In the Vandiperiyar case involving the rape and murder of a six-year-old girl, the recent court verdict has sparked controversy due to critical lapses in it. The decision to set the accused free has raised eyebrows, primarily because of significant flaws in the court's examination of crucial evidence, particularly regarding the crime scene.

The court's contention about the window's role in the escape of the culprit has been deemed as the most glaring mistake. Despite the police findings indicating that the perpetrator had locked the room from the inside and fled through the window, the court dismissed this claim, citing a lack of clarity.

The room where the crime unfolded reportedly had only one door and one window, prompting a fundamental question overlooked by the court: If the door was locked from the inside, how else could the culprit have escaped, except through the window? 

Moreover, the prosecution emphasized that the culprit's intention was to stage the scene to make it appear as though the girl had entered the room, locked the door from the inside, and tragically ended her own life. Hence, leaving the door open after the crime would have contradicted this narrative, countering the court's assumption about the possibility of the culprit using the door for escape.

While the prosecution asserted that the perpetrator returned to the scene after the crime was discovered and closed the window from inside, backed by a neighbor's claim of seeing the window open on the evening of the crime, the court dismissed this claim. It alleged that such accounts were orchestrated to support the culprit's claim of an escape through the window.

Furthermore, the court's misinterpretation of the proximity of a tree to the crime scene added to the controversy. While the court claimed that children near this tree which was 20 feet away, could have witnessed the culprit's escape through the window, the actual distance of the tree, being 20 meters away and on a slope, made it implausible for the children to have seen the fleeing culprit. This highlighted the lack of thoroughness in the court's investigation.