The Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted an orphan labourer sentenced to death for the murder of a minor girl, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.The Bench of Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur observed that the accused had no parents or family pursuing his case and ultimately had a legal-aid counsel. “It seems that the investigating agency found an easy prey in the appellant-accused, who is an orphan and has no other member of the family and with no stable means of sustenance to douse the unrest and commotion which may have arisen as a result of a perceived rape and murder of a minor girl child. The accused with no members of family to pursue his defence and with minimal means of defending himself thus have little shot,” the court observed.The girl, about 12-and-a-half-year old, went missing on February 13, 2021, and her body was subsequently found in the rear room of the appellant’s house. Jalandhar Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), recorded a finding of conviction against the accused for murder, rape and other offences punishable under Sections 364, 376-A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and the provisions of Protection of Children in September 2024. He was awarded death sentence murder under Section 302.After hearing the State and senior advocate Sant Pal Singh Sidhu – appointed Amicus Curiae to assist the Bench in the matter — the Bench found major discrepancies in the prosecution’s chronology.Some witnesses placed the investigation from February 14, while others claimed the police had reached the village and the body had been recovered on February 13. The court also found contradictions regarding the locking of the house and possession of its keys.   The alleged “last seen” evidence was found particularly doubtful. A prosecution witness claimed to have seen the girl with the accused around 3.45-4 pm, but did not disclose this to her family or the police. The reference about the last seen was for the first time made on February 16, 2021, when his statement was recorded by the Police.“The delay in reporting an event of such vital significance notwithstanding the discovery of the death as well as recovery of the body of the deceased is a crucial non-disclosure. It only leads to one possibility, i.e., of the prosecution trying to complete the chain of events in a case based upon circumstantial evidence and in its anxiety introducing a witness of last seen. We are, thus, disinclined to accept the deposition or evidence as a truthful account of the actual circumstances and instead see the same as an attempt to carry out doctrine of the prosecution witnesses,” the Bench added.The court also questioned the alleged recovery of the hammer. A prosecution witness said it was lying next to the body when discovered, yet it was later shown as recovered pursuant to a disclosure by the accused. The court held that this was “not a discovery of a new fact but seizure of the evidence already to their knowledge but ignored only to create a chain of events to link the accused”.The forensic evidence presented another serious gap. No semen was found on the victim’s swabs, smears or nails and there were no signs of sexual assault or rape on her body. The recovery memo described the seized clothing as a navy-blue trouser, whereas the FSL received a black pajama with reddish-brown stains. The prosecution offered no explanation for the discrepancy. The Court said it “reflects adversely on the sanctity of the seized material and fairness of the Police investigation”.The Bench held that recovery of the body from house could establish only the place of recovery, not the commission of the offence. “The death is an evidence which travels no far beyond then recovery of the body itself. The offence of murder or rape having been committed by the owner of the house does not statutorily flow from a mere recovery of the body, as per any of the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872. It is only amongst many relevant facts which are to be kept in mind while adjudicating the issue,” the Bench observed.The court concluded: “We are of the opinion that let alone it be a case where capital punishment ought to be awarded to the appellant-accused, it is a case where benefit of doubt needs to be extended to the respondent-accused…. The judgement of conviction dated September 23, 2024, and order of sentence dated September 26, 2024, awarding capital punishment to the appellant is set aside”.Before parting with the order, Bench said: “Even though the offence is gruesome and ghastly where a child was assaulted and murdered, the dispassionate examination of the evidence is to be undertaken before it can be ruled out as to whether the evidence available, indicts the accused for the offence or not”.The Bench added the task before a court “is daunting and it requires objective assessment of evidence” while keeping its feelings at bay. The decision was to be formulated after going through the evidence and then arriving at a conclusion instead of reading the evidence to “justify a reaction-based conclusion already drawn”.The Bench added: “It need not be forgotten that while the police has a huge leverage and may send a person to trial on a strong suspicion, however, the yardstick of the prosecution is not the governing yardstick for a court of law. The evidence adduced should establish the case against an accused beyond reasonable doubt. Any lapse in doing so, would entitle an accused claim benefit of doubt”.