Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-002973-002973 – 2023 |
| Diary Number | 30968/2023 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal law; POCSO Act; circumstantial evidence jurisprudence |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Supreme Court held that convictions based purely on circumstantial evidence require a complete, consistent chain excluding all other hypotheses (Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra). Material omissions in the FIR—such as the names of four “last seen” witnesses and the identity of the accused—substantially undermine reliability. Grave investigative lapses (failure to record key statements, secure forensic samples, prove ownership of premises, maintain chain of custody for seized items) compounded those omissions and raised serious doubts about the truth. In such circumstances, conviction cannot stand. Trial courts must also tabulate witnesses, documents and material objects at the end of every criminal judgment to enhance transparency and ease of appellate review. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
A four-year-old child was found bleeding and nude. The FIR (Crime No. I-68/2013) omitted names of the accused and four boys who first brought the child to a neighbour, yet at trial two of those boys suddenly “saw” the accused pushing her out of his house. Investigation failed to record their identities at first opportunity, did not secure DNA or forensic custody, and drew panchanamas without linking premises to the accused. Two “last seen” witnesses were hostile or contradictory. Medical and FSL reports lacked proper chain of custody. The High Court and trial Court treated these defects mechanically and convicted. The Supreme Court set aside conviction and directed acquittal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All criminal courts and subordinate courts across India |
| Persuasive For | High Courts when confronted with circumstantial evidence gaps |
| Follows | Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra |
| Overrules | None |
| Distinguishes | Cases where FIR and investigation properly record material facts and maintain forensic custody |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- FIR omissions: missing accused’s name and key witness identities can be fatal to circumstantial case.
- “Last seen together” link must appear in FIR or earliest statements; after-thought testimony is suspect.
- Investigative diligence: record all witness statements at first opportunity; secure forensic samples (DNA, semen, blood); prove premises possession before relying on recoveries.
- Chain of custody: every seizure must be sealed, logged, and shown in evidence to support FSL reports.
- Judicial administration: Supreme Court mandates that every criminal judgment include tabulated charts of witnesses, exhibited documents, and material objects for clarity and ease of appeal.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Recognized binding Sharad Birdhichand Sharda test for circumstantial evidence requiring a complete chain excluding all other hypotheses.
- Examined FIR: informant omitted material facts (identities of four boys; accused’s name) known beforehand—fatal omission (Amar Nath Jha; Ram Kumar Pandey).
- Scrutinized witness testimony: two “last seen” witnesses turned hostile; two gave contradictory versions of timing, place, and conduct; no one called child’s parents or covered the child—highly unnatural conduct raising suspicion they were real perpetrators.
- Critiqued investigation: failure to record critical statements at scene or hospital, no dog‐tracking, no DNA/forensic custody, no proof of house ownership, panchnamas drawn without associating key witnesses.
- Analyzed recoveries: panchas admitted they did not witness any seizure at night; Investigating Officer’s own testimony failed to link premises to accused or explain chain of custody; FSL reports rendered inadmissible.
- Concluded broken chain of circumstantial evidence; conviction could not stand. Ordered acquittal.
- Imposed procedural innovation: all trial Courts must append standardized charts of witnesses, exhibits, and material objects to improve transparency and appellate scrutiny.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Accused-Appellant)
- FIR omitted names of accused and four boys despite informant’s prior knowledge.
- “Last seen together” testimonies were after-thought, contradictory, and unworthy of credence.
- Investigation was apathetic: key statements unrecorded, no forensic steps taken, no proof of premises possession, chain of custody broken.
- Recoveries were tainted and could have been planted.
Respondent (State of Gujarat)
- Relied on medical evidence and FSL report showing blood-group “A” on seized articles.
- Asserted that two eye-witnesses supported the “last seen” circumstance.
- Maintained that panchnamas and panch witness evidence corroborated recoveries and site-map.
Factual Background
A four-year-old girl was found at night nude and bleeding near a pan-parlour. The informant lodged an FIR naming “unknown persons” under IPC Sections 363, 376(2)(i), 201 and POCSO Sections 3, 4. Four local boys first brought the girl to a neighbour and then she was admitted to hospital. Two years later, two of them alleged they saw the accused push her out of his house. Investigation purportedly recovered blood-stained clothes from the accused’s premises and obtained FSL reports. Trial and High Court convicted; Supreme Court found fatal gaps in FIR and investigation and ordered acquittal.
Statutory Analysis
- Indian Penal Code: Sections 363 (kidnapping), 376(2)(i) (sexual assault on minor), 201 (destruction of evidence).
- POCSO Act: Sections 3 & 4 (penetrative sexual assault on a child).
- CrPC: Section 161 (recording of witness statements); Section 482 (mentioned as overarching power? Not invoked).
- Evidence Act: Section 27 (confession leading to recovery); Section 11 (omissions affecting veracity).
Procedural Innovations
- Trial Courts must append three standardized charts at the end of every criminal judgment:
- Witness Chart (serial no., name, role)
- Exhibit Chart (exhibit no., description, proving witness)
- Material Object Chart (object no., description, proving witness)
- High Courts to adopt in their rules; Registry to circulate to all High Court Registrars.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Sharad Birdhichand Sharda principles affirmed
- ⚖️ Split Verdict – none (single‐view bench)
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – caution where FIR omissions exist