DASHWANTH versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2025] 10 S.C.R. 587 · Decided: 08-10-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 10 S.C.R. 587 : 2025 INSC 1203
Dashwanth 
v. 
State of Tamil Nadu
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 3633-3634 of 2024)
08 October 2025
[Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Trial Court found appellant guilty for the charges framed u/ss.302, 
201, 363, 366 and 354-B of the IPC and s.8 r/w. s.7 and s.6 r/w. 
s.5(m) of the POCSO Act. An appeal against the said conviction 
was dismissed by the High Court and confirmed the death 
sentence awarded to the appellant. Whether the prosecution has 
proved 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/disclosure statement made by the appellant leading 
to the incriminating discoveries/recoveries and (iv) FSL reports 
establishing the DNA profiling comparison, which constituted the 
entire edifice of the prosecution case and on which the conviction 
of the appellant was based.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 201, 363, 366 and 354-B of the IPC – 
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – s.8 
r/w. s.7 and s.6 r/w. s.5(m) – A 7 year old female child went 
missing – Later, a charred body of the child was recovered in 
furtherance of the disclosure statement made by the appellant 
herein – Trial Court found appellant guilty for the charges 
framed u/ss.302, 201, 363, 366 and 354-B of the IPC and s.8 
r/w. s.7 and s.6 r/w. s.5(m) of the POCSO Act – Appellant 
was sentenced in each of the aforesaid sections along with 
a death sentence – The trial Court also forwarded a reference 
u/s.366 of the CrPC for confirmation of the death sentence – 
Appeal preferred by the appellant before the High Court was 
dismissed and death sentence was confirmed – Correctness:
Held: 1. 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 
* Author
588
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
camera installed at a nearby temple; (iii) confessional/disclosure 
statement made by the appellant leading to the incriminating 
discoveries/recoveries and (iv) FSL reports establishing the DNA 
profiling comparison, which constituted the entire edifice of the 
prosecution case and on which the conviction of the appellant 
was based – It would not be safe to uphold the conviction of the 
appellant as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High 
Court – Thus, the conviction of the appellant and the sentences 
awarded to him, by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court 
are also set aside. [Paras 81-83]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 201, 363, 366 and 354-B of the IPC – 
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – s.8 
r/w. s.7 and s.6 r/w. s.5(m) – Appellant was found guilty for 
the charges framed u/ss.302, 201, 363, 366 and 354-B of the 
IPC and s.8 r/w. s.7 and s.6 r/w. s.5(m) of the POCSO Act by 
the Courts below – Whether the prosecution has proved the 
vital circumstance, viz., last seen together theory:
Held: The first and most critical circumstance on which the 
prosecution placed reliance was that of last seen together – The 
witness who gave evidence in support of this circumstance was 
PW-3, who claimed that on the fateful day, he saw the appellant and 
the victim playing on the second floor of the building, on the first 
floor whereof, the complainant (PW-1) being the father of the victim 
resided with his family – When the frantic process for searching 
the victim started, PW-3 claims to have informed the complainant 
(PW-1) that his daughter was not in the house and might be playing 
upstairs and advised him to go and look for her on the upper floor 
of the building – Had there been an iota of truth in the version of 
PW-3, he would definitely have told the complainant (PW-1) that he 
had seen the victim in the company of the appellant between 6:00 
p.m. to 6:15 p.m. on the second floor of the building – The glaring 
omission on the part of PW-3 in failing to share this vital information 
is also manifest from the complaint filed by the complainant (PW-1) –  
The theory put forth in the evidence of (PW-3) that he had seen 
the victim in the company of the appellant on 05.02.2017 i.e., the 
date of the incident, is nothing but a sheer concoction, bereft of 
credibility – The statement of PW-3 that the said witness, for the 
first time

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.