Rape Conviction Cannot Rest on Suspicion; Break in Forensic Chain Leads to Acquittal: Uttarakhand HC

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that a conviction for rape cannot be sustained on suspicion or moral shock in the absence of legally proved and reliable evidence, ruling that deficiencies in establishing the chain of custody of forensic exhibits can erode the evidentiary value of scientific material and entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt.

The Court emphasised that while cases involving vulnerable victims require heightened judicial sensitivity, the foundational principle of criminal law, proof beyond reasonable doubt, cannot be diluted.

A Division Bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani and Justice Ashish Naithani partly allowed the appeal of one convict and fully allowed that of the co-accused, setting aside their convictions for gang rape and aggravated rape.

The Court ordered the immediate release of Bhup Singh after acquitting him of all rape charges and directed the release of Mool Chandra upon affirming his conviction only for kidnapping from lawful guardianship under Section 363 IPC, noting that he had already undergone the sentence awarded for that offence.

The case arose from the disappearance of a woman with intellectual disability who was later found in a frightened condition with blood-stained clothes and bodily injuries. The prosecution alleged that she had been sexually assaulted by the two accused. The trial court had convicted both under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(l) and 376-D IPC.

The High Court first clarified that although the victim was initially believed to be a minor, medical and documentary evidence established her biological age between 18 and 20 years. However, the Court held that her intellectual disability rendered her incapable of independent decision-making, bringing her within the protective scope of “lawful guardianship” under Section 361 IPC.

On the question of rape, the Court undertook a detailed scrutiny of medical, forensic, electronic and circumstantial evidence.

The medical examination, conducted about three days after the incident, recorded genital injuries but gave no definite opinion regarding rape. No spermatozoa were found in the vaginal smear.

The Court held that these findings were suggestive of sexual activity but insufficient by themselves to identify the perpetrator.

The prosecution relied heavily on forensic evidence, particularly the DNA profile allegedly linking Bhup Singh to the victim through semen stains on an undergarment. However, the Court found that the foundational requirement of proving an unbroken chain of custody had not been satisfied.

There was no contemporaneous seizure memo for the undergarment, no clear malkhana entry, and the constable who transported the samples to the FSL was not examined. In the absence of documentary proof demonstrating safe custody and transmission of the exhibits, the possibility of tampering or substitution could not be ruled out.

The Court reiterated that the evidentiary value of forensic science lies not only in laboratory results but in the integrity of the process from collection to examination.

Since this link was missing, the forensic material lost its conclusive character.

It further held that once participation of more than one person in the sexual act was not proved, the statutory foundation of gang rape under Section 376-D IPC collapsed.

Accordingly, Bhup Singh was acquitted of all rape charges.

With respect to Mool Chandra, the Court noted that the forensic evidence conclusively excluded him from the act of sexual assault. No semen, blood or DNA connecting him with the victim was found on any exhibit.

However, the CCTV footage, duly proved with a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, showed him leading the victim away. Call detail records also placed him in the relevant area.

Since the victim, owing to intellectual disability, was incapable of making an informed choice and remained under the care of her family, the act of taking her away without the guardian’s consent squarely attracted Section 361 IPC.

The Court therefore held him guilty only of kidnapping from lawful guardianship under Section 363 IPC, while setting aside his convictions for rape and procuration.

Reiterating the centrality of the standard of proof in criminal trials, the Court observed that suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute for legal sees evidence.

Case Title: Mool Chandra @ Moola v. State of Uttarakhand with Bhup Singh @ Bhupali v. State of Uttarakhand

Bench: Justice Ravindra Maithani and Justice Ashish Naithani

Date of Judgment: 12.02.2026