Is Failure to Establish Guilt Sufficient Ground for Acquittal?

The criminal justice system is founded on the bedrock principle that no person shall be convicted unless their guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt. This standard serves as a vital safeguard against wrongful convictions, reflecting the adage that it is better for ten guilty persons to escape than for one innocent to suffer. Yet, practical difficulties often arise in cases dependent on circumstantial evidence, questionable forensic material, and contradictions in witness testimony. Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

The Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal Nos. 36–37 of 2019) provides a critical lens to examine this principle. The case involved the brutal rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl, where the prosecution’s reliance on circumstantial evidence, alleged recovery of articles, and disputed DNA reports eventually collapsed, leading to acquittal.

This article explores whether failure to conclusively establish guilt is sufficient ground for acquittal, analyzing the Court’s reasoning in this case alongside established jurisprudence.

Legal Framework: Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

In India, the standard of proof in criminal trials is that guilt must be established “beyond reasonable doubt”, a principle embodied in the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Indian Evidence Act, now corresponding to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA).

Case Background: Putai v. State of U.P.

Facts in Brief

• On 4 September 2012, a 12-year-old girl went missing after leaving home to attend to nature’s call.
• Her dead body was discovered the next morning in a nearby field, with signs of sexual assault and strangulation.
• Articles like slippers, a water canister, underwear, and a comb were allegedly recovered from fields under cultivation of the accused.
• The trial court convicted both accused—Putai and Dileep—under Sections 376(2)(g), 302, and 201 IPC, awarding death penalty to Putai.
• The Allahabad High Court confirmed the conviction and death sentence.
• On appeal, the Supreme Court re-examined the evidence in detail.

Issues

1. Whether the circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies conclusively proved the accused’s guilt.
2. Whether the recovery of articles (slippers, underwear, water canister, comb) linked the accused to the crime.
3. Whether DNA reports, especially the supplementary report, could be relied upon.
4. Whether suspicion and abnormal conduct of the accused were sufficient to sustain conviction.

Analysis of the Court

1. Contradictions in Witness Testimony

• The prosecution relied heavily on villagers’ accounts:
• PW-1 (father) and PW-2 (mother) alleged that they saw accused Putai behaving “suspiciously,” washing his face, or changing clothes.
• The Court held that these were normal acts of any farmer and could not be treated as incriminating.
• Moreover, there were improvements from earlier statements, making them unreliable.

2. Recovery of Articles

• The underwear allegedly recovered from Putai’s field was not mentioned in the FIR, raising doubts about it being a planted recovery.
• Witnesses gave contradictory versions about the colour of the comb allegedly belonging to Dileep. The Court noted that an ordinary plastic comb cannot be linked to any individual with certainty.

3. Forensic Evidence and DNA Reports

• The first DNA report (2014) was inconclusive.
• A supplementary report (2017) was introduced during appeal but:

It was never put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC.

The expert was not recalled for examination.

Chain of custody of samples was not proved.

Contradictions existed regarding the number of slides collected during post-mortem.

The Court held that such evidence was inadmissible and could not form the basis of conviction.

4. Circumstantial Evidence

The Court reiterated the principle from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda—the chain of circumstances must be complete and must point only to the guilt of the accused. Here:

• The fields were open and accessible to others.
• The accused were not last seen with the victim.
• No direct evidence existed.
• Suspicion, even if strong, cannot replace proof.

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court found glaring deficiencies:

• Failure to establish chain of custody for forensic evidence.
• Contradictions in witness accounts.
• Non-examination of key witnesses like malkhana in-charge or sample carriers.
• Planting of recoveries could not be ruled out.

Thus, holding that the prosecution had “fallen woefully short of proving guilt beyond doubt,” the Court set aside convictions and acquitted the appellants by giving them the benefit of doubt.

Key Highlights of the Decision

Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta stated:

“We are conscious that the case involves a gruesome act of rape and brutal murder of a tender girl child aged 12 years. However, 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.

Having considered and analyzed the evidence available on record minutely, we feel that the prosecution 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, we are left with no option but to acquit the appellants by giving them the benefit of doubt. The appeals thus succeed and are hereby allowed.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Putai v. State of U.P. underscores the cardinal principle of criminal law: failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt is sufficient ground for acquittal. Suspicion, abnormal behaviour, or incomplete circumstantial evidence cannot justify conviction.

The case reaffirms that acquittal is not a judicial favour but a constitutional necessity when prosecution fails. At the same time, it calls for urgent reforms in investigation and forensic science to ensure that guilty offenders are convicted without compromising safeguards for the innocent.