Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Saravanan vs The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police on 12 March, 2026
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO (S).4179-4180 OF 2025
SARAVANAN ...APPELLANT(S
)
VERSUS
THE STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR
OF POLICE AND ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
1. The present Appeals are directed against the Impugned Judgement and
Order dated 22.01.2025 passed by Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
in Criminal Appeal bearing Crl. A. (MD) No. 23 of 2021 whereby the
order of acquittal dated 20.05.2019 passed by the Sessions Court, Theni, in
SC No. 14 of 2018, came to be reversed and consequently convicted the
appellant under Section 6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and sentenced him to ten (10) years
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Rigorous Imprisonment by Judgement dated 27.01.2025.
RASHI GUPTA
Date: 2026.03.20
17:25:41 IST
Reason:
1
2. The prosecution story in brief is that on the fateful day of 27.07.2017 the
deceased minor girl sustained extensive burn injuries at her residence and
she was admitted to the Government Hospital where the Judicial
Magistrate recorded her dying declaration (Exh. P8) whereunder, she
stated that she doused herself with kerosene and set herself on fire, without
implicating any person. On 28.07.2017, mother of the deceased minor girl
lodged a complaint accusing the appellant of having illicit relationship
with her daughter and impregnating her and on his refusal to marry, she
was driven to self-immolate herself. The said complaint culminated into
registration of FIR bearing Crime No. 414 of 2017 being registered under
Section(s) 5(1)(ii) and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 309 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). On 31.07.2017, at about 14.05 hours the victim
succumbed to the injuries and the IPC charge was altered to Section 305.
The foetus of a unborn child had ejected spontaneously from the body of
the victim while she was being treated which came to be stored in saline
water and forwarded to Forensic Science Department, Chennai for DNA
analysis and the alleged blood sample of the appellant was also drawn.
However, the specific date of collection of appellants blood sample for
DNA test is the core issue to be adjudicated in the present appeals. The
final DNA report was filed on 09.10.2017 (Exh. P9). The chargesheet
came to be filed on 21.12.2017. Charges were framed against the appellant
for the offences punishable under section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and
2
Section 305 of IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be
tried. The prosecution examined fifteen (15) witnesses to drive home the
guilt of the accused. The incriminating circumstances were put to the
accused under section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short
Cr.P.C.) and after evaluating the evidence on record, the Trial Court
rendered a judgement of acquittal by order dated 20.05.2019 which was
subjected to appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. by the defacto
complainant, mother of the deceased minor girl. The High Court after re-
appreciation of evidence over-turned the findings of the trial court into
conviction under Section 6 of POCSO Act by the Impugned Judgement
dated 22.01.2025 sentenced the appellant to ten (10) years of Rigorous
Imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said Judgment of conviction and
sentence, the accused-appellant has filed the present appeals.
3. We have heard the learned Senior Counsels appearing on behalf of
appellant and respondent at length. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the appellant has vehemently submitted that Impugned Judgement is
erroneous and the High Court had failed to appreciate the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, especially PW 7 and PW 10 in proper perspective.
The thrust of the argument on behalf of appellant is that the blood sample
of appellant had been taken subsequent to the DNA report of the Foetus
was obtained, as such, the doctor could not have had the opportunity to
3
match the blood sample of the appellant with the Foetus. She has drawn
our attention to several dates which hold substantial significance, Firstly,
the foetus was secured on 30.07.2017 and it was forwarded to Forensic
Lab for testing on 04.08.2017. Thereafter, the Final DNA report was
rendered on 09.10.2017 (Exh. P9). Moreover, she has drawn our attention
to the evidence of PW 10 to contend that blood sample of appellant was
obtained on 31.01.2018, as such, it was long after the DNA report was
rendered. Hence, there was no opportunity to match the blood sample of
the appellant with the foetus to arrive at a conclusion that appellant is the
biological father of the said foetus. Lastly, she contended that Trial Court
was right in appreciating the evidence of PW 10 to arrive at a conclusion
that DNA report could not be relied upon and therefore, the benefit of
doubt was extended in favour of the appellant/accused. Hence, she has
prayed for the appeals being allowed and Impugned Judgement to be set
aside.
4. Per Contra, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent
contended that the High Court has appreciated the evidence of witnesses
properly before arriving at a finding of conviction. He contends that
evidence of PW 7, Thameen Ansari who was working as Grade II Police
Constable, had clearly stated that blood sample was taken on 31.08.2017
itself and same was handed over to the Forensic department on 06.09.2017,
4
and Exh. P-9 was prepared after matching the blood sample of the
appellant with the foetus. However, when we raised a query regarding the
inconsistency in the testimony of PW 7 and PW 10 regarding the date of
collection of blood sample, learned counsel for the respondent could not
provide a satisfactory answer to the same.
5. Having heard the learned senior counsels, and on perusal of the material on
records, we are of the considered view that narrow compass in which the
present appeals lies relates to examining reliability of the DNA report
(Exh. P9) especially in the light of inconsistent dates of collection of blood
sample from the appellant. The Court in Prakash Nishad vs. State of
Maharashtra1, has held:-
“64. Even otherwise, on the value of DNA evidence, we may
refer to an observation made by this Court in Pattu
Rajan v. State of T.N. [Pattu Rajan v. State of T.N., (2019) 4
SCC 771 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 354] , as under: (SCC p. 791,
para 52)“52. Like all other opinion evidence, the probative
value accorded to DNA evidence also varies from
case to case, depending on the facts and
circumstances and the weight accorded to other
evidence on record, whether contrary or
corroborative. This is all the more important to
remember, given that even though the accuracy of
DNA evidence may be increasing with the
advancement of science and technology with every
passing day, thereby making it more and more
reliable, we have not yet reached a juncture where it
may be said to be infallible. Thus, it cannot be said
that the absence of DNA evidence would lead to an
adverse inference against a party, especially in the1 (2023) 16 SCC 357
5
presence of other cogent and reliable evidence on
record in favour of such party.”
65. Referring to the above case, a three-Judge Bench
in Manoj v. State of M.P. [Manoj v. State of M.P., (2023) 2 SCC
353: (2023) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] , through S. Ravindra Bhat, J.,
observed: (SCC p. 435, para 158)“158. This Court, therefore, has relied on DNA
reports, in the past, where the guilt of an accused
was sought to be established. Notably, the reliance
was to corroborate. This Court highlighted the need
to ensure quality in the testing and eliminate the
possibility of contamination of evidence; it also held
that being an opinion, the probative value of such
evidence has to vary from case to case.”
66. In the present case, even though, the DNA evidence by way
of a report was present, its reliability is not infallible, especially
not so in light of the fact that the uncompromised nature of such
evidence cannot be established; and other that cogent evidence
as can be seen from our discussion above, is absent almost in its
entirety.”Evidently from testimony of PW 7/Thameem Ansari, the police constable
who claims to have delivered the blood sample of the appellant to the FSL
on 06.09.2017 cannot be accepted, as PW 10/Dr. Gokulapandia sankar, has
clearly deposed that he had collected the blood sample of the appellant on
31.01.2018. If so, the DNA report dated 09.10.2017 could not have been
relied upon to convict the appellant in the absence of any other
corroborative material which established the fact that blood sample of
appellant had been obtained prior to 09.10.2017. The learned High Court
has proceeded on the footing that the Trial Court’s reason is perverse and
has held that the discrepancy in the date with regard to drawing of the
blood sample of the Appellant is a minor contradiction, ignoring the fact
6
that there was no other material available to establish the fact that bloodsample of the Appellant had been drawn prior to 09.10.2017. We also
notice that the Assistant Director of Forensic Lab who was examined as
PW12 has further admitted that she is not aware the date on which the
blood sample was collected. She further admits that she does not possess
any degree and on the basis of the training in forensic science she claimed
to have issued the report dated: 09.10.2017.
6. The trial court after examining the testimony of PW 7, PW 10 and PW 12,
Dr. Karthikey, who conducted the post-mortem, meticulously came to the
conclusion that there is glaring inconsistency between the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses regarding the date of collection of blood sample of
the appellant, as such, the DNA report (Exh. P9) dated 09.10.2017 could
not be relied upon to arrive at a conclusion that appellant was the
biological father of the foetus. Hence, the benefit of doubt was rightly
extended to the accused, since the DNA report was held to be doubtful and
he was acquitted. The findings of the trial court are extracted for ready
reference: –
“62. PW 7 The police constable in his witness had stated that on
31.08.2018 he took custody of the accused from the jail for
conducting medical examination and after completing medical
examination had handed over the accused back to the jail
authorities and had handed over the blood sample collected on
06.09.2017 to the Forensic science Laboratory. But PW 10 in his
examination had told that he collected the blood sample of the7
accused on 31.01.2018 in a FDA card and gave it to the police
man in charge, and in his cross examination had stated that he
too the blood sample in the forenoon and that he did not
remember the time exactly. And he had not mentioned that FDA
card being attached to the letter from the court. And in the FDA
card the age of the sample drawn person and the date of sample
drawn are not mentioned and further stated that it was sent
directly as per the court’s order But in his Police enquiry had not
mentioned that it had been sent directly. PW 7 had given
evidence that the blood sample collected on 30.01.2018 was
handed over to the laboratory on 06.09.2017xxxxxx
65. The witness of PW 12, the Forensic science Laboratory
assistant director, had proved that the accused is the biological
father of the child of deceased daughter of PW 1 through the
analysis of the accused persons blood sample. But contrary to
that she had stated in his witness that the still born fetus is a
male child and that the accused is the biological father of the
still born fetus. And that the report regarding that is Exhi P 9
Further he had stated that, she doesn’t know details regarding
the doctor who drew the blood sample and from whom the
sample was drawn, and on which date the blood sample was
drawn and that she is not specifically qualified in DNA testing
and further she had not mentioned in his report as to whether the
fetus was in good condition for testing and had not mentioned as
to how the fetus was in good condition for testing and had not
mentioned as to how the fetus was processed to keep it
protected. And further said that if the fetus is not properly
protected it may cause damage to the fetus and that no salvation
had been done. And his witness seems to indicate the acceptance
on their side that there is no connection between the blood
subjected to the analysis and the accused. And this argument of
the accused side is found to be acceptable.
xxxxxx
67. Under these circumstances, the discrepancies identified
through cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses
particularly regarding the DNA report (Exhibit P-9), including
when the test was conducted and how and when the sample was
sent for analysis-constitute a setback to the prosecution’s case.
Therefore, the arguments advanced by the accused side are
found to be acceptable. Based on these arguments, this court
grants the benefit of doubt to the accused and orders an
acquittal.”
8
7. Perusal of the Impugned Judgement and Order apparently reveals that High
Court has premised its findings of conviction based on the testimony of PW
10 pertaining to the date of collection of the blood sample of the appellant
on 31.01.2018 as mere “slip of tongue” to arrive at a conclusion that
concerned doctor had the opportunity to match the blood sample of the
appellant with that of foetus before recording a finding in the DNA report
dated 09.10.2017 (Ex. P9).
8. Although the High Court under the Impugned Judgement took into
consideration principles regarding the scope of interference by an appellate
court for reversing the judgement of acquittal rendered in favour of the
accused as explained by this court in Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda &
Another v. State of Gujarat2 which held that only when the judgement of
acquittal suffers from patent perversity or is based on misreading/omission
to consider material evidence on record and/or where no two reasonable
views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the
accused is possible from the evidence available on record, the interference
by the appellate court is warranted, it failed to apply the said parameters to
the facts obtained in the instant case.
9. Since the concerned DNA report (Exh. P9) which forms the core basis to
derive nexus of appellant to conviction, itself is doubtful, no reasonable
view could have been formed which is only consistent with the guilt of the
2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 561
9
accused, as such, we are of the considered view that prosecution failed to
drive home the accusation beyond reasonable doubt.
10. Hence, we are of the considered opinion, that finding recorded by the High
Court under the Impugned Judgement is erroneous and deserves
interference. Hence, we allow the present Appeals and set aside the
Impugned Judgement and Order of conviction dated 22.01.2025 and
sentence dated 27.01.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal bearing Crl. A. (MD)
No. 23 of 2021 and restore the Judgement of the Sessions Court rendered in
SC 14/2018 dated 20.05.2019 and consequently, appellant is acquitted and
is ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Bail
bond executed stands discharged.
11. Pending Applications, if any, stands disposed of.
.……………………………., J.
[ARAVIND KUMAR]
.……………………………., J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]
New Delhi;
March 12th, 2026.
10
ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.16 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 4179-4180/2025
SARAVANAN Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR. Respondent(s)
[ PART HEARD BY:- HON’BLE ARAVIND KUMAR AND HON’BLE PRASANNA B.
VARALE,JJ. ] [ FOR FURTHER HEARING ]
IA No. 229126/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 229128/2025 – GRANT OF BAIL
IA No. 281890/2025 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 293448/2025 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
Date : 12-03-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR
Mrs. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S D Dwarakanath, Adv.
Mr. Praveen Gaur, Adv.
Ms. Neaol Sri Lv, Adv.
Ms. Rohini Narayanan, Adv.
11
For Respondent(s) :Mr. V.krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G.
Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR
Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv.
Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Appeals are allowed in terms of the Signed Order which is placed
on the file.
2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(RASHI GUPTA) (AVGV RAMU)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
12