Conviction Quashed.

Held

Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence leaving no reasonable doubt. Last seen testimony unreliable where witnesses failed to identify accused in court, did not report sighting to police contemporaneously, and no test identification parade conducted. Confession discarded as coerced by trial and High Courts, not relied upon. DNA evidence inadmissible absent examination of expert and proof of secure chain of custody; unsealed samples and lack of evidence on sample handling fatal. Trial unfair due to delayed legal aid, rushed proceedings, and inadequate opportunity for defense preparation. Conviction under IPC Sections 376A, 302, 366, 363, 201, and POCSO Act Sections 5/6 set aside.

Appellant acquitted.

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Date of Judgment: March 4, 2025
Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 630-631 of 2018
Parties: Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand
Citation: LL 2025 (3) SC 18 : 2025 INSC 444

Facts

  • Incident: On the night of June 25-26, 2016, a minor girl (Ms. A) went missing from a Jagran function in Fasiyapura village, Uttarakhand. Her body was later found in a nearby field, showing signs of sexual assault and murder.
  • FIR: The victim’s father (PW-1) lodged an FIR, suspecting sexual assault and murder after identifying his daughter’s body.
  • Investigation: The appellant, Karandeep Sharma, was arrested on June 28, 2016. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including “last seen” testimony, a confessional statement, and DNA/FSL reports.
  • Trial Court: The Fast Track Court convicted the appellant on April 5-6, 2017, under Sections 376A, 302, 366, 363, and 201 of the IPC, 1860, and Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, sentencing him to death for Sections 376A and 302, among other penalties.
  • High Court: On January 5, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court upheld the conviction and confirmed the death sentence.
  • Appeal: The appellant challenged the High Court’s judgment in the Supreme Court via special leave.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence (last seen testimony, confession, and DNA/FSL reports) was sufficient to uphold the appellant’s conviction.
  2. Whether the trial was conducted fairly, providing the appellant a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

Arguments

  • Appellant:
    • The prosecution’s case rested on unreliable circumstantial evidence.
    • Last seen witnesses (PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, PW-6, PW-8, PW-11) were untrustworthy, as they failed to identify the appellant in court and did not report seeing him with the victim to the police initially.
    • The confession was coerced and not relied upon by the courts.
    • The DNA report was inadmissible due to the non-examination of the expert and issues with sample collection and chain of custody.
    • The trial was unfair, with inadequate legal representation and rushed proceedings.
  • Respondent (State):
    • Last seen witnesses provided consistent testimony that the victim was with the appellant before her death.
    • The DNA report conclusively linked the appellant’s t-shirt and other samples to the victim’s DNA, supporting the conviction.
    • The evidence was sufficient to uphold the conviction and death sentence.
  • Supreme Court Findings:
    • Unfair Trial: The trial was marred by procedural irregularities, including:
      • The appellant was not provided legal aid until late in the trial, and the amicus curiae had insufficient time to prepare.
      • Charges were framed on the same day documents were provided, denying the appellant a fair opportunity to defend himself.
      • The trial court improperly referenced the appellant’s confession (later discarded) during charge framing.
    • Last Seen Evidence: The testimony of last seen witnesses was unreliable because:
      • None identified the appellant in court.
      • They failed to inform the police of seeing the appellant with the victim at the time of the incident, despite being present when the body was found.
      • No test identification parade was conducted, and some witnesses relied on a newspaper photograph for identification.
    • Confession: Both the trial and High Courts discarded the confession as coerced, and the Supreme Court upheld this finding.
    • DNA/FSL Reports: The DNA evidence was inadmissible due to:
      • Non-examination of the DNA expert, rendering the report unproven.
      • Irregularities in sample collection (e.g., unsealed samples from the appellant) and lack of evidence on chain of custody.
      • No proof that samples were sealed or untampered from collection to FSL analysis.
    • Conclusion: With the last seen evidence discredited, confession discarded, and DNA reports inadmissible, no evidence connected the appellant to the crime.
  • Decision: The Supreme Court quashed the trial court (April 5-6, 2017) and High Court (January 5, 2018) judgments, acquitted the appellant of all charges, and ordered his immediate release unless required in another case.

Ratio Decidendi

  • A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and unbroken chain of evidence, with no reasonable doubt about the accused’s guilt.
  • DNA evidence is inadmissible without the examination of the expert who conducted the analysis and proof of a secure chain of custody.
  • A fair trial is a constitutional right, and failure to provide adequate legal representation or time to prepare a defense renders the trial invalid.

Obiter Dicta

  • The Court noted the case as a “classic example of undue haste” in judicial proceedings, undermining justice.
  • The prosecution’s failure to conduct a test identification parade weakened the last seen evidence, especially when witnesses were unfamiliar with the accused.

Significance

  • Reinforces the importance of procedural fairness and robust evidence in capital cases.
  • Clarifies that DNA evidence requires strict adherence to scientific and legal standards for admissibility.
  • Highlights the need for timely legal aid to ensure a fair trial.

Acts and Sections

  1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
    • Section 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen an offender.
    • Section 302: Punishment for murder.
    • Section 363: Punishment for kidnapping.
    • Section 366: Kidnapping or abducting a woman to compel her for marriage or illicit intercourse.
    • Section 376A: Punishment for causing death or resulting in a persistent vegetative state of a victim in the course of committing rape.
  2. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act):
    • Sections 5/6: Aggravated penetrative sexual assault and punishment thereof.
  3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):
    • Section 164: Recording of confessions and statements by a Magistrate (though the confession was not relied upon).
    • Section 173(2): Submission of charge-sheet by the police.
    • Section 207: Supply to the accused of copies of police report and other documents.
    • Section 293: Reports of certain government scientific experts (clarified as not automatically admissible for DNA reports without expert testimony).
    • Section 366: Submission of death sentence for confirmation by the High Court.
  4. Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
    • Sections 24, 25, 26: Provisions related to the inadmissibility of confessions made under coercion or to a police officer, and conditions for admissibility of confessions made before a Magistrate (relevant to the rejection of the appellant’s confession).
    • Section 45: Opinions of experts (relevant to the inadmissibility of the DNA report due to non-examination of the expert).

Cited

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

, , , , , ,