'Easy Prey' Found In Orphan Man With Little Means To Defend Himself: P&H High Court Acquits Death-Row Convict In Minor's Rape-Murder Case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted a man sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl, after finding the prosecution's case on circumstantial evidence riddled with unexplained contradictions, a suspiciously delayed "last seen" witness, and serious doubts about the sanctity of the DNA sample chain of custody.

The division bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur said, "It seems that the Investigating Agency found an easy prey in the appellant-accused Gurpreet @ Gopi who is an orphan and has no other member of the family and with no stable means of sustenance to douse the unrest and commotion which may have arisen as a result of a perceived rape and murder of a minor girl child. The accused with no members of family to pursue his defence and with minimal means of defending himself thus have little shot."

The case arose from the discovery, on the night of 13/14.02.2021, of the dead body of a 12-and-a-half-year-old girl in the rear room of the house of her neighbour.

The girl had allegedly gone missing while playing outside her home; when her family began searching, the accused was seen leaving his own house, and a subsequent search revealed her body, smeared in blood, in his rear room. An FIR was registered under Sections 364, 376-A, 302, 201 IPC and Section 6 POCSO.

On the accused's disclosure, a hammer and the victim's slippers were allegedly recovered, and forensic examination of his pajama showed a mixed DNA profile matching both the accused and victim. The trial court (Fast Track Special Court, POCSO, Jalandhar) convicted the accused and awarded him the death sentence, leading to the present murder reference for confirmation and the accused's connected appeal.

The Amicus Curiae for the accused argued that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions between the private witnesses (the victim's family) and official police witnesses on the date and time the police were informed, when and in whose presence the body was recovered, and when the accused was arrested. It was pointed out that the complainant, disowned his own initial statement as inaccurate and asserted a materially different version naming one Vikas @ Sonu — who resided with the accused, fled the village the next morning, and was later declared a proclaimed offender — as a suspect never investigated by police.

The State argued that the house was in the accused's exclusive possession, requiring him to explain the presence of the body; that DNA and semen evidence on his pajama, combined with the last-seen testimony, established guilt; and that the co-accused Vikas @ Sonu's alleged involvement was never substantiated by any DNA match.

The Court undertook an exceptionally detailed, paragraph-by-paragraph dissection of the record, identifying the following core infirmities:

Contradictions on timeline and recovery: The official version placed the police's first information at 4:10 AM on 14.02.2021, while the private witnesses (PW-1, PW-4, PW-5) consistently testified that police reached the village and recovered the body on the evening of 13.02.2021 itself, in the police's presence — a version the investigating officers themselves denied. The Court held these were "irreconcilable contradiction[s]."

Complainant disowning his own FIR statement: The witness testified that his initial statement (Ex.P1/PA, on which the entire investigation was built) was not correctly recorded, and asserted a different version— pointing to Vikas @ Sonu, who held the house keys and fled the spot after handing them over. The Court held that "the investigation and collection of evidence to prove a disowned statement, itself renders the entire investigation, as flawed," and noted the police never investigated the allegations against Vikas @ Sonu despite PW-1 proving Ex.P2 himself.

Suspicious "disclosure" recovery: The Court found the hammer and slippers, said to have been recovered pursuant to the accused's disclosure statement on 16.02.2021, were shown by the site plans to be at the exact same location where the body itself was found — a spot the police had already visited and processed on 14.02.2021.

The Court held: "The disclosure thus 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."

Unreliable last-seen evidence: PW-2, the victim's uncle, claimed to have seen the accused leading the victim away around 3:45-4:00 PM, but did not disclose this to his sister on the phone, to his family upon reaching the village, or to police even after the body was recovered — revealing it only on 16.02.2021, two days after his statement to the Investigating Officer. The Court held this "fails to reflect normative behaviour of a prudent person" and that it was "disinclined to accept the deposition or evidence of PW-2 JP as a truthful account."

Medical evidence undermining rape charge: The postmortem found no vulvovaginal injury, no internal injuries, and — critically — no semen or blood on the swabs, smears, or any of the victim's clothing except a rupture of the hymen with no indication of whether it was fresh. Semen was detected only on the accused's own pajama, alongside a mixed DNA profile. The Court held the "available scientific evidence is only indicative of death having been caused on account of a hammer blow but... is in no manner conclusive to establish that rape, if any, had been committed by the accused."

DNA chain-of-custody defect: The Court flagged that the recovery memo described a "navy blue trouser" with "Mavericks" written on it, whereas the parcel actually received at the FSL — 17 days later — was described as a "black coloured pajama." Relying on Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand, (2025) 3 SCR 1482, on the need to prove sanctity and unbroken chain of custody for DNA evidence, the Court held this unexplained discrepancy "reflects adversely on the sanctity of the seized material and fairness of the Police investigation."

In the light of the above five golden principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984), and relying on Vijay Thakur v. State of H.P., Nagender Sah v. State of Bihar (2021), Sheikh Wahid Sheikh Hamid v. State of Maharashtra, and Sangappa v. State of Karnataka (decided 27.02.2025), the Court held that mere recovery of the body from the accused's house, without proof of exclusive possession (undermined by evidence that Vikas @ Sonu also resided there) and without a complete, unbroken chain, could not sustain conviction:

"It is settled position of law that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the character of proof."

Dismissing the murder reference filed by the State for confirmation of the death sentence and allowing the accused's appeal , the Court set aside the judgment of conviction dated 23.09.2024 and the order of sentence awarding capital punishment, holding that this was "a case where benefit of doubt needs to be extended to the respondent-accused."

Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Senior DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae) with Mr. Harparteek Singh Sandhu, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) for the accused-convict/respondent in MRC-7-2024.

Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) for the convict-appellant in CRA-D-1635-2025.

Click here to read order