5 min readVadodaraFeb 10, 2026 09:24 AM IST
First published on: Feb 10, 2026 at 09:24 AM IST
THE SEIZURE of blood-stained clothes – that had led to the conviction and death penalty handed out to a man in connection with a 2018 rape and murder of a minor girl – became the ground for his acquittal as the Gujarat High Court raised “serious legal lacuna” on the admissibility of the forensic evidence of the clothes as they were not seized by the police station were the POCSO case was registered.
The court noted that the prosecution had failed to prove that the blood-stained clothes seized by a different police station and handed over to the police station, where the said POCSO case was lodged, “were worn by the convict on the date of the rape and murder of the victim”. The court also held that the DNA evidence in the case is “unreliable and cannot be a sole basis to record the conviction” as the DNA report was part of the deposition of the Investigating Officer (IO) and the expert had not been examined.
A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court comprising Justice Ilesh J Vora and Justice RT Vachhani was hearing an appeal against conviction as well as a criminal confirmation case to confirm the death penalty handed out to the appellant-convict in a Special POCSO and Atrocity case by the Additional Sessions Court at Rajkot in 2020. Examining the evidence put forth before the court and the submissions of the advocates and the public prosecutors, the court held that “criminal law does not permit conviction on conjectures or on a hunch and when the prosecution failed to prove the charge through admissible and reliable evidence… even in a case involving horrific crimes.”
The case of the prosecution was that the convict had “secretly kidnapped” the deceased child, who was playing near the workplace of her parents and then taken to an isolated and dilapidated building, where he sexually abused and killed the child when she tried to scream. The dead body of the child was recovered on February 12 and the post-mortem revealed multiple injuries on the head and face as the cause of death while signs of sexual assault were also indicated.
According to the prosecution, after committing the crime on February 9, 2018, the convict had also been arrested by another police station in an offence of murder and robbery and his clothes, stained with blood (from the POCSO case) were seized by the police. He was then arrested in the POCSO case on the basis of a transfer warrant.
The judgment pronounced by the court on Friday, states, “…the panchnama of seizure of clothes (was) allegedly drawn by (the second) Police Station. In such circumstances, how the seized clothes came in the hands of (POCSO case) Police Station… and how the clothes had been sent to the FSL, that facts have not been proved and established. Thus, we find a serious legal lacuna on the aspect of admissibility of the evidence of forensic science as the clothes on which the bloodstained found were not seized in the present case and if it is so, then, how the clothes being seized and collected by the Investigating Officer in the present case… in absence of such clarification and admissible evidence… the sole evidence of the DNA report cannot be a ground to convict the accused appellant.”
Holding that the nature of the circumstantial evidence in the case was “not so conclusive”, the court also questioned the failure of the prosecution to examine the forensic expert.
The judgment states, “The DNA report… is in the deposition of the IO and to prove the applied methodology for preparation of DNA result, the scientific officer… Who is the expert of the subject is required to be examined but somehow the prosecution failed to examine the scientific officer and the doctor who had taken the samples for DNA analysis. The DNA report shows that the bloodstain found on the… articles which are the shirt and pants of the accused matched with the blood group of the deceased…”
Stating that DNA profiling report cannot be admitted in evidence ipso and that it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the techniques of DNA profiling were reliably applied by the expert, the court order cited observations in other judgments stating that “where the forensic science, especially DNA profiling is relied upon in a case built solely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish an unimpeachable chain of custody and call the proper expert witness; failure to do so (renders) the scientific result inadmissible and insufficient for conviction.” The judgment noted the observation of the Supreme Court that modern forensic science is a double edge sword; it can clinch cases but only if every procedure safeguard is honoured.
Stating that the case is not of “defective investigation” but that the “core evidence” collected by the police is “not credible and consistent” and the lapses are “not minor”, the evidence cannot be taken as legally admissible evidence. The judgment further acquitted the convict of all charges by setting aside the conviction and the death sentence handed out in 2020. The HC also directed that since the accused is in jail, he can be released “unless his custody is necessary in any other case”.
The judgment states that the amount to be deposited by the petitioner shall be transmitted to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority and shall be "spent in the welfare project for orphan children". (File Photo) 
Share
