"It is apparent that the ASJ (additional sessions judge) unjustly admitted into evidence the confessional statement made by the petitioner (Chadha) and illegally put the burden to prove the same on the co-accused (Kanda) and the Petitioner which is not permissible.
"The ASJ fell into gross error in framing the charge under Sections 376/377 (rape and unnatural sex) against the co-accused GGK (Kanda) which cannot be sustained. Since no charge against co-accused under these Sections could have been framed, the Petitioner could not have been guilty of abetting these offences," Justice G P Mittal said.
"Apart from the supplementary disclosure statement of the Petitioner AC (Chadha) there is nothing to indicate that co-accused GGK (Kanda) had illicit relations with 'X' (victim) or that she had multiple pregnancies...
"All the more, there is not even a shred of evidence to indicate that co-accused GGK committed sexual intercourse with deceased 'X' or had carnal intercourse against the order of nature with her or that the same was against her (the deceased) will or without her consent or that the Petitioner facilitated in any act of rape or unnatural offence alleged to have been committed by GGK," the court said.