KARANDEEP SHARMA @ RAZIA @ RAJU versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Citation: [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1482 · Decided: 04-03-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1482 : 2025 INSC 444
Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju 
v. 
State of Uttarakhand
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 630-631 of 2018)
04 March 2025
[Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and  
Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, whether the concurrent 
conviction of the appellant-accused for the kidnapping, rape/sexual 
assault and murder of a minor is sustainable.
Headnotes†
Circumstantial evidence – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.376A, 302, 
366, 363, 201 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences 
Act, 2012 – ss.5, 6 – Kidnapping, rape/sexual assault and 
murder of minor – Case based on circumstantial evidence – 
Appellant was convicted, death sentence awarded  – 
Sustainability:
Held: Unsustainable – Prosecution relied totally on circumstantial 
evidence in the form of last seen theory, recoveries, DNA/FSL 
report and the confession of the appellant – The witnesses 
remained silent and did not disclose to the police regarding 
they having seen the appellant taking away the child-victim with 
himself, thus, the prosecution case regarding the theory of last 
seen is demolished – Further, non-examination of the scientific 
expert who carried out the DNA profiling is fatal – DNA report 
was merely exhibited in evidence by the IO (PW-14) who was 
not connected with the report in any manner – The procedure of 
collecting the samples was also tainted on account of non-sealing 
of the forensic material collected from the appellant – Thus, 
DNA/FSL reports cannot be read in evidence – Furthermore, 
the recoveries were planted as the appellant would not keep 
the clothes with him for almost two days after the incident so 
as to facilitate the police to recover the same at a later point 
of time – The confession was also extracted under duress and 
* Author
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 
1483
Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand
was not voluntary and as a matter of fact was not even relied 
upon by the Courts below – Trial was not conducted fairly 
and the appellant was not given a reasonable opportunity to 
defend himself – No evidence to connect the appellant with the 
crime  – Impugned judgments set aside – Appellant acquitted. 
[Paras 12, 16, 35, 39, 40, 42, 46, 56-58]
Circumstantial Evidence – Confession – Evidence Act, 1872 – 
ss.24, 25, 26 – PW-12 (Sub-Inspector) narrated the entire 
confession of the appellant-accused in his examination-in-
chief – Lopsided trial:
Held: The procedure adopted by the trial Court in permitting a police 
officer to verbatim narrate the confession made by an accused 
during investigation is grossly illegal and contrary to the mandate 
of ss.24, 25 and 26 – Trial Court also allowed the confessional 
statement of the appellant to be exhibited in the evidence of the 
witness, which further establishes that the trial was conducted in 
a totally distorted manner. [Paras 16, 47]
Circumstantial Evidence – DNA Report – When inadmissible:
Held: In order to make the DNA report acceptable, reliable and 
admissible, the prosecution would first be required to prove the 
sanctity and chain of custody of the samples/articles right from 
the time of their preparation/collection till the time they reached 
the FSL – For this purpose, the link evidence would have to be 
established by examining the concerned witness – However, in the 
present case, neither the documents/memorandums pertaining to 
the proceedings of sealing the samples/articles were exhibited in 
evidence nor did any of the prosecution witnesses gave evidence 
for proving the procedure – There is no evidence on record to 
show that the samples/articles collected from the dead body of the 
child-victim and those collected from the appellant-accused which 
were later forwarded to the FSL were properly sealed or that the 
same remained in a self-same condition right from the time of the 
seizure till they reached the FSL – No witness from the FSL was 
examined by the prosecution to prove that the samples/articles 
were received in a sealed condition – There is every possibility 
of the samples being tampered/manipulated by the police officers 
to achieve a favourable result from the FSL, thereby, inculpating 
the appellant in the crime – DNA/FSL reports cannot be read in 
evidence. [Paras 51, 54-56]
1484
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Case Law Cited
Rahul v. State of Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr. [2022] 9 
SCR 1129 : (2023) 1 SCC 83 – relied on.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Protect

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