Introduction:

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered a significant judgment reaffirming that a conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence can be sustained only when every link in the prosecution chain is firmly established and the circumstances collectively point towards the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the case concerning Gurpreet @ Gopi, the Division Bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur declined to confirm the death sentence awarded by the trial court and acquitted the accused after finding serious contradictions in the prosecution evidence, an unexplained delay in the disclosure of the alleged last-seen circumstance, doubts regarding the recovery of incriminating articles and material deficiencies in the chain of custody of the DNA evidence.

The matter arose out of the tragic death of a 12-and-a-half-year-old girl in the night intervening February 13 and 14, 2021. The child had allegedly gone missing while playing outside her home. Her family began searching for her, and during the course of the search, the accused was allegedly seen leaving his own house. A subsequent search of the premises led to the discovery of the child’s dead body in a rear room of the house.

The body was found smeared with blood, and the discovery gave rise to allegations of rape and murder. The police registered a case under Sections 364, 376-A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The prosecution case subsequently relied heavily upon the circumstances surrounding the recovery of the body, an alleged disclosure statement made by the accused, recovery of a hammer and the victim’s slippers, alleged last-seen evidence and forensic material said to connect the accused with the deceased.

The trial was conducted before the Fast Track Special Court dealing with POCSO cases at Jalandhar. The trial court accepted the prosecution’s case, convicted Gurpreet @ Gopi and imposed the extreme penalty of death. Since a death sentence requires confirmation by the High Court, a murder reference was placed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court along with the accused’s connected criminal appeal challenging his conviction and sentence.

The High Court undertook an extensive examination of the evidence and found that the prosecution’s case was not merely affected by minor discrepancies but by contradictions going to the very structure of the alleged chain of circumstances. The Bench examined the chronology of the police investigation, the circumstances in which the body was allegedly recovered, the statements of the family members and police officials, the alleged last-seen evidence, the recovery of the weapon and slippers and the forensic evidence.

One of the most significant problems identified by the Court concerned the timing of the initial information and recovery of the body. The official police version placed the receipt of information at approximately 4:10 a.m. on February 14, 2021. However, several private witnesses, including members of the victim’s family, consistently stated that the police had reached the village and that the body had been recovered on the evening of February 13 itself. The investigating officers did not support that version. The Bench considered these versions irreconcilable.

The Court was equally concerned by the complainant’s subsequent disowning of the very statement upon which the prosecution investigation had been built. The complainant asserted that his initial statement had not been correctly recorded and presented a materially different account implicating another person, Vikas @ Sonu. According to the evidence, Vikas @ Sonu resided with the accused, possessed the keys to the house and left the village the following morning. He was subsequently declared a proclaimed offender. Despite these circumstances, the police did not meaningfully investigate the allegations against him.

The Court found this omission particularly significant because the complainant himself proved the relevant document concerning the alternate suspect. The investigation, in the Court’s view, proceeded on a version which the complainant had himself disowned, while the alternate version was not adequately pursued.

Another important infirmity related to the alleged recovery of the hammer and the victim’s slippers pursuant to the accused’s disclosure statement. The Court compared the recovery evidence with the site plans and found that the articles were allegedly recovered from the very location where the body had already been discovered and where the police had previously conducted investigation. This raised a serious question as to whether the disclosure resulted in any genuine discovery of a new fact or merely enabled the police to formally seize evidence that was already within their knowledge.

The Court also scrutinised the testimony of the alleged last-seen witness. The witness claimed to have seen the accused taking the child away around 3:45 or 4:00 p.m. However, the witness did not disclose this allegedly crucial information to the victim’s sister during a telephone conversation, did not disclose it to family members after reaching the village and did not immediately inform the police even after the body was recovered. The alleged circumstance was brought forward only on February 16, two days after his statement to the investigating officer.

For the High Court, this unexplained delay substantially weakened the reliability of the last-seen theory.

The medical and forensic evidence also failed to provide the conclusive support necessary to sustain the prosecution’s case of rape and murder. The post-mortem examination did not disclose vulvovaginal or internal injuries. There was no semen or blood detected on the relevant swabs, smears or clothing of the deceased. Although the hymen was found ruptured, there was no indication establishing whether the rupture was recent. Semen was detected on the accused’s pajama, but the DNA profile was mixed and the prosecution was required to establish not merely the presence of biological material but also the integrity of the chain connecting the seized article to the material examined by the forensic laboratory.

The Court found a serious discrepancy in that chain. The recovery memo described the relevant garment as a navy-blue trouser bearing the word “Mavericks”, whereas the parcel actually received by the forensic laboratory 17 days later was described as a black-coloured pajama. No satisfactory explanation was furnished for the discrepancy.

In a criminal case where DNA evidence is relied upon as a decisive link, the integrity of the material from the moment of seizure until its forensic examination assumes fundamental importance. The High Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand, (2025) 3 SCR 1482, concerning the necessity of establishing the sanctity and unbroken chain of custody of DNA material.

Against this evidentiary background, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances. The mere fact that the body was found in the house associated with the accused could not, without proof of exclusive possession and other connecting circumstances, establish guilt. The evidence suggesting that Vikas @ Sonu also resided there further weakened the inference of exclusive possession.

The Bench ultimately refused to confirm the death sentence, allowed the accused’s appeal, set aside the conviction dated September 23, 2024 and acquitted Gurpreet @ Gopi by extending the benefit of doubt. The Court emphasised the fundamental principle that suspicion, even if strong, cannot substitute proof.

The judgment is particularly significant because it demonstrates the heightened responsibility of appellate courts in capital cases. Where the prosecution case rests on circumstances rather than direct evidence, every link must be carefully examined. And where substantial doubts arise concerning the reliability of witnesses, the integrity of forensic material and the continuity of the investigative chain, the criminal justice system cannot permit a conviction merely because the circumstances create suspicion.

Arguments of the Parties:

The accused was represented before the High Court through Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, assisted by Advocate Harparteek Singh Sandhu, while the criminal appeal was also represented through Legal Aid Counsel Rajiv Joshi. The defence challenged both the factual foundation of the conviction and the reliability of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution.

The principal argument was that the prosecution case was entirely circumstantial and that the individual circumstances relied upon by the State did not form a complete and unbroken chain leading exclusively to the guilt of the accused. The defence emphasised that the standard applicable to circumstantial evidence requires the prosecution to establish every incriminating circumstance beyond reasonable doubt and to demonstrate that the cumulative circumstances are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused.

The defence pointed to the serious contradictions between the testimony of private witnesses and police officials concerning when the police were informed about the missing child, when they reached the village and when the body was recovered. According to the defence, these were not peripheral inconsistencies capable of being ignored as normal variations in human recollection. They directly affected the chronology of the investigation and therefore the credibility of the prosecution narrative.

Particular emphasis was placed upon the complainant’s decision to disown his initial statement. The defence argued that the prosecution had built its investigation around a statement which the complainant himself said had not been correctly recorded. He subsequently referred to Vikas @ Sonu as a suspect and provided a version indicating that this individual had access to the premises.

The defence submitted that Vikas @ Sonu was not a speculative alternative introduced for the first time during the trial. The evidence showed that he lived with the accused, had possession of the keys and left the village shortly after the incident. He was eventually declared a proclaimed offender. Yet, according to the defence, the investigating agency failed to conduct a meaningful investigation into his possible role.

This omission, the defence argued, was particularly serious because the prosecution was required to establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt rather than simply construct a case against the most convenient available suspect.

The defence also challenged the alleged recovery of the hammer and slippers. It was argued that the articles were recovered from the same place where the body had already been found and where the police had already conducted their investigation. Therefore, the disclosure statement could not legitimately be treated as leading to the discovery of a new fact.

According to the defence, the alleged disclosure and recovery appeared to have been incorporated into the prosecution narrative after the relevant evidence was already within the knowledge of the investigating agency. If the police had already visited and processed the location, the subsequent formal recovery of articles from that same place could not acquire the evidentiary significance ordinarily attached to a discovery pursuant to information supplied by an accused.

The defence further attacked the alleged last-seen evidence. The witness who claimed to have seen the accused with the deceased allegedly failed to disclose this fact at several natural opportunities. He did not tell the victim’s sister during a telephone conversation, did not disclose it to family members upon reaching the village and did not tell the police immediately after the body was discovered.

The defence argued that if the witness had genuinely observed the accused taking the child away shortly before her disappearance, such information would ordinarily have been communicated immediately, especially after the child’s body was discovered. The unexplained delay therefore cast substantial doubt upon the witness’s credibility.

The defence also relied upon the medical evidence to challenge the allegation of rape. It was pointed out that the post-mortem examination did not reveal vulvovaginal or internal injuries, and that semen and blood were not found on the victim’s clothing or the relevant swabs and smears. The ruptured hymen, without evidence establishing when the rupture occurred, could not by itself establish recent sexual assault.

The presence of semen on the accused’s pajama was also challenged as insufficient to establish the prosecution case, particularly because the DNA profile was mixed and the chain of custody of the garment was seriously disputed.

The defence drew the Court’s attention to the discrepancy between the description in the recovery memo and the description of the garment received by the forensic laboratory. The first document described a navy-blue trouser bearing the word “Mavericks”, whereas the laboratory received a black-coloured pajama. The defence argued that such a discrepancy was fundamental because the prosecution was relying upon that garment as a major forensic link.

The State, represented by Senior Deputy Advocate General Mohit Kapoor, defended the conviction and the death sentence. The prosecution argued that the cumulative circumstances established the accused’s guilt. The State placed particular reliance upon the fact that the victim’s body was discovered in the accused’s house and argued that the accused was therefore required to provide a satisfactory explanation for the presence of the body.

The State also relied upon the forensic evidence. According to the prosecution, the semen and mixed DNA profile detected on the accused’s pajama provided an important scientific connection between the accused and the deceased. This evidence, according to the State, had to be considered together with the last-seen testimony and the recovery of the hammer and slippers.

The State also sought to counter the suggestion that Vikas @ Sonu’s presence created a reasonable alternative hypothesis. It was argued that no DNA evidence connected Vikas @ Sonu with the crime and that his alleged involvement had never been substantiated through forensic material.

The prosecution therefore maintained that the circumstances, taken collectively, were sufficient to sustain the conviction and that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence.

The High Court was consequently required to decide whether the prosecution had established a legally complete chain of circumstances despite the contradictions, delayed witness testimony, disputed recoveries and forensic inconsistencies highlighted by the defence.

Court’s Judgment:

The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the accused’s appeal and dismissed the State’s murder reference seeking confirmation of the death sentence. The Court set aside the judgment of conviction dated September 23, 2024 and the consequential order imposing capital punishment.

The Court’s decision was founded upon the settled principles governing circumstantial evidence. The Bench relied upon the celebrated five principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984), which require the circumstances from which guilt is sought to be inferred to be fully established, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, conclusive in nature, sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and capable of forming a complete chain.

The High Court found that the prosecution failed to satisfy these requirements.

The first major weakness concerned the chronology of the investigation. The official police record placed the first information at approximately 4:10 a.m. on February 14, 2021. However, PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5, who were private witnesses connected with the victim, gave evidence suggesting that the police had reached the village and recovered the body on the evening of February 13 itself.

The investigating officers denied this version. The Bench characterised the two versions as irreconcilable contradictions.

The importance of this discrepancy went beyond the question of the precise hour at which the police arrived. The prosecution’s entire investigative narrative depended upon the chronology of the discovery. If the body had already been recovered on the evening of February 13, the subsequent official version of information and investigation occurring only after 4:10 a.m. on February 14 became difficult to reconcile.

The Court therefore considered the contradiction material to the credibility of the investigation.

The Bench next considered the complainant’s disowning of his initial statement. The initial statement, Ex.P1/PA, was foundational to the prosecution’s investigation. However, the complainant subsequently stated that the statement had not been correctly recorded and gave a substantially different account implicating Vikas @ Sonu.

The Court found the situation deeply troubling because the investigation and collection of evidence had proceeded on the basis of a statement that the maker himself had disowned.

The Bench observed that “the investigation and collection of evidence to prove a disowned statement, itself renders the entire investigation, as flawed.” The Court also noted that Vikas @ Sonu had not been properly investigated despite the complainant himself proving Ex.P2 and despite the evidence concerning his residence with the accused, possession of the house keys and departure from the village.

The High Court did not hold that Vikas @ Sonu was necessarily the perpetrator. Rather, the significance of his presence was that the prosecution had failed to exclude a reasonable alternative possibility. In a case resting upon circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must eliminate circumstances which reasonably point away from the accused.

The Court then scrutinised the alleged recovery of the hammer and slippers. According to the prosecution, these articles were recovered pursuant to the accused’s disclosure statement on February 16, 2021.

The site plans, however, indicated that the articles were found at the same location where the body had already been discovered on February 14. The police had therefore already visited and investigated that location.

The Court concluded that the disclosure could not be treated as a genuine discovery of a new fact. The articles were allegedly located in an area already known to the investigating agency.

The Bench observed that the disclosure “carries no evidentiary value as it is not a discovery of a new fact but seizure of the evidence already to their knowledge but ignored only to create a chain of events to link the accused.”

This finding significantly weakened the prosecution’s reliance upon the recovery evidence. A recovery following a disclosure assumes evidentiary significance when the information supplied by the accused leads to the discovery of a fact previously unknown to the police. Where the investigating agency already knows the location and has already processed it, the subsequent seizure cannot automatically acquire the character of a discovery attributable to the accused.

The Court then examined the alleged last-seen evidence given by PW-2, the victim’s uncle. He claimed that he had seen the accused taking the child away around 3:45 or 4:00 p.m.

Ordinarily, last-seen evidence can be a relevant circumstance. But its reliability depends heavily pon the conduct of the witness and the proximity between