PUTAI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2108 · Decided: 26-08-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2108 : 2025 INSC 1042
Putai  
v. 
State of Uttar Pradesh
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 36-37 of 2019)
26 August 2025
[Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The accused-appellants were convicted for the offences punishable 
u/ss.376(2)(g), 201 and 302 of Penal Code, 1860. The High 
Court dismissed the appeals against conviction preferred by the 
accused-appellants.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.376(2)(g), 201 and 302 – Allegation 
against the accused-appellants that they raped and murdered 
a minor girl – Trial Court convicted the accused-appellants 
for the offences punishable u/ss.376(2)(g), 201 and 302 of 
Penal Code, 1860 – Accused no.1 was sentenced rigorous 
life imprisonment u/s.376(2)(g) of IPC; seven years rigorous 
imprisonment u/s.201 of IPC and death penalty u/s.302 of 
IPC – Accused no.2 was sentenced rigorous life imprisonment 
u/s.376(2)(g) of IPC; seven years rigorous imprisonment u/s.201 
of IPC and rigorous life imprisonment u/s.302 of IPC – The 
High Court answered the death reference in the affirmative, 
confirming the death penalty awarded to accused no.1 and 
dismissed the appeals against conviction preferred by the 
accused-appellants – Correctness:
Held: 1. It is a settled tenet of criminal jurisprudence that in a 
case based purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution 
must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – The incriminating 
circumstances must be such which point exclusively to the guilt of 
the accused and are inconsistent with his innocence or the guilt of 
anyone else – In the instant case, the evidence on the record has 
fallen woefully short of proving the guilt of the accused-appellants 
by clinching evidence which can be termed as proving the case 
beyond all manner of doubt – Hence, appellants are acquitted by 
giving them the benefit of doubt. [Paras 78-80]
* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 
2109
Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh
2. A fact emerging from the statement of PW-1 is that he did 
not mention that the underwear of the child victim was found in 
the field of accused no.1 – The only fact in deposition of PW-1 
which is alleged as incriminating against accused no.1, was the 
narrative that his wife (PW-2) saw accused no.1 washing his 
hands and face and going into his house – This Court finds that 
there is nothing unnatural or unusual in this conduct of accused 
no.1 as it is natural to carry out these ablutions upon returning 
from work etc. – Further, accused no.1 has given an explanation 
in his s.313 CrPC statement that his parents were ill and were 
hospitalized on the date of the incident – In this background, 
the fact that accused no.1 was seen by PW-2 rushing into his 
house, changing clothes and going away cannot be treated to 
be a suspicious conduct or a fact which inculpates him in the 
crime. [Paras 28, 30, 35]
3. So far as the accused no. 2 is concerned, the theory set forth 
by the prosecution, that the comb used by accused no. 2 was 
recovered from the field and that the sniffer dog, after sniffing the 
said comb, led the police team to the house of the accused no. 
2 is also shrouded in a cloud of doubt – As there is a significant 
contradiction regarding the colour of the comb which was recovered 
by the police – Admittedly, there was no special feature in the 
recovered comb which was an ordinary plastic comb – Further, the 
procedure pertaining to the exercise of the sniffer dog and failure 
to prepare any contemporary document for the search by the dog 
squad makes the entire procedure doubtful – Hence, the theory 
propounded by the prosecution that the comb found at the spot, 
was of accused no. 2 falls flat to the ground and is unworthy of 
credence. [Paras 36-39]
4. The aspect regarding the recovery of the underwear of the child 
victim from the field of accused no.1 is concerned, the same seems 
to be a planted recovery and a creation by the Investigating Officer 
(PW-9) intended to give succor to the prosecution case – The fact 
regarding the presence of the underwear would definitely have 
been mentioned in the complaint (Exhibit K-1) filed by (PW 1) 
to the police – Omission of the fact is far too significant to be 
overlooked. [Para 43]
5. PW-7, being the medical jurist did not give any opinion regarding 
the cause of death of the child victim – She claimed to have taken 
two vaginal swabs and two vaginal smear slides, which were sent 
2110
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
for examinatio

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