Summary and Analysis of Putai vs State of Uttar Pradesh
1. Heading of the Judgment
Putai & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2025 INSC 1042
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date of Judgment: August 26, 2025
2. Related Laws and Sections
The case involved the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
Section 376(2)(g): Punishment for rape committed by one or more persons acting in furtherance of common intention (Gang Rape).
Section 302: Punishment for murder.
Section 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence.
The procedural aspects were governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), specifically:
Section 366: Reference to High Court for confirmation of a death sentence.
Section 313: Power to examine the accused.
Section 293: Provisions regarding reports of certain government scientific experts.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was also relevant, particularly:
Section 106: The burden of proving facts especially within the knowledge of a person lies upon that person.
3. Basic Judgment Details
Parties:
Appellants: Putai (Accused No. 1) and Dileep (Accused No. 2)
Respondent: State of Uttar PradeshOrigin of the Case: The appeals were filed against the common judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated October 11, 2018.
High Court's Decision: The High Court had confirmed the death sentence for Putai and life imprisonment for Dileep, upholding their conviction by the Trial Court.
Trial Court's Decision: The Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, had convicted both accused on March 14, 2014, and sentenced them on March 19, 2014. Putai was awarded the death penalty, and Dileep was awarded life imprisonment for the offence of murder.
Supreme Court's Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and acquitted both appellants, giving them the benefit of doubt.
4. Explanation of the Judgment
The Supreme Court's judgment is a detailed analysis of the prosecution's evidence, which was entirely circumstantial. The Court found the evidence riddled with inconsistencies, improvements, and a complete failure to establish a conclusive chain of events pointing solely to the guilt of the accused.
Background of the Case
On the evening of September 4, 2012, a 12-year-old girl went missing after she went to a field to answer the call of nature. Her body was discovered the next morning in a naked state in one field (Harikrishna Sharma's field), while her personal belongings like chappals, a water canister, and her underwear were found scattered in another field (Bhaktisharan's field), which was cultivated by the accused, Putai. An FIR was lodged for rape and murder. The investigation led to the arrest of Putai and another man, Dileep. The prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence, including their suspicious conduct, recovery of the victim's articles from Putai's field, a sniffer dog tracking a comb to Dileep's house, and DNA reports.
Prosecution's Case and Defense's Challenges
The State argued that the recovery of the victim's belongings from Putai's field, under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, placed a burden on him to explain how they got there. They also relied on the testimony of the victim's mother (PW-2), who claimed she saw Putai washing up and acting suspiciously and indifferent on the night of the incident. For Dileep, the prosecution relied on the theory that a comb found at the scene was sniffed by a dog that led police to his house.
The defense challenged the entire case. They argued:
The evidence was based on conjecture, not a complete chain of circumstances.
The DNA reports were unreliable, inconclusive, and procedurally flawed.
The "suspicious conduct" of the accused was a mere improvement, not mentioned in the initial FIR.
The story of the sniffer dog was undocumented and unbelievable.
The investigation was shoddy and failed to follow basic procedures for handling forensic evidence.
Supreme Court's Analysis and Reasoning
The Supreme Court meticulously dissected the evidence and found fatal flaws in the prosecution's case:
a) Flawed and Planted Recoveries: The Court noted a major contradiction. While the Investigating Officer (PW-9) claimed to have recovered the victim's underwear from Putai's field, the victim's father (PW-1), in his testimony and the initial complaint (Exhibit K-1), did not mention this crucial detail. The Court concluded that this recovery appeared to be "planted" by the investigation to strengthen a weak case.
b) Unreliable "Suspicious Conduct": The Court found the testimony of the victim's mother (PW-2)—that Putai was seen washing, changing clothes, and acting indifferent—to be an "exaggeration/improvement" as it was absent from the FIR. The Court reasoned that washing one's face after work is natural behavior and cannot be considered incriminating. Furthermore, Putai had a defense that his parents were hospitalized that night, which was admitted by the witness, providing a plausible reason for his haste.
c) Incredible Sniffer Dog Evidence: The evidence against Dileep, based on a comb and a sniffer dog, was thoroughly rejected. Witnesses gave conflicting descriptions of the comb's color, making its recovery doubtful. The Court found it impossible to believe that witnesses could identify a common plastic comb as specifically belonging to Dileep. Critically, the procedure was not documented in any contemporary police record, rendering it untrustworthy.
d) Fatally Defective DNA Evidence: This was the most critical flaw. The Court identified multiple breaches of procedure:
Chain of Custody: The prosecution failed to lead any evidence to prove how the blood samples of the accused were collected, stored, and transported to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). No documents like the malkhana register or receipts were exhibited.
Contradictory Reports: The first DNA report (Exhibit K-14) was inconclusive. A supplementary report, produced later during the High Court appeal, suddenly implicated both accused. This report was never put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC, and the expert who prepared it was never examined. The Court held it was inadmissible.
Consumption of Samples: The Court reasoned that the forensic samples would have been consumed during the first DNA analysis, making a subsequent report impossible and breaching the sanctity of the evidence.
e) Lackluster Investigation: The Court condemned the investigation for its serious lapses, including the failure to send the victim's clothes to the FSL, not examining the sample carrier or the malkhana in-charge, and not searching the houses of the accused despite allegations. The failure to examine any independent witnesses from the neighbouring fields also cast doubt on the investigation's bonafides.
Final Conclusion and Ruling
The Supreme Court emphasized that in a case based solely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must form a complete chain that unequivocally points to the guilt of the accused and excludes any other hypothesis.
The Court held that the prosecution failed to meet this standard. The evidence was replete with doubts, inconsistencies, and procedural illegalities. The only circumstance—the recovery of articles from Putai's field—was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, especially since the field was accessible to others.
Therefore, giving the appellants the benefit of doubt, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments of the courts below, and acquitted Putai and Dileep of all charges. The Court directed their immediate release from prison unless they were wanted in any other case.