Mohit Tyagi v. State of Uttarakhand, 2026

The prosecution alleged that the victim, aged about 13 years, was forcibly taken by the accused on a motorcycle on 15 August 2018.

It was alleged that the accused committed unnatural sexual assault upon the victim.

The trial court, namely the Special Judge, POCSO, Dehradun, convicted the appellant under Sections 363, 377, 506 IPC and Section 4(2) POCSO Act.

The accused filed a criminal appeal challenging the conviction before the Uttarakhand High Court.

The appellant argued that the prosecution failed to establish the proper identification of the accused.

The victim admitted during testimony that the incident occurred in darkness and that he did not previously know the accused.

The victim’s father admitted that police had shown a photograph to the victim for identification purposes.

No Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted during the investigation.

The appellant further argued that the conclusions of the FSL/DNA report were never put to him during his examination under Section 313 CrPC.

The prosecution relied upon the DNA report to connect the accused with the offence.

Questions were also raised regarding the chain of custody of the underwear allegedly seized from the accused.

The High Court observed that the prosecution failed to satisfactorily establish the identification of the accused.

The Court noted that the victim had admitted that the incident occurred in darkness and that he had not known the accused previously.

The Court found it significant that no Test Identification Parade was conducted during investigation.

The Court observed that merely showing a photograph to the victim was not a reliable method of identification.

The Bench rejected the State’s argument that the victim had sufficient opportunity to identify the accused.

The Court further held that the prosecution failed to properly establish the chain of custody of the underwear allegedly seized from the accused.

The Court emphasized that the conclusions of the FSL/DNA report were not put to the accused during examination under Section 313 CrPC.

It held that incriminating material not put to the accused for explanation cannot be relied upon against him.

The Court observed that reliance on such evidence would violate principles of a fair trial.

The Court ruled that the FSL report could not form the basis for sustaining the conviction.

The conviction recorded by the trial court was therefore set aside.

The accused-appellant was acquitted of all charges.

The appeal was allowed and directions were issued for the immediate release of the appellant if not required in any other case.

The judgment reinforces the importance of Section 313 CrPC as a safeguard ensuring fairness in criminal trials.

The Court emphasized that every incriminating circumstance relied upon by the prosecution must be specifically put to the accused for explanation.

The ruling protects the accused’s right to fair hearing and natural justice.

The Court adopted a strict approach toward evidentiary reliability in criminal prosecutions.

The judgment highlights the significance of conducting a proper Test Identification Parade (TIP) where the accused was previously unknown to the victim.

The Court reaffirmed that mere production of scientific evidence such as DNA reports is insufficient unless procedural safeguards are followed.

The ruling underlines the necessity of maintaining a proper chain of custody for forensic evidence.

The decision strengthens procedural fairness in cases involving forensic evidence and criminal convictions.

The judgment may influence future criminal trials by ensuring stricter compliance with Section 313 CrPC requirements.

It also reiterates the criminal law principle that conviction must be based on proof beyond reasonable doubt.