KARANDEEP SHARMA @ RAZIA @ RAJUversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

                [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1482 : 2025 INSC 444

                Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju
                                v.
                      State of Uttarakhand
                 (Criminal Appeal No(s). 630-631 of 2018)
                               04 March 2025
                   [Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and
                        Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       In a case based on circumstantial evidence, whether the concurrent
       conviction of the appellant-accused for the kidnapping, rape/sexual
       assault and murder of a minor is sustainable.

                                  Headnotes†
       Circumstantial evidence – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.376A, 302,
       366, 363, 201 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
       Act, 2012 – ss.5, 6 – Kidnapping, rape/sexual assault and
       murder of minor – Case based on circumstantial evidence –
       Appellant was convicted, death sentence awarded –
       Sustainability:
       Held: Unsustainable – Prosecution relied totally on circumstantial
       evidence in the form of last seen theory, recoveries, DNA/FSL
       report and the confession of the appellant – The witnesses
       remained silent and did not disclose to the police regarding
       they having seen the appellant taking away the child-victim with
       himself, thus, the prosecution case regarding the theory of last
       seen is demolished – Further, non-examination of the scientific
       expert who carried out the DNA profiling is fatal – DNA report
       was merely exhibited in evidence by the IO (PW-14) who was
       not connected with the report in any manner – The procedure of
       collecting the samples was also tainted on account of non-sealing
       of the forensic material collected from the appellant – Thus,
       DNA/FSL reports cannot be read in evidence – Furthermore,
       the recoveries were planted as the appellant would not keep
       the clothes with him for almost two days after the incident so
       as to facilitate the police to recover the same at a later point
       of time – The confession was also extracted under duress and

* Author
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                             1483

      Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand


     was not voluntary and as a matter of fact was not even relied
     upon by the Courts below – Trial was not conducted fairly
     and the appellant was not given a reasonable opportunity to
     defend himself – No evidence to connect the appellant with the
     crime – Impugned judgments set aside – Appellant acquitted.
     [Paras 12, 16, 35, 39, 40, 42, 46, 56-58]

     Circumstantial Evidence – Confession – Evidence Act, 1872 –
     ss.24, 25, 26 – PW-12 (Sub-Inspector) narrated the entire
     confession of the appellant-accused in his examination-in-
     chief – Lopsided trial:
     Held: The 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 ss.24, 25 and 26 – Trial Court also 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. [Paras 16, 47]

     Circumstantial Evidence – DNA Report – When inadmissible:
     Held: 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 – However, in the
     present case, neither the documents/memorandums pertaining to
     the proceedings of sealing the samples/articles were exhibited in
     evidence nor did any of the prosecution witnesses gave evidence
     for proving the procedure – There is no evidence on record to
     show that the samples/articles collected from the dead body of the
     child-victim and those collected from the appellant-accused 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 – There is every possibility
     of the samples being tampered/manipulated by the police officers
     to achieve a favourable result from the FSL, thereby, inculpating
     the appellant in the crime – DNA/FSL reports cannot be read in
     evidence. [Paras 51, 54-56]
1484                                                      [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


                            Case Law Cited
    Rahul v. State of Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr. [2022] 9
    SCR 1129 : (2023) 1 SCC 83 – relied on.

                              List of Acts
    Penal Code, 1860; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
    Act, 2012; Evidence Act, 1872; Code of Criminal Procedure,
    1973.

                           List of Keywords
    Circumstantial evidence; Confession; Last seen theory; DNA/
    FSL report; DNA profiling; Recoveries; Forcible sexual assault;
    Child-victim; Confession extracted under duress; Confession
    not voluntary; Jagran function; Child victim went missing;
    Death sentence; Non-examination of the scientific expert;
    Forensic samples/articles; Post-mortem examination; Last seen
    circumstance; Undue haste; Just and fair manner; Denial of proper
    opportunity; Procedure of collection and forwarding of DNA samples
    to the FSL; Non-sealing of the forensic material; Examination-in-
    chief; Police officer verbatim narrated the confession made by
    accused; Contradiction in the evidence; Incriminating articles;
    Forensic examination; Chain of custody of the samples/articles;
    Lopsided trial; Trial not fair; Samples tampered/manipulated by
    the police officers.

                          Case Arising From
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
    630-631 of 2018
    From the Judgment and Order dated 05.01.2018 of the High
    Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in CRLA No. 156 and CRLR No.
    1 of 2017

                       Appearances for Parties
    Advs. for the Appellant:
    Nishant Sanjay Kumar Singh, Ashish Singh, Sadashiv.
    Advs. for the Respondent:
    Sumit Kumar, Shubham Arora, Manan Verma, Ms. Anubha
    Dhulia.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                               1485

        Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand


                        Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                                 Judgment

       Mehta, J.

1.     Heard.
2.     The accused-appellant1 was tried by the Fast Track Court/Additional
       Sessions Judge/Special POCSO Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh
       Nagar2 in Special Sessions Trial No. 159 of 2016 for the offences
       punishable under Sections 376A, 302, 366, 363 and 201 of the
       Indian Penal Code, 18603 and Sections 5/6 of the Protection of
       Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20124. Vide judgment dated
       5th April, 2017 and 6th April, 2017, he was convicted and sentenced
       in the terms below:

        Section                   Sentence

        376A IPC                  Death Sentence

        302 IPC                   Death Sentence

        366 IPC                   10 years Rigorous Imprisonment along with fine
                                  of Rs. 10,000/- and in default, to undergo Simple
                                  Imprisonment for 3 months.

        363 IPC                   3 years Rigorous Imprisonment along with fine
                                  of Rs. 10,000/- and in default, to undergo Simple
                                  Imprisonment for 3 months.

        201 IPC                   3 years Rigorous Imprisonment along with fine
                                  of Rs. 10,000/- and in default, to undergo Simple
                                  Imprisonment for 3 months.




1    Hereinafter. Referred to as the ‘appellant’.
2    Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘trial Court’.
3    Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘IPC’.
4    Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘POCSO Act’.
1486                                                           [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                                      Supreme Court Reports


3.     The trial Court forwarded a reference5 under Section 366 of the Code
       of Criminal Procedure, 19736 to the High Court of Uttarakhand at
       Nainital7, for confirmation of the death sentence. The appellant also
       preferred an appeal8 assailing his conviction. The High Court vide
       judgment dated 5th January, 2018 dismissed the appeal preferred by
       the appellant and answered the reference in the affirmative thereby
       confirming the penalty of death sentence awarded to the appellant
       by the trial Court. The said judgment of the High Court is the subject
       matter of challenge in these appeals by special leave at the instance
       of the accused-appellant.
4.     The case of the prosecution as unfurling from the record is that the
       child-victim, i.e., Ms. A9 went missing from a Jagran function which
       was organized in the village Fasiyapura on the intervening night
       of 25th/26th June, 2016. The father of the victim(PW-1)10 lodged
       an FIR11 to the effect that his daughter had gone missing from the
       Jagran function and all their efforts to trace out the girl proved futile.
       While he was continuing the search operations, someone told him
       that the body of a girl child was lying in a nearby field. On this, the
       complainant(PW-1) along with his family members rushed to the
       location and identified the dead body to be that of his daughter
       (child-victim). The complainant(PW-1) suspected that the child-
       victim had been subjected to forcible sexual assault before being
       killed. On receiving the FIR, Om Prakash Sharma, Investigating
       Officer(PW-14) commenced investigation. Spot documents were
       prepared, and an inquest was carried out on the child-victim’s dead
       body. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The body of the child-
       victim was sent for post-mortem examination. Dr. Madan Mohan,
       medical officer(PW-7) conducted autopsy upon the dead body and
       issued the post-mortem report12, taking note of multiple injuries on
       the private parts and the head of the child-victim. He opined that the



5    Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2017.
6    Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘CrPC’.
7    Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘High Court’.
8    Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 2017.
9    Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘child-victim’.
10   Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘complainant(PW-1)’.
11   FIR No. 236 of 2016 (Exhibit Ka-1).
12   Exhibit Ka-2.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                       1487

        Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand


      cause of death of the child-victim was asphyxia. Statements of the
      material witnesses were recorded. The appellant was apprehended
      on 28th June, 2016. It is alleged that the Investigating Officer(PW-14)
      got the confession13 of the appellant recorded through the Magistrate
      concerned. After concluding the investigation, a charge-sheet14 came
      to be filed against the appellant and he was subjected to trial. Upon
      completion of trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as
      mentioned above.
5.    The appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction also stands
      rejected and the death sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial
      Court has been confirmed by the High Court vide judgment dated
      5th January, 2018. Hence, the present appeals by special leave.
6.    Learned counsel representing the appellant urged that the entire
      prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence which is
      purely conjectural and untrustworthy. There is no tangible evidence
      on record to connect the appellant with the crime. The evidence of
      the witnesses of last seen circumstance, i.e., PW-2, PW-3, PW-5,
      PW-6, PW-8 and PW-11 is totally unreliable. Further, the DNA report
      cannot be read in evidence because the expert who conducted the
      DNA examination was not examined by the prosecution at the trial.
7.    Learned counsel further submitted that the confession of the appellant
      was extracted under threat, duress and coercion and that is why
      neither the trial Court nor the High Court relied upon the same.
8.    On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant implored the
      Court to accept the appeals, set aside the conviction of the appellant,
      and acquit him of the charges levelled against him.
9.    Per contra, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-
      State vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced
      by the learned counsel for the appellant. He urged that the material
      prosecution witnesses, i.e., PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, PW-6, PW-8 and
      PW-11, have given unimpeachable testimony alleging that the child-
      victim was last seen in the company of the appellant on the night of
      the incident whereafter she was not seen alive.



13   Exhibit Ka-11.
14   Exhibit Ka-17.
1488                                                     [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


10. Learned counsel further urged that the DNA expert’s report (Exhibit
    Ka-8) conclusively established that the DNA obtained from the t-Shirt
    of the appellant matched with the DNA obtained from the blood sample
    of the child-victim. Likewise, the DNA obtained from the hair of the
    suspect, vaginal smear of the child-victim and her clothes were found
    to be matching with the DNA obtained from the blood sample of the
    child-victim and the blood sample of the appellant. Learned counsel
    thus, submitted that the evidence of the witnesses of the last seen
    circumstance coupled with the DNA/FSL report is sufficient to bring
    home the guilt of the appellant. On these grounds, learned counsel
    for the respondent-State sought dismissal of the appeals.
11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
    advanced at the Bar and have gone through the impugned judgments
    and minutely reappraised the evidence available on record.
12. There is no dispute that the case of the prosecution rests totally
    on circumstantial evidence in the form of ‘last seen’, ‘recoveries’,
    ‘confession of the appellant’ and the ‘DNA/FSL report’. We may note
    that the confession of the appellant was exhibited in prosecution
    evidence but the same was not relied upon by the trial Court or the
    High Court and thus, the same need to be taken into consideration
    while appreciating the evidence available on record. Otherwise also,
    we find that the confession seems to have been extracted under
    duress and cannot be termed voluntary. The prosecution is, thus,
    left with the testimony of the witnesses of the last seen theory and
    the DNA/FSL report in its endeavour to bring home the guilt of the
    appellant.
13. Before we proceed to discuss the evidence of the prosecution
    witnesses, we may note that the present case is yet another classic
    example of undue haste resulting in denial of proper opportunity to
    the accused to be tried in a just and fair manner.
14. The sequence of events narrated below is sufficient to draw this
    inference.
15. The incident took place on the intervening night of 25th/26th June,
    2016. The charge-sheet came to be filed on 24th September, 2016
    and the trial Court took cognizance of the same on the very same
    day. The matter was deferred to 26th September, 2016 for providing
    copies of the documents submitted under Section 173(2) CrPC
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                        1489

        Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand


       to the appellant, as per the mandate of Section 207 CrPC. The
       matter was then deferred to 5th October, 2016 for the very same
       purpose. The order sheets of 5th October, 2016, 13th October, 2016,
       17th October, 2016, 19th October, 2016 and 1st November, 2016, all
       indicate that the matter was deferred for providing the copies of the
       relied upon documents to the accused (appellant herein). It was only on
       5th November, 2016 that the trial Court noted that the appellant had
       been presented from custody and the documents included in the
       chargesheet as relied upon by the prosecution were being provided
       to him. It must be emphasized that till this date the appellant was
       neither represented by a privately engaged defence counsel nor did
       the trial Court offer him the services of a legal aid counsel. On 5th
       November, 2016 itself, the trial Court proceeded to frame charges
       against the appellant even though he had been provided with the
       copies of the relied upon documents on that very day. Apparently
       thus, proper opportunity was not given to the appellant before framing
       charges against him and sending him for trial. Not only this, the trial
       Court extensively referred to the confession of the appellant recorded
       under Section 164 CrPC while framing charges against him. It is a
       different matter that the said confession was not relied upon either
       by the trial Court or the High Court, as a reliable piece of evidence
       against the appellant. On none of the dates fixed by the trial Court
       right up to the framing of charges and summoning of the witnesses
       did the Court make any endeavour to provide legal aid counsel to
       the appellant despite noting the fact that he remained unrepresented
       throughout the said proceedings.
16. Further, the Forensic Science Laboratory15 report was presented by
    the Investigating Officer(PW-14) on 1st and 3rd December, 2016 and
    the trial Court took it on record. However, the order sheets of the
    trial Court are totally silent on the aspect of whether the copy of the
    said FSL report was ever provided to the appellant. For the first time
    on 11th January, 2017, on the request being made by the appellant,
    one Shri S.P. Singh, Advocate, was appointed as an amicus curiae
    to represent him in the trial. It is pertinent to note that the recording
    of the evidence of prosecution witnesses began on the very same
    day, i.e., 11th January, 2017, and the process was concluded within



15   Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘FSL’.
1490                                                         [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


      27 days, i.e., on 6th February, 2017. During this short period, the
      amicus curiae appointed to defend the appellant was changed on
      31st January, 2017. In view of the above sequence of events, there is
      no possibility that the defense counsel could have had a reasonable
      opportunity to prepare the matter and conduct the cross-examination
      from the witnesses. Thus, it is established beyond the pale of doubt
      that the trial was not conducted in a fair manner and that the appellant
      was not provided with a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
17. Be that as it may, now we shall proceed to discuss the evidence of
    the prosecution witnesses who testified in the trial.
18. Brajpal Singh(PW-1), being the father of the child-victim gave evidence
    stating that his daughter (child-victim) went missing from a Jagran
    function. The dead body of the child-victim was recovered from a
    nearby field, whereby, he lodged the FIR16 at the Police Station
    Kashipur. This report came to be filed around 10:00 AM on 26th June,
    2016. However, what is most significant to note is that, although the
    witnesses of last seen circumstance claim in their depositions that
    they were present at the crime scene when the dead body of the
    child-victim was found, and police had arrived. Surprisingly, the FIR
    gives no indication whatsoever that anyone had seen the child-victim
    in the company of the appellant, who operated the sound and light
    at the Jagran function. The witnesses of the last seen theory claim
    to be present at the spot where the dead body was found but none
    of them divulged to the police officials who reached the spot that
    he/she had seen the child-victim and the accused-appellant moving
    together.
19. Jasweer Singh(PW-2) stated that he had come to the village Dhakiya
    Gulabo to meet his relatives. He also went to the Jagran function. The
    incident took place on the night of 25th June, 2016. In the morning of
    26th June, 2016, at about 6:15 AM-6:30 AM, he came to know that
    the dead body of a girl child was lying in the nearby field. Out of
    curiosity, he also went there. He claimed that the dead body which
    he saw was of the same girl, whom he had seen in the night time
    accompanying a person who was doing the work of sound and light
    in the Jagran function and was being addressed by the name Rajiya
    @ Raju, by other people. The witness stated that he had seen the


16   Supra note 11.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                      1491

      Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand


     child-victim going with the said person in the middle of the night. In
     cross-examination, the witness admitted that he did not know the
     appellant prior to the date of the incident.
20. What is important to note here is that the witness(PW-2) was not
    made to identify the appellant in the dock as being the person with
    whom the child-victim was seen going away.
21. Anand Pal Singh(PW-3) also testified almost on the same lines as
    Jasweer Singh(PW-2). This witness too did not identify the appellant
    in the dock as being the suspect with whom the child-victim was
    seen going away. However, both Jasweer Singh(PW-2) and Anand
    Pal Singh(PW-3) stated that the appellant was wearing spectacles.
22. Sheespal(PW-4) was a formal witness who gave evidence regarding
    the inquest proceedings and preparation of the inquest memo.
23. Smt. Rashmi Devi(PW-5) also gave evidence of last seen
    circumstance. She alleged that in the night at about 3 o’clock, she
    saw the person who was doing the task of sound and light at the
    Jagran function, talking to the child-victim. Thereafter, both of them
    were seen going towards Dhakiya Gulabo road. This witness also
    was not made to identify the appellant in the dock as being the
    person who was seen going away with the victim. She admitted in
    her cross-examination that she had never seen the appellant before
    the incident and that she identified him with the help of a photograph
    which was published in the newspaper. The witness(PW-5) further
    admitted that her statement was recorded by the police on the same
    day on which she saw the photograph in the newspaper. The fact
    that the photograph of the appellant was published in a newspaper
    and that this witness of last seen theory got wise about the identity
    of the assailant thereafter, makes her testimony suspect.
24. Munesh Singh(PW-6) is another witness of last seen circumstance.
    The testimony of this witness is also on the same lines as that of
    PW-2, PW-3, and PW-5. This witness also was not made to identify
    the appellant in the dock as being the suspect with whom the child-
    victim was seen going away.
25. Dr. Madan Mohan, medical officer(PW-7) conducted the post-mortem
    examination on the body of the child-victim. He opined that the child-
    victim had been subjected to forcible sexual assault and that she
    may have died as a result of asphyxia because of pressure applied
1492                                                      [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     during the act of sexual assault. He also conducted the medical
     examination of the appellant and collected samples of the appellant
     for serological and DNA examination. The medical officer made a
     vague assertion in his evidence that all the samples which he had
     collected were handed over to the policeman who had brought the
     appellant to the hospital. However, he neither disclosed the name
     of the policeman to whom the samples were handed over nor did
     he state that the samples were sealed and were handed over to the
     policeman in a secure condition. The witness did not refer to any
     document or receipt under which the samples were handed over to
     the policeman.
26. Brajesh Kumar(PW-8) deposed that the Jagran function was being
    conducted by his group i.e., the Ridhi-Sidhi Jagran Mandali and that
    the appellant was taking care of the sound and light arrangements.
    The appellant had worked with his group, on earlier occasions as
    well. The witness further claimed that after completing his task, the
    appellant was sitting near the place where the artists were changing
    their clothes. Sometime later, the appellant brought two small girls to
    the artists and suggested that they should be dressed up as Matas
    (Deities) but the artists refused, on which the appellant went away
    with the girls. On the next morning, the parents of one of the girls
    approached the group and complained that their daughter had not
    reached home whereafter, the witness(PW-8) also participated in
    the search proceedings. In cross-examination, the witness candidly
    admitted that he did not see the appellant taking away the child-
    victim with himself.
27. Saroj Kamboj(PW-9) was posted as the Sub-Inspector, Mahila Helpline,
    Kashipur. She took formal steps pertaining to the investigation. She
    handed over the dead body of the child-victim to Constable Neelam
    Kanta(PW-10) and Constable Naveen Sharma for the post-mortem
    examination. The witness also moved an application to the medical
    officer(PW-7) for conducting post-mortem examination and preserving
    the forensic samples for analysis. However, the prosecution did not
    take the trouble of proving this application in the testimony of PW-9.
    Nothing turns on the testimony of this witness so far as the charges
    against the appellant are concerned.
28. Neelam Kanta(PW-10) was a Lady Constable posted at CCR
    Kashipur. She also gave formal evidence in respect of the inquest
    proceedings on the dead body of the child-victim, etc. In her evidence,
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                      1493

      Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand


     there is nothing material which may connect the appellant with the
     crime.
29. Shiva Asthana(PW-11) claimed that he was the operator of the Ridhi-
    Sidhi Jagran Mandali and that the appellant used to do the work
    of sound and light for the group. The Jagran Mandali conducted a
    programme at the Fasiyapura T-Cross on 25th June, 2016. On that
    day, the appellant had accompanied them for doing the job of light
    and sound. After his work was finished, the appellant was sitting near
    the place where artists were changing their clothes. At about 2:30 AM
    in the night, two small girls were playing there whom the appellant
    took to the artists and suggested that they should be dressed up as
    Matas (Deities). The artists refused on which the appellant went away
    with the girls. When the witness was offered for cross-examination,
    the legal aid counsel provided to the appellant refused to continue
    with the case upon which another Advocate, namely Shri Neeraj
    Ranjan, was asked to represent the accused (appellant herein). The
    said counsel was not given any time to prepare the brief and was
    compelled to conduct the cross-examination on the same day. On a
    question being put to the witness(PW-11) in cross-examination, he
    answered that he did not see the appellant taking away the child-victim
    and that some persons who were doing the background decoration
    had given him this information. Clearly thus, the testimony of this
    witness on the aspect of identification of the accused-appellant is
    wavering and does not inspire confidence.
30. Prahlad Singh(PW-12) was posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station
    Transit Camp. He accompanied the Investigating Officer(PW-14)
    to the crime scene on receiving information about the incident. He
    arrested the appellant who was seen standing near a Petrol Pump.
    The witness also stated that when the appellant was arrested, he
    observed numerous stains of blood and semen, etc. on his t-shirt.
    The clothes of the appellant were seized and sealed. However, the
    witness remained totally silent regarding the fate of these articles
    after the same were allegedly seized and sealed.
31. Anuj Tyagi(PW-13) was posted as a Constable at Police Station
    Kashipur. He gave evidence regarding the transmission of the forensic
    samples/articles related to the case in compliance of the directions
    given by the trial Court. The witness stated that he deposited the
    articles at the FSL on 29th June, 2016. However, he was totally silent
1494                                                                 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                                    Supreme Court Reports


      regarding the mode and manner in which he received the sample
      packets. He also did not utter a word regarding the date of receipt
      and date of deposit of the samples.
32. Om Prakash Sharma, Inspector of Police(PW-14)17 conducted the
    investigation of the case. He carried out the inquest proceedings;
    prepared the site inspection plan and collected the forensic samples/
    articles from the place of the incident. The witness stated that during
    the investigation, on 27th June, 2016, the secret informers told him
    that rumors were rife amongst the villagers that the crime had been
    perpetrated by the appellant, and he had been seen by several
    persons, taking away the child-victim. Evidence of this witness
    completely impeaches the credibility of the witnesses of the last
    seen theory and creates a grave doubt whether they had actually
    seen the appellant taking away the child-victim from the crime scene.
33. The incident took place on the intervening night of 25th/26th June,
    2016. The witnesses of the last seen theory, i.e., Jasweer Singh
    (PW-2), Anand Pal Singh (PW-3), Smt. Rashmi Devi (PW-5), Munesh
    Singh (PW-6), Brajesh Kumar(PW-8) and Shiva Asthana(PW-11)
    categorically stated that they saw the appellant who was doing the
    job of sound and light in the Jagran function, taking away the child-
    victim with him. If at all, there was an iota of truth in this version of
    the witnesses of last seen theory, then there was no reason as to
    why they kept silent and failed to give this vital information to the
    police officers who arrived at the spot to investigate the matter in
    the early morning hours of 26th June, 2016. Manifestly, going by
    the evidence of the Investigating Officer(PW-14), no witness came
    forward with this theory till 27th June, 2016.
34. Furthermore, the witnesses of the last seen theory testified that
    they were already present at the site where the dead body of the
    child-victim was found, and police had also reached there in the
    early hours of 26th June, 2016. The FIR in respect of the incident
    came to be registered around 10:00 AM and the said FIR does not
    contain a whisper that anyone from the village had seen the child-
    victim in the company of the appellant, any time prior to her dead
    body being found.



17   Hereinafter referred to as the “Investigating Officer(PW-14)”.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                          1495

        Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand


35. Hence, in our considered opinion, the conduct of these witnesses in
    remaining silent and not disclosing to the police regarding they having
    seen the appellant taking away the child-victim with himself, completely
    demolishes the prosecution case regarding the theory of last seen.
36. We may also observe that indisputably, the appellant was not known
    to PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, and PW-6 from before. However, no test
    identification parade proceedings were conducted by the Investigating
    Officer(PW-14), to ascertain the identity of the appellant as being
    the suspect, who took away the child-victim with himself.
37. Further doubt is created on the bona fides of the Investigating
    Officer(PW-14) who had tried to stick the case on to the appellant
    by getting his confessional statement recorded but neither the trial
    Court nor the High Court placed reliance on the said confessional
    statement and hence, we need not delve upon the same because
    these concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts remain
    unchallenged and have attained finality.
38. The circumstance of the ‘last seen’ having been disbelieved and
    ‘confessional statement’ having been discarded, the only other
    circumstance which remains in the hands of the prosecution to
    connect the appellant with the crime as relied upon by the trial Court
    and the High Court are the DNA/FSL reports. The DNA/FSL reports
    were proved by Om Prakash Sharma, Investigating Officer(PW-14).
    The conclusions drawn in the DNA report18 are as follows: -
      •       The DNA obtained from the Exhibit-15 (t-shirt of accused)
              is from a single female human source and matching with
              the DNA obtained from the Exhibit-1 (blood sample of the
              deceased).
      •       The DNA obtained from the Exhibits-2, 3, 4 and 6 (hair
              of suspected, vaginal smear slide of deceased, paizami
              of deceased and underwear of deceased) are matching
              with the DNA obtained from the Exhibits-1 and 10 (blood
              sample of deceased and blood sample of accused).
39. The first flaw in the prosecution case on the aspect of DNA profiling
    is that the expert who conducted the DNA examination was not



18   Exhibit Ka-19.
1496                                                           [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


      examined in evidence and the DNA report was merely exhibited in
      evidence by the Investigating Officer(PW-14) who undeniably is not
      connected with the report in any manner. This Court in the case of
      Rahul v. State of Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr.19, while
      dealing with the issue concerning evidentiary value of DNA report,
      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 relevant excerpts from the said judgment
      are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference: -
             “36. The learned Amicus Curiae has also assailed the
             forensic evidence i.e. the report regarding the DNA profiling
             dated 18-4-2012 (Ext. P-23/1), giving incriminating findings.
             She vehemently submitted that apart from the fact that
             the collection of the samples sent for examination itself
             was very doubtful, the said forensic evidence was neither
             scientifically nor legally proved and could not have been
             used as a circumstance against the appellant-accused. The
             Court finds substance in the said submissions made by the
             Amicus Curiae. The DNA evidence is in the nature of
             opinion evidence as envisaged under Section 45 and
             like any other opinion evidence, its probative value
             varies from case to case.
             38. It is true that PW 23 Dr B.K. Mohapatra, Senior Scientific
             Officer (Biology) of CFSL, New Delhi had stepped into the
             witness box and his report regarding DNA profiling was
             exhibited as Ext. PW 23/A, however mere exhibiting a
             document, would not prove its contents. The record
             shows that all the samples relating to the accused and
             relating to the deceased were seized by the investigating
             officer on 14-2-2012 and 16-2-2012; and they were sent to
             CFSL for examination on 27-2-2012. During this period,
             they remained in the malkhana of the police station.
             Under the circumstances, the possibility of tampering
             with the samples collected also could not be ruled
             out. Neither the trial court nor the High Court has


19   (2023) 1 SCC 83.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                          1497

      Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand


           examined the underlying basis of the findings in the
           DNA reports nor have they examined the fact whether
           the techniques were reliably applied by the expert.
           In the absence of such evidence on record, all the
           reports with regard to the DNA profiling become highly
           vulnerable, more particularly when the collection and
           sealing of the samples sent for examination were also
           not free from suspicion.”
                                               (emphasis supplied)

40. 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. The
    incident took place on the intervening night of 25th/26th June, 2016.
    The dead body of the child-victim was picked from the crime scene
    by the Investigating Officer(PW-14) on 26th June, 2016 at 06:16 AM
    and was forwarded to Dr. Madan Mohan, medical officer(PW-7) for
    carrying out the post-mortem examination. The medical officer, while
    deposing on oath, stated that he collected following samples and
    articles from the child-victim’s dead body for forensic examination.
    The relevant excerpt from his testimony is reproduced below: -
           “The following tests were sent from the injuries of the
           deceased in her vagina.
           No. 1: Extract was collected from the vagina and four slides
           were prepared for spectro majoa and smegma bacilli test
           and were sent to laboratory. 5 ml. blood was taken from
           the body of the deceased and sent for DNA test.
           The hair stuck on the vagina of the deceased and blood
           accumulated outside the vagina were also sent for DNA
           test. The following clothes of the deceased were sent in
           a sealed bundle for semen and blood test.
           Clothing of the deceased: no.1. readymade blue under
           wear stained with blood and mud. Printed Salwar of
           the deceased of white and green colour, stained with
           blood. One small towel with yellow linings, one bracelet,
           number 5th:- Mud-stained shirt of the deceased. The chip
1498                                                     [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


          of the videography of all above samples of the deceased
          and of post mortem examination was sealed and handed
          over to the accompanied constables.”
41. The medical officer(PW-7) also testified that on 28th June, 2016 at
    about 12:44 PM, a Constable named Girish Kandpal brought the
    accused-appellant to the hospital for medical examination. The
    medical officer stated he collected the following samples from the
    appellant for forensic examination: -
          “On 28.6.2016 at 12.44 PM in the noon, Constable Girish
          Kandpal, P.S. Kashipur brought the accused. In general
          examination the accused was found healthy. On examination
          of sexual organs of the accused, dense hair were found.
          Skin over the glans of the penis of the accused was being
          folded easily. The glans was neat and clean. There was no
          blood mark but there were light mark of abrasion around
          the glans in the circle. I have taken following samples:
          (1)   Two slides were made from the swab of the glans
                for DNA test.
          (2)   Blood of the accused was taken for DNA test.
          (3)   Samples of hair from the stomach and outside of
                testicles were taken for DNA test.
          (4)   Two slides were made from the swab taken from the
                glans of accused for examination of spermatozoa
                and smegma vacilli.”
42. The medical officer(PW-7) also stated that the samples of the
    deceased as well as the appellant were handed over to the police
    officials who came to the hospital at contemporaneous points of time.
    However, there is not even a whisper in the statement of the medical
    officer(PW-7) that the samples collected from the appellant were
    sealed prior to being handed over to the police officials. Hence, at
    the very inception, the procedure of collecting the samples has been
    tainted on account of non-sealing of the forensic material collected
    from the accused-appellant.
43. Now, we shall discuss the evidence of the police officials who dealt
    with the samples/articles which were forwarded to the FSL/DNA
    laboratory.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                      1499

        Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand


44. Saroj Kamboj(PW-9), Sub-Inspector, stated that she gave an
    application20 to the medical officer(PW-7) at the L.D. Bhatt Government
    hospital for conducting the post-mortem examination on the dead
    body of the child-victim; to preserve the hair found on the reproductive
    organs of the deceased; to make slides of vaginal smear and to
    collect 5 ml blood for DNA test. However, Saroj Kamboj(PW-9) did
    not give any follow-up evidence regarding the fate of the samples,
    if any, prepared or collected from the hospital. Thus, her evidence is
    relevant only to the extent of submission of the aforesaid application.
    If we consider her evidence in the backdrop of the evidence of the
    medical officer(PW-7), we find that he did not utter a single word
    regarding any application having been submitted to him by any police
    official for collecting these samples/articles.
45. Neelam Kanta(PW-10), lady Constable, stated that she and Constable
    Naveen Sharma took the body of the child-victim to the hospital for
    the purpose of post-mortem examination. The Constable is completely
    silent regarding any samples having been handed over to her by the
    medical officer(PW-7). Rather, she gave a very surprising statement
    claiming that the Investigating Officer(PW-14) handed over the dead
    body to her and the male Constable for post-mortem examination,
    after duly sealing the same. We fail to understand as to why the dead
    body of the child-victim was sealed for the purpose of conducting the
    post-mortem examination. In sheer contrast, the medical officer(PW-7)
    did not utter a word in his deposition that when he received the dead
    body at the hospital, the same was sealed. Hence, there is a grave
    contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on this
    vital aspect of the case.
46. Prahlad Singh(PW-12), Sub-Inspector, stated that he, along with
    the other members of the police team, launched a search for the
    appellant, who was arrested on 28th June, 2016 while standing near
    a petrol pump. After being arrested, the appellant confessed to the
    crime and also stated that the clothes which he was wearing at the
    time of commission of the offence were placed by him in a bag which
    he was carrying in his hand. The appellant had also stated that he
    was intending to throw the clothes but before he could do so, he
    was caught by the police. We feel that the theory put forward in the


20   Exhibit Ka-9.
1500                                                      [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     testimony of the said witness that the appellant was carrying the
     worthless incriminating articles, i.e., his clothes with him in a bag
     for almost two days after the incident, is totally unbelievable. It is
     clear as daylight that these recoveries have been planted because
     it is hard, if not impossible, to believe that the appellant who was a
     free bird and had an ample opportunity to destroy the clothes would
     keep the same with him for almost two days after the incident so as
     to facilitate the police to recover the same at a later point of time.
47. 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.
48. Anuj Tyagi(PW-13), who was posted as a Constable at Police
    Station Kashipur deposed that he went to the FSL to hand over the
    blood samples, hair samples and two slides for DNA test relating
    to the case at hand. The case property was deposited vide receipt
    No. 694/2016 dated 29th June, 2016. The said witness also stated
    that constable Vijay Pal went to the FSL carrying with him the case
    property related to the case under the order of ACJM, Kashipur and
    higher police officials. Anuj Tyagi(PW-13) proved the signatures of
    said Vijay Pal on the documents. Nonetheless, no explanation is
    forthcoming from the record as to why Constable Vijay Pal himself
    was not examined by the prosecution.
49. What is significant to note from the evidence of Anuj Tyagi (PW-13)
    is that he did not utter a single word as to who handed him the
    sample packets and what was the condition of the sample packets
    when he carried the same to the FSL.
50. Om Prakash Sharma, Investigating Officer(PW-14), also gave
    evidence to the effect that he seized the forensic samples from the
    crime scene where the body of the child-victim was lying. He stated
    that the clothes of the appellant were also seized upon his arrest,
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                       1501

      Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand


     which were found stained with blood and bore marks of semen.
     Investigating Officer(PW-14) in his examination-in-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.
51. The Investigating Officer(PW-14) also deposed that the medical
    officer(PW-7) had handed over the samples/articles for forensic
    evaluation and DNA profiling which were duly sealed and were sent
    for scientific examination. However, the fact remains that neither the
    documents/memorandums pertaining to the proceedings of sealing the
    said samples/articles were exhibited in evidence nor did any of the
    prosecution witnesses gave evidence for proving this vital procedure.
52. A vague assertion was made by the Investigating Officer(PW-14) that
    on 26th June, 2016 and 28th June, 2016, the clothes of the appellant
    along with samples of his blood, hair and slides of vaginal smears
    and swabs of the child-victim were prepared and sent to the FSL for
    DNA profiling and forensic examination by the permission of the Court.
53. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the evidence of the Investigating
    Officer(PW-14) is totally silent regarding the deposit of these samples/
    articles in the malkhana of the police station or the mode and
    manner of transmission thereof from the police station to the FSL. No
    forwarding letter pertaining to the transmission of the samples was
    proved in the testimony of the Investigating Officer(PW-14) or any
    other police witness. The malkhana-in-charge of the police station
    was also not examined by the prosecution.
54. 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.
55. 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
1502                                                     [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


     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. Hence, there is every possibility of
     the samples being tampered/manipulated by the police officers so
     as to achieve a favourable result from the FSL, thereby, inculpating
     the appellant in the crime.
56. Consequently, we feel that the DNA/FSL reports cannot be read
    in evidence. Once, these reports of the FSL are eschewed from
    consideration, there remains no evidence on the record of the case
    so as to connect the appellant with the crime.
57. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial
    Court and affirmed by the High Court for the offences mentioned
    above cannot be sustained.
58. The impugned judgments dated 5th April, 2017 and 6th April, 2017
    passed by the trial Court and dated 5th January, 2018 passed by
    the High Court, do not stand to scrutiny and are hereby quashed
    and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges. He is in
    custody and shall be released from prison forthwith, if not wanted
    in any other case.
59. The appeals are allowed accordingly.
60. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeals allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey