The Supreme Court has acquitted two prisoners in the case of rape and murder of an underage girl. The court emphasized the shortcomings in the investigation and trial process. The DNA report was declared a waste as proof that blood samples were not offered. The court said the prosecution could not prove the offense, which is why the accused gained the benefit of the suspicion. Digital Desk, New -Delhi. The Supreme Court acquitted two people on Tuesday, including a conviction condemned to death in the case of rape and murder of a minor girl. The Pillow Court described it as an excellent example of the fruitless and poor investigation and poor hearing process and said that no documents related to the collected blood samples of both as evidence were delivered. It became the DNA report waste paper. Remove the ad just read the news, a Bank of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta said the prosecution did not prove the appellants’ crime, as he did not present such evidence that could be called the case beyond the suspicion. The bank said the trial of the case related to rape and murder of an innocent girl failed due to poor investigation. The decision of the Apex Court has benefits to the suspicion for the appellants on the appeal filed by the October 2018 decision of the High Court in Allahabad. The Supreme Court confirmed the death sentence convicted of the Lower Court. The lower court sentenced a different accused to life imprisonment. The apex court said he realized that the case was related to the heinous act of raping a 12 -year -old girl and her cruel murder. But he has no choice but to release the appellants by giving the benefit of doubt. The court failed to submit a reliable evidence, the investigators said the investigators did not bother to question someone in the surrounding fields, where the minor body was found. The prosecution failed to give a reliable evidence to prove the conservation chain of the collected forensic samples, only on this basis the DNA report became insignificant. The prosecution claims that the investigative dog smells the small comb of the man who was found on the crime site, who took Dileep’s home. But the apex court underlined the contradictions on the color of the comb. Said that the process of investigative dogs from the place to Dilip’s home was not documented, making the process suspicious. The body of the minor was found on the farm. The bank also concluded the first DNA investigation report of January 2014, after which the prosecution presented a supplementary DNA report of December 2, 2014, while the appeal was pending in the Supreme Court. But the court indicated contradictions in it. The bank said the prosecution failed to present the process of the process, date or time of blood samples of the accused to compare DNA. The prosecution questioned no witness to secure a full range of samples. The minor girl went missing on September 4, 2012. His body was found in a field. The appellants were subsequently arrested in September 2012.
‘Excellent example of poor investigation’, SC’s remark while exempting two accused of rape and murder of a minor – the Supreme Court releases two of rape and murder case of minors.
