'Made Scapegoat By Police, Lopsided Trial': Why Supreme Court Acquitted Chennai Man Dashwanth In Rape-Murder Of Minor Girl
While acquitting Chennai man Dashwanth in a 2017 rape-murder case of a minor girl, the Supreme Court recently noted that mandatory requirements of a fair trial were violated in the case and Dashwanth was made a scapegoat by the police by planting recoveries.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta made the observations.
The Court noted that the prosecution case was based purely on circumstantial evidence in the form of,
(1) last seen together theory;
(2) Dashwanth's suspicious movement captured in the video footage of the CCTV camera installed at a nearby temple;
(3) confessional/disclosure statement made by Dashwanth leading to the incriminating discoveries/recoveries of: - (a) body of the victim; (b) undergarments of the victim; (c) bottles in which Dashwanth procured petrol for burning the body of the victim; (d) ornaments of the victim.
(4) Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports establishing the DNA profiling comparison.
Going through the material, it observed that the trial was lopsided from the inception and opportunity of effective defense/fair trial was denied to Dashwanth. "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 13th December, 2017, only after the charges were framed."
The bench noted that the documents relied upon by prosecution were not provided to Dashwanth and without complying with the mandate of Section 207 CrPC (S.230 BNSS), charges were framed against him on 24th October, 2017, when he was unrepresented. Further, the schedule for examination of 30 prosecution witnesses was fixed for four days starting from 18th December, 2017 without providing the services of a legal aid counsel to Dashwanth, "in gross disregard to the mandate of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the guidelines issued by NALSA".
Deprecating the above, the bench recorded that 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.
It was further held that the sentencing procedure was in violation of judicial precedents, including Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab. “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.”
Considering the aforesaid, the bench said that it could have remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh adjudication. However, given the fact that nearly 8 years had passed since the incident, and Dashwanth had suffered protracted proceedings, it was fit that the case be decided on merits. As such, it dealt with each circumstantial evidence cited by the prosecution and ultimately found that guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt.
Court's findings on each circumstantial evidence
Last seen theory
The prosecution case was supported by the testimony of one Murugan, who deposed that he saw Dashwanth with the victim on the day of the incident between 6-6.15 pm. But the Court noted that the search for the victim began around 7-7.30 pm, and at that time, the witness did not tell the victim's family about having seen the victim and Dashwanth together. Infact, the last seen together circumstance was put forth before the IO for the first time 2.5 months after the incident. As such, the Court concluded,
"We are, therefore, convinced that the circumstance of last seen together has been created by the Investigating Officer (PW-30) through the witness Murugan (PW-3) in order to lend credence to the otherwise weak case of the prosecution."
Video footage of CCTV camera
The prosecution produced as witness an incharge of a temple near the place of incident. This witness testified regarding a CCTV footage, which allegedly captured Dashwanth's movements on the fateful day. The Court however noted that the video footage was not procured and exhibited as per law and there was discrepancy in the testimonies of the complainant and the witness regarding what it showed. Further, the Court found it unlikely that the entire chain of events could be completed in the short time span of about 1 hour.
“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… as per the prosecution case, within a short duration of one hour, the appellant took the child victim to his apartment; ravished and then murdered her; packed her dead body in a bag; brought it down two flights of stairs and carried the same away on the motorcycle (which movement was allegedly captured by the CCTV camera). It is unlikely that this gory sequence could have been wrapped up within the small window of one hour.”
The Court was also constrained to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution for withholding vital piece of evidence.
“we find that the theory of incriminating CCTV footage also seems to be a fictional creation by the Investigating Officers to somehow trap the appellant for the crime…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.”
Dashwanth's confessional/disclosure statement
In the context of Dashwanth's confessional statement, the Court took note of the statement of the complainant and opined that the latter created grave doubt on the bonafides of the Investigation Officer's actions, in recording the disclosure statement and effecting recoveries in pursuance thereof.
It was observed that Dashwanth was shown to have been arrested on February 8 at 9 AM, but the complainant, as per his own testimony, was informed by that time about the minute details of the crime, efforts made to destroy evidence and location of the victim's body. "the confessional statement/disclosure statement (Exhibit P-8) of the appellant was purportedly recorded at AGS Park, Mugalivakkam from 9:05 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Hence, there was no possibility whatsoever that the Investigating Officer (PW-29) could have known all these facts so as to apprise complainant (PW-1) in the morning of 8th February, 2017 unless such facts were already in the knowledge of the said police officer, which is a more possible theory."
On other recoveries, such as the bag containing bottles filled with petrol and the victim's undergarments, the Court opined that the recoveries were planted. This was based on the fact that there was no mention of the bag in the observation mahazar and the rough sketch, as well as the testimony of a Village Administrative Officer, according to which she was informed of the tenor of Dashwanth's "confession" even before his arrest was made.
The Court also expressed serious reservation about the manner in which Dashwanth's entire confessional statement was permitted to be recorded in evidence of the Investigating Officer. The Court reiterated that only that part of the confessional statement can be tendered in evidence which led to some material discovery.
DNA profiling/FSL reports
The Court did not believe the DNA profiling reports, as Dashwanth's blood sample was collected after a gap of 4 months. It was further of the view that the chain of custody of the samples taken was not complete.
"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" the Court observed.
Case Title: DASHWANTH Versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, Crl.A. No. 3633-3634/2024
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 983