SC sets free death row convict in sexual assault & murder of 7-yr girl child

The Supreme Court has on October 8, 2025 set free a death row man by setting aside his conviction and sentence in a case of sexual assault and murder of a seven-year-old girl child in 2017. It said, regrettably, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, leaving it with no choice to acquit the accused despite heinous nature of the crime.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta allowed an appeal filed by Dashwanth against the Madras High Court's judgment of July 10, 2018 which upheld the conviction and sentence death awarded by the trial court on February 19, 2018.

The court found the trial in the case was conducted in a "lopsided manner" and the accused was made a "scapegoat" by police.

"While the present case pertains to the commission of a heinous offence involving a girl of tender age of 7 years, at the same time, we cannot ignore or bypass the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is duty-bound to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The onus is heavier in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence," the bench said.

The court emphasised, while it is acknowledged that the acquittal of an individual involved in a heinous crime can lead to societal distress and cause grave anguish to the victim’s family, the legal framework does not permit the courts to punish an accused person based merely on moral convictions or conjectures. 

"Each case must be adjudicated by the Courts rigorously on its individual merits and in strict conformity with the law, without yielding to public sentiment and external pressures," the bench said.

In the case, the court pointed out the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the vital circumstances, viz, (i) last seen together theory; (ii) suspicious movement of the appellant captured in the video footage of the CCTV camera installed at a nearby temple; (iii) confessional or disclosure statement made by the appellant leading to the incriminating discoveries or recoveries and (iv) FSL reports establishing the DNA profiling comparison, which constituted the entire edifice of the prosecution case.

The court also noted the appellant was not provided a counsel till the framing of charges, in violation of his constitutional right and the order of conviction and sentence was passed on the same date.

The accused residing in the same building was arrested on February 8, 2017 after the girl child went missing from her house. Later her charred body was found from a remote place.

Examining his appeal, the court noted, the theory put forth in the evidence of Murugan that he had seen the victim in the company of the appellant on February 5, 2017, i.e., the date of the incident, is nothing but a sheer concoction, bereft of credibility. 

"In addition, we find from the statement of Murugan that he, for the first time, divulged the information comprising the circumstance of last seen together to the 2nd Investigating Officer only on 24th April, 2017, i.e., more than two months and 20 days after the incident. We are, therefore, convinced that the circumstance of last seen together has been created by the Investigating Officer," the bench said.  

The court also found that the theory of incriminating CCTV footage allegedly indicating suspicious movements of the appellant also seems to be a fictional creation by the Investigating Officers to somehow trap the appellant for the crime.  

It pointed out, the Investigating Agency did not care to procure the recording of the said camera and exhibit the same in evidence. Hence, the primary evidence of the so-called CCTV footage is not available on record.

It is difficult if not impossible to believe that within this short window of 6:00 p.m. to 7:15 p.m., the entire chain of events could be completed, the bench said.

"Failure to collect the data from the Digital Video Recorder (DVR) of the CCTV camera, creates a grave doubt on the bonafides of the Investigation Agency. It seems that the Investigation Officers were intentionally trying to screen the truth from being brought on record and washed their hands off the matter, by making the appellant, a scapegoat," the bench said.  

The reliance placed by the prosecution on the so-called CCTV footage is nothing but a figment of imagination and cannot be accepted. Rather, this court is compelled to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution for withholding a vital piece of evidence, i.e., the CCTV footage, the bench added.   

The court also held the claim made by the prosecution that the dead body of the victim was recovered in furtherance of the disclosure statement made by the appellant was belied by cogent material available on record.   

"We have no hesitation in holding that recoveries of the bag, allegedly containing the bottles in which petrol was carried and the undergarment of the victim, were not effected at the instance of the appellant and were planted recoveries,'' the bench said.  

The court also noted a gross legal and procedural flaw in the recording of evidence, as the trial court permitted the Investigating Officer to narrate the entire confession purportedly made by the appellant.

It said, this in clear contravention to the mandate of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. 

"Allowing the Investigation Officer to extract the entire confession of the accused, in his evidence, apart from being grossly illegal, also have a propensity of clouding the mind of the court while appreciating the facts and would in turn cause grave prejudice to the accused," the bench said.

The court also pointed out, a perusal of the testimony of the Investigating Officer confirmed that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the chain of custody of the forensic articles/samples right from the time of seizure till they reached the FSL.  

"Since the sanctity of the samples was not proved by proper evidence, as a necessary corollary, the reports of scientific analysis would lose significance and cannot be relied upon,'' the bench said.   

Besides, the court noted right from the stage of framing of the charges, the trial was conducted in a lopsided manner and without due deference to the principles of fair trial. The appellant herein was not represented by a defence counsel, and the services of a free legal aid counsel were provided to him on December 13, 2017, only after the charges were framed.  

This was in gross disregard to the mandate of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the guidelines issued by NALSA, the court held.

"Recording of prosecution evidence was concluded within a period of one and a half months. In this background, we are of the firm view that the legal aid counsel appointed to defend the appellant could, by no stretch of imagination, have had a reasonable and effective opportunity to prepare the matter and conduct the cross-examination from the witnesses,'' the bench said.  

The court emphasised the constitutional right afforded to an accused charged with an offence to defend himself is not illusory or imaginary. 

"For the trial to be fair and reasonable, an effective opportunity to defend must be provided to the accused and representation by a counsel of choice is an important component of this guarantee," it said. 

In a case where accused is facing charges for offences which carry capital punishment, this constitutional mandate becomes even more sacrosanct, and it is the duty of the court as well as the State to ensure that the accused is not prejudiced or deprived of a fair opportunity of defending himself in a case where he may be awarded death penalty, the bench said.

The court pointed out the chronological list of events makes it clear that these mandatory requirements were totally bypassed/violated by the trial court while conducting the proceedings. 

"Hence, prejudice and denial of opportunity of effective defence to the accused are writ large on the face of the record,'' the bench said.  

The court also noted the conviction of the appellant was recorded on February 19, 2018, and on the very same day, the trial judge proceeded to undertake a pretentious exercise of hearing the appellant on the aspect of sentence and awarded the death penalty to him.

"Evidently, the manner in which the trial court proceeded to pass the sentencing order indicates hot haste leaving much to be desired and would vitiate the death sentence awarded to the appellant,'' the bench said. 

The court also pointed out, neither the trial court nor the High Court undertook the mandatory exercise of seeking a report of mitigating and aggravating circumstances; the psychological examination report of the appellant and a report concerning the conduct of the appellant in jail, before passing the order of sentence and confirming the same. 

Thus, the court held the sentencing procedure is in direct conflict with the judgments of this Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, Allauddin Mian and Ors. v. State of Bihar, Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab, and Dattaraya v. State of Maharashtra.

The bench, however, decided to examine merits of the appeal as almost eight years have elapsed since the incident took place, and the appellant has already suffered protracted proceedings of trial and appeal, while being incarcerated in custody.

In its final order, the court directed for forthwith release of the appellant, if not required in the case.

Case Title: Dashwanth Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta

Judgment Date: October 8, 2025