Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-003633-003634 – 2024 |
| Diary Number | 8151/2019 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent |
| Type of Law | Criminal law (IPC, CrPC, POCSO Act) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence can stand when (a) fair-trial safeguards (CrPC 207, legal aid) are flouted, (b) confessions are improperly recorded, and (c) forensic-evidence chain of custody is undocumented. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | A seven-year-old girl went missing from her flat on 5 February 2017 and a missing-person FIR was filed that night. The appellant, a neighbour, joined search efforts over two days. On 8 February police allegedly arrested him, recorded a confession, and recovered the victim’s charred body, her undergarments, jewellery, petrol bottles and his clothes and phone. Forensic tests (DNA, superimposition) were ordered. He was tried by the Sessions Judge on charges under IPC Secs. 363, 366, 354-B, 302, 201 and POCSO Act Secs. 6, 8 and sentenced to death. The Madras High Court dismissed his appeal and confirmed the capital sentence. On SLP, the Supreme Court found gross procedural lapses and gaps in evidence, quashed conviction and acquitted. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts conducting criminal trials |
| Persuasive For | High Courts and tribunals hearing criminal appeals |
| Overrules | None |
| Distinguishes | None |
| Follows | Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra; Prakash Nishad v. State of Maharashtra |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Trial courts must comply with CrPC 207 before framing charges: accused must receive all prosecution documents.
- Accused facing capital charges is entitled to timely appointment of experienced legal-aid counsel and reasonable preparation time.
- Confessions: only those parts leading to the discovery of a material fact may be admitted (Section 25 Evidence Act); full reproduction is barred.
- Forensic evidence demands documented, sealed chain of custody from seizure through lab analysis; unexplained delays undermine report reliability.
- Judges have a proactive duty (Section 165 Evidence Act) to question witnesses if critical points are omitted by parties.
- A pure-circumstantial case must exclude every hypothesis of innocence; missing links (CCTV footage, credible “last seen” testimony) fatally break that chain.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Fair-trial violation: Charges framed (24 Oct 2017) before service of documents (13 Dec 2017) and legal aid appointment; prosecution evidence began four days later, denying effective defence.
- Confession admissibility: Whole confession narrated by investigating officer; no compliance with Section 25 Evidence Act; likely coerced, recorded pre-arrest and pre-witness summoning.
- Suppressed CCTV evidence: No DVR footage collected or exhibited; adverse inference for willful withholding; testimony on suspicious movements uncorroborated.
- Planted recoveries: Observation mahazars omit travel-bag and undergarment; bare in-court identifications without test-identification parade.
- Forensic chain of custody: No sealing or record of sample movement; four-month delay drawing appellant’s blood; DNA reports unreliable under Prakash Nishad.
- Circumstantial chain broken: “Last seen” testimony emerges only 3 months later; essential links unexplained, fails Sharad Birdhichand Sharda test → acquittal required.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (appellant):
- Entire prosecution narrative is fabricated; “last seen” witness revealed only months later.
- Confession coerced in illegal custody; recoveries planted without lawful panchayat or sealing.
- Impossible timeline: one-hour window for abduction, assault, murder, transport and immolation.
- Fair-trial breached: documents not provided (CrPC 207), trial rushed, legal aid belated, capital sentence on same day as conviction.
Respondent (State):
- “Last seen together,” confession and recoveries form an unbroken chain; DNA match confirms sexual assault.
- Witnesses (school official, village admin officer) credible; presumption of guilt under Section 114 Evidence Act.
- Procedural compliance adequate; appellant’s delay tactics should not lead to acquittal.
Factual Background
A seven-year-old child vanished from her apartment on 5 February 2017; her parents and neighbours, including the appellant, searched without success. Police arrested the appellant two days later, recording an alleged confession and recovering the child’s charred body, clothes, jewellery and petrol bottles linked to him. Scientific reports (DNA, superimposition) purportedly identified the remains and semen stain. Convicted for kidnapping, sexual assault, murder and evidencetampering under IPC and POCSO Act, he was sentenced to death; the High Court affirmed. On special leave, the Supreme Court found fatal evidentiary and procedural defects and acquitted.
Statutory Analysis
- CrPC 207 & 230 BNSS: Mandatory service of prosecution documents and disclosure before charge framing and trial calendar; non-compliance violates fair-trial rights.
- Section 25 Evidence Act: Only confession portions leading to discovery of a material fact are admissible; wholesale narration by police officer is impermissible.
- Section 165 Evidence Act: Judge’s duty to put questions and ensure completeness; courts must not be mere spectators during evidence recording.
- Section 482 CrPC: Inherent power to secure ends of justice by enforcing fair-trial safeguards.
Procedural Innovations
- Courts must mandate compliance with CrPC 207 as soon as the police report is submitted or case committal occurs.
- Appointment of legal-aid counsel with substantial experience well before evidence-recording begins.
- Standardized guidelines for sealing, documenting and tracking forensic samples from seizure to analysis.
- Active judicial intervention under Section 165 Evidence Act to fill gaps in witness examination.
- Restrictive approach to confession evidence in line with Section 25 Evidence Act and human-rights safeguards.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Strict adherence to established principles on circumstantial evidence, fair trial and forensic chain of custody.