Fair Trial-Circumstantial Evidence Must Be Unbroken and Credible — The Supreme Court Sets Aside Death Sentence in POCSO Case.

Headnote

The Supreme Court of India, while hearing the gruesome POCSO case in Dashwanth v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025 INSC 1203) involving the rape and murder of a 7-year-old girl by her neighbour, set aside the conviction and death sentence on the ground of denial of fair trial and serious procedural irregularities. The Court observed that speed cannot substitute justice, and that the trial had been conducted in a manner violating Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution.

Brief Facts

The appellant, Dashwanth, was accused of kidnapping, sexually assaulting, and murdering a 7-year-old girl in Chennai (February 2017).
The charred body of the child was recovered based on an alleged disclosure statement by the accused.
He was tried and convicted by the Mahila Sessions Court, Chengalpet, and sentenced to death under Sections 302 IPC and 6 r/w 5(m) of the POCSO Act.
The Madras High Court confirmed the death penalty in 2018.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the trial was conducted without representation.

Law Involved

• Sections 302, 201, 363, 366, 354-B IPC
• Sections 6 r/w 5(m), 8 r/w 7 POCSO Act, 2012
• Sections 207, 313, 315 CrPC (compliance in criminal trials)
• Articles 21 & 22(1) — Right to Life and Right to Counsel

Judicial Precedents

• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)
• Santa Singh v. State of Punjab (1976)
• Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar (1989)
• Anokhilal v. State of M.P. (2019 SCC OnLine SC 1637)

Principles Culled Out

Fair Trial is a Fundamental Right: A trial without proper representation or access to evidence violates the essence of Articles 21 and 22(1).

Legal Aid Must Be Meaningful, Not Formal: Appointment of a legal aid counsel just four days before trial commencement was deemed a mockery of justice.

Death Sentence Requires Due Process: The Court held that sentencing must be preceded by a psychological evaluation, jail conduct report, and assessment of mitigating factors.

Circumstantial Evidence Must Be Unbroken and Credible: When based solely on circumstantial evidence, the chain must exclude every possible hypothesis of innocence.

The Verdict

• The trial was “rushed, unfair, and unconstitutional.”
• The conviction and death sentence were set aside.
• The Court criticized the trial court’s haste, noting that the legal aid counsel had only four days to prepare, and 30 witnesses were examined within 46 days.
• The Court reaffirmed that procedural fairness is the backbone of criminal justice, even in the most heinous crimes.

Jurisprudence

This judgment reinforces the constitutional mandate of a fair trial and underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring that justice is not sacrificed at the altar of speed. It advances the jurisprudence of due process and death penalty sentencing standards in India.

Author
Abhijit Banerjee (Advocate-on-Record) & Arguing Counsel Supreme Court of India
Criminal & Constitutional Jurisprudence.

Disclaimer – This blog is for academic purposes only and to facilitate quick understanding of the ruling and its legal principles.

• LinkedIn
• Facebook

#SupremeCourtOfIndia
#POCSO
#FairTrial
#DeathPenalty
#CriminalLaw
#ConstitutionalLaw
#Article21
#JudicialReview
#DueProcess