The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the conviction and death sentences of four men in the rape and murder of two minor sisters, holding that the prosecution failed to produce legally admissible evidence connecting any of them with the offences.The Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Ramesh Chander Dimri, in the process, described a “sextipartite test” for examining whether a disclosure and discovery could be relied upon.What is the six-point testThe court said that the disclosure and discovery had first to pass a six-fold test before examining whether the contents of a disclosure statement were proven by the investigator, or whether the discovered article was lying in an accessible open place and was visible.Describing it as a “sextipartite test”, the Bench said the person making the disclosure must already be an accused in the case; he must be in custody when making it; the disclosure must be voluntary and free from “compulsion, coercion, threats, inducement or deception”; the information must disclose a fact relevant to the crime; the information must be “distinctly connected with the fact discovered”; and, crucially, “the fact that was discovered pursuant to the disclosure must not have already been discovered”.The last requirement assumed significance in the case as the court found that the “parna” allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused had already been noticed by the crime-scene team. The Bench observed there could not be a ‘discovery’ of an already discovered fact. “There is no iota of doubt that the discovery has not been shown to have been made at the instance of any of the accused persons,” the court observed.The alleged poison recovery too failed to connect the accused with the administration of poison. The court noted that the crime-scene report already recorded a metallic container containing poisonous liquid, while the prosecution did not establish that its contents differed from the herbicide later recovered in a plastic bottle.On the alleged forcible administration, the Bench said: “There are no corresponding injuries on the lips and mouth of any of the victims to prima facie demonstrate that the poison was forcibly administered to them.” It found reasonable doubt about the forcible administration of poison and absence of evidence linking the accused to it.Rape established, but accused not connectedAn FIR in the matter was registered for murder and other offences under the provisions of the IPC and the POCSO Act at Kundli police station in Sonepat on August 9, 2021. The Bench observed that the two sisters “affectionately remembered” as Laado (13) and Laadli (12) were brought to a Delhi hospital on August 6, 2021. The victims’ mother told the attending doctors that both were bitten by a snake at midnight. According to the hospital records, Laadli was brought dead and the elder one expired after about four hours.The Bench confirmed that the two girls had been subjected to rape and died of poisoning, but it found serious contradictions in the mother’s statements. “The picture that emerges is hazy as to how these four persons were implicated, much worse given the death sentence.The Bench found that the medical evidence established sexual assault on both girls. The post-mortem examinations recorded extensive injuries, while toxicology detected pendimethalin –– an herbicide –– in the victims. The court concluded: “Although the prosecution is able to establish the commission of the offence of rape against both the victims, it has failed to connect any of the accused as the perpetrator of rape.”Mother’s statements raised ‘serious doubt’A crucial part of the prosecution case rested on the victims’ mother. Her earliest statement on August 6, 2021, attributed the deaths to a snakebite. Her subsequent complaint on August 9 named all four accused, but in her statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the CrPC the next day, she said she knew the name of only one and not of the others.The Bench asked: “If the victims’ mother did not know the names of the four accused on August 10, 2021, how could she have known their full names on the previous day, August 9, 2021?” The Court held that this contradiction created “serious doubt” about whether the complainant was even aware of the contents of the written complaint and her Section 164 statement.The Bench also took note of the fact that the mother later turned hostile at trial and denied knowing the accused and said: “They never committed any wrong act with the victims.”DNA evidence did not connect any accusedThe Bench found that the DNA profiles of all four accused could not be accounted for in the biological material obtained from the victims’ vaginal swabs or the “parna” allegedly used in the crime. There was no evidence that the genetic material was of any of the accused persons. As such, the parna stated to have been used in crime by the culprits was “not a relevant piece of evidence for implicating any of the accused persons.”The Court added that the absence of such scientific evidence “creates a strong doubt about the involvement of any of the accused in the commission of rape”.Trial court’s finding of resistance injuries contradicted by medical evidenceThe trial court had treated injuries on all four accused as evidence of resistance by the victims. But the High Court found that all the recorded injuries were old scars. The examining doctor specifically stated: “There were no fresh injuries on the persons of all the accused” and “during my examination I did not find any sign of use of force on the persons of accused.”‘Legally admissible evidence’ missingIn the concluding paragraphs, the Bench said the entire evidence created doubt about the involvement of all four accused and highlighted the absence of scientific evidence against them. “The prosecution has failed to establish any legally admissible evidence connecting any of the four accused to the commission of any offence beyond a reasonable doubt.”The conviction and sentences were consequently set aside and all four were acquitted of all charges. The Court dismissed the murder reference because of the acquittal and directed the Registry to initiate the process for their immediate release.