The Gujarat High Court has acquitted a man in his 40s who was previously sentenced to death by a Surat court for the rape and murder of his minor daughter. The case involved the man allegedly impregnating his 14-year-old daughter and then killing her to prevent public humiliation for the family.

In January 2020, the trial court found the man guilty based on circumstantial evidence, including a DNA report that matched his DNA with that of his daughter's unborn child. However, a division bench of Justice Ilesh Vora and Justice R T Vachhani overturned the trial court's verdict. The High Court refused to consider the DNA report as credible evidence, citing procedural lapses in preserving and sending the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). These lapses, according to the bench, compromised quality control and raised the possibility of sample contamination. The High Court stated that the prosecution failed to establish the necessary circumstances with reliable and conclusive evidence to form a complete and unbroken chain that would lead to the conclusion of the accused's guilt.

The case originated with the discovery of the 14-year-old girl's body, who belonged to a migrant laborer community from Odisha, on Surat's Dumas Beach on June 29, 2017. She had been strangled. During the investigation, authorities alleged that the victim's father had impregnated her and subsequently murdered her. However, there was no direct evidence to support these claims.

The trial court's conviction and death sentence were based on circumstantial evidence, including the "last seen together" theory, the accused taking the victim to a clinic before the murder, and the DNA report matching the accused's samples with the victim's fetus. The conviction was recorded under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

When the state government sought the High Court's confirmation of the death sentence, the bench found that the DNA evidence, a key component of the prosecution's case, was unreliable. The High Court emphasized that the prosecution did not provide a reliable and unbroken chain of evidence that would exclude any conclusion other than the accused's guilt, ultimately leading to the acquittal.