Supreme Court Confirms Death Sentence in Kidnapping, Sexual Assault, and Murder of a Minor

The Supreme Court of India upheld the death sentence awarded to the appellant, Dashwanth, who was convicted for the kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of a seven-year-old female child in Chengalpet, Tamil Nadu. The appellant was found guilty under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code (Sections 302, 201, 363, 366, 354-B) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (Sections 6 read with 5(m) and 8 read with 7). The Court’s judgment confirms the High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s appeal and provides a detailed analysis of the evidence, investigative process, and legal principles justifying the death penalty in cases of aggravated murder of a minor.

Case Background

The seven-year-old victim, daughter of C.S.D. Babu (PW-1) and Sridevi (PW-2), went missing on 5th February, 2017. The parents had briefly left the house for shopping, returning at approximately 7:15 p.m. Upon discovering their daughter was missing, they initiated a search with neighbors, including the appellant. Despite early search efforts, the child was not found, leading the father (PW-1) to file a missing person complaint at Mangadu Police Station. Subsequent investigation and CCTV footage pointed suspicion towards the appellant, who was arrested on 8th February, 2017. The appellant allegedly made a disclosure statement which led to the recovery of the victim’s charred body, a motorcycle, and other material evidence. DNA analysis and forensic superimposition confirmed the identity of the victim. The trial Court, upon considering 30 prosecution witnesses and 45 documents, convicted the appellant under IPC and POCSO Act provisions, including the death penalty for murder under Section 302 IPC.

What the Lower Authorities Held

The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpet, in Special Sessions Case No. 33 of 2017, convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 302, 201, 363, 366, 354-B of IPC and Sections 6 read with 5(m) and 8 read with 7 of the POCSO Act. The appellant was sentenced to death under Section 302 IPC, with varying terms of imprisonment for other offences ranging from 5 to 10 years.

The High Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 2018, dismissed the appellant’s appeal and confirmed the trial Court’s sentences, including the death penalty, following a reference under Section 366 CrPC for confirmation of the death sentence. The High Court examined both the procedural aspects and the sufficiency of evidence, finding no merit in the appellant’s claims of denial of fair trial or insufficient investigation.

The Supreme Court’s Reasoning

(i) Alleged Denial of Fair Trial

The appellant contended that the trial was conducted in a hurried and unfair manner. Charges were framed on 24th October 2017, but copies of relied-upon documents under Section 207 CrPC were provided only on 13th December 2017. A legal aid counsel was appointed on the same day, leaving only four days to prepare before the prosecution evidence commenced on 18th December 2017. The trial concluded in under two months, and the conviction and death sentence were pronounced on 19th February 2018.

The Court emphasised that an accused facing capital punishment must be afforded effective representation and sufficient time to prepare. Procedural safeguards under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution, as well as NALSA guidelines, were not observed. The Supreme Court acknowledged these lapses but chose to examine the case on merits, given the eight years elapsed and protracted proceedings.

(ii) Sentencing Procedure

The trial Court awarded the death penalty on the same day as the conviction, without undertaking the mandatory assessment of aggravating and mitigating factors, psychological evaluation, or conduct report from jail. This approach violated the principles laid down in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar, Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab, and Dattaraya v. State of Maharashtra. The Court stressed that proper procedure is crucial, especially in capital punishment cases, to ensure the sentence is just and proportionate.

(iii) Evaluation of Circumstantial Evidence

The appellant’s conviction rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including:

• “Last seen together” evidence identifying the child with the appellant.
• CCTV footage showing suspicious movements of the appellant near the incident location.
• Disclosure statements leading to recovery of the victim’s body, undergarments, petrol bottles, and ornaments.
• Forensic confirmation via DNA profiling.

(iv) Burden of Proof and Presumption of Guilt

The Court noted that certain incriminating recoveries under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act created a presumption of guilt against the appellant, who offered no explanation for the recovered items. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution successfully proved an unbroken chain of circumstances linking the appellant to the offence.

Final Outcome

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant, thereby affirming the findings of guilt recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court. The Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, finding no legal infirmity or perversity in the appreciation of evidence or the conclusions drawn by the courts below. The death sentence imposed under Section 302 IPC was confirmed, with the Court holding that the case satisfied the parameters warranting the imposition of capital punishment. All other sentences awarded for the remaining offences under the IPC and the POCSO Act were also sustained.

• Appeals dismissed.
• Conviction under IPC and POCSO Act upheld.
• Death sentence confirmed.

Why This Judgment Matters

This judgment reinforces foundational principles governing the criminal justice system, particularly in cases involving serious offences punishable with death. It serves as an important reminder that while the right to a fair trial and procedural safeguards are integral to constitutional criminal jurisprudence, courts must also carefully balance these guarantees against the weight and quality of evidence on record.

The decision highlights the importance of the following aspects:

• The need for strict adherence to procedural safeguards under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Constitution of India, especially those relating to legal representation, supply of documents, and meaningful opportunity of defence. The judgment reiterates that fair trial rights under Articles 21 and 22 are not mere formalities but substantive protections that must ordinarily be scrupulously followed.
• The requirement of a rigorous and principled evaluation of circumstantial evidence. The Court reaffirmed that in cases based purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that points only towards the guilt of the accused and rules out every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
• The evidentiary significance of disclosure statements, forensic evidence, and “last seen” testimony when they are mutually corroborative. The judgment demonstrates how recoveries made pursuant to disclosure statements, supported by scientific evidence such as DNA profiling and corroborated by credible witness testimony, can collectively form a legally sustainable basis for conviction.
• The Supreme Court’s role as a constitutional court in scrutinising criminal convictions to ensure that justice is not derailed by either procedural laxity or misplaced technicalities. The decision clarifies that where the evidentiary foundation of a conviction is overwhelming and legally sound, procedural lapses—though deprecated—may not necessarily result in an acquittal.

Overall, the judgment occupies a significant place in capital punishment jurisprudence by reaffirming both the necessity of fair trial safeguards and the circumstances under which convictions and sentences may nonetheless be sustained on merits.

Case Details

• Case Title: Dashwanth v. State of Tamil Nadu
• Citation: Criminal Appeal Nos. 3633-3634 of 2024
• Court & Bench: Supreme Court of India; Justice Mehta (J.)
• Date of Judgment: January 31, 2026
• Trial Court: Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpet, Special Sessions Case No. 33 of 2017
• High Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras, Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 2018
• Key Statutes Invoked: IPC Sections 302, 201, 363, 366, 354-B; POCSO Act Sections 6 read with 5(m) and 8 read with 7
• Relief Sought: Appeal against conviction and death sentence
• Outcome: Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and confirmed the conviction and death sentence