Dashwanth v. State of Tamil Nadu
2025 INSC 1203 (08 October 2025)
Justice: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Sandeep Mehta & Justice Vikram Nath
Questions for Consideration
- Whether the guilt of the accused was established beyond a reasonable doubt by circumstantial evidence?
- Whether the appellant was denied a fair trial in compliance with the Constitution’s Articles 21 and 22(1).
- Whether it was mandatory under Section 207 of the CrPC to provide relied documents before charges were framed.
- Whether the death penalty was imposed in contravention of the established sentencing principles.
Factual Matrix
Dashwanth (“Appellant”) was arrested for offences under Sections 363, 366, 354-B, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 5(m), 6, 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death in February 2018.
Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Madras High Court. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence by confirming the reference forwarded by the trial court under Section 366 of the CrPC, 1973.
Subsequently, the appellant filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court against the decision of the High Court. The appellant claimed that the entire case was based on circumstantial evidence and that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence.
He contended that the trial was conducted without giving a proper opportunity to defend himself, thereby violating the provision of Article 21, which guaranteed a fair, just and reasonable procedure. The entire procedure adopted by the trial court, from framing charges to recording evidence, was hasty and vitiated the fairness of the trial.
Furthermore, the appellant asserted that he was deprived of appropriate legal representation at the appropriate stage, as legal aid was provided much later, which was a clear violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
It was also argued that the mandatory requirement of supplying all relevant documents at the time of framing charges, as provided under Section 207 CrPC, was not complied with by the prosecution. The appellant submitted that passing the death sentence was in contravention of the established principles of sentencing as laid down by the court.
The State, however, asserted that the chain of circumstantial evidence completely established the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Both the trial court and the High Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and rightly imposed the death penalty.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, observing that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court set aside the judgments of the subordinate courts and ordered the appellant’s immediate release by quashing all charges against him.
Reasons for the Decision
Failure of Circumstantial Evidence: Unbroken Chain
The Supreme Court held that the circumstantial evidence must establish only one hypothesis of guilt. The case based on circumstantial evidence failed to satisfy the test laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116. Reiterated, a complete and unbroken chain of evidence must be present, including the absence of any hypothesis of innocence.
The theory of last seen was not reliable, as there was no independent corroboration to link the accused with the death. The prosecution relied on recoveries made in furtherance of the disclosure statement of the appellant.
The appellant specifically pleaded that allowing the investigating officer to build the entire case based on the confession made by the accused in his testimony was a violation of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The Court further noted serious deficiencies concerning the forensic evidence. There was no proof regarding the proper collection, storage, and transport of forensic samples.
By referring to the ruling in Prakash Nishad v. State of Maharashtra (2023 SCC Online SC 666), the Court observed that the collected samples were not reliable due to uncertainty surrounding the chain of custody. Therefore, the forensic report based on such samples was also not reliable.
Violation of Article 21 and 22(1): Denial of Fair Trial
The Supreme Court found that the accused had been denied a fair trial because he was not provided the services of a legal aid counsel at the appropriate stage.
Although a legal aid counsel was eventually appointed, he was granted merely four days to prepare the defence, which was insufficient for a capital offence trial.
The Court reiterated that the right to legal aid and proper representation are fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution.
Relying on Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1637, the Court observed that the appellant has the right to experienced legal aid counsel with sufficient time to prepare the defence.
The Court emphasised that courts are not mute spectators and must actively ensure fairness in criminal proceedings.
Section 207 CrPC: Mandatory Supply of Documents
The appellant argued that there was a violation of Section 207 of the CrPC, which mandates that copies of all documents relied upon by the prosecution must be provided to the accused before trial.
In the present case, crucial documents were obtained after the charges were framed. The Court observed that the trial was conducted in a hasty manner and stood vitiated, ultimately resulting in the denial of a fair trial.
Capital Sentencing: Violation of Basic Principles
The Supreme Court found that the lower courts failed to analyse mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
No report was sought regarding the psychological evaluation or jail conduct of the appellant. The mandatory safeguards laid down in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, Allauddin Mian, and Dattaraya v. State of Maharashtra were completely ignored.
Accordingly, the death sentence awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court was held liable to be set aside.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant and ordered his release from custody, holding that both the trial court and the High Court had ignored major flaws and loopholes in the prosecution case.
Since the vital points were neither properly addressed nor proved beyond a reasonable doubt, it would not be correct to uphold the conviction.
