The case arose from the conviction of a man for the alleged rape and murder of a four-year-old girl in Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh. The prosecution asserted that on the day of the incident, the accused accompanied the child and her aunt to a marriage ceremony. He later informed the aunt that he had taken the child home; however, she did not return. Several days later, the accused allegedly confessed to the crime, stating that he had left the body in a sugarcane field. The police registered an FIR and commenced investigation, during which articles belonging to the child were recovered from the indicated location.
The prosecution examined eight witnesses, including the child’s father, relatives, and local witnesses who claimed to have last seen the accused with the victim. The medical officer who performed the post-mortem reported that the body was decomposed and partially eaten by animals, making it difficult to ascertain cause or time of death. The investigating officer recorded the accused’s confession and conducted recoveries based on his disclosure. The defence did not adduce oral evidence. The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, holding that the circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain pointing to guilt. The High Court confirmed the conviction and death sentence. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant challenged the findings, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, that the alleged confession was inconsistent, and that the investigation lacked corroboration from independent witnesses. The case turned primarily on the evidentiary value of the extra-judicial confession, the last-seen theory, and the reliability of the forensic report.
The Supreme Court observed that the conviction was based entirely on circumstantial evidence and the accused’s extra-judicial confession. It stated: “In the considered view of this Court, the conviction of the accused by the Courts below is based on improper appreciation of evidence on record and in correct appreciation of settled principles of law resulting in the travesty of justice.” The Bench recorded that the accused’s conduct did not appear suspicious, as he had actively participated in search efforts for several days after the incident. It noted: “It is improbable that a person who killed ‘X’ would have been there all along, as a search party looking for her. None suspected him.” The Court further stated that no missing report was filed for several days, despite witnesses claiming to have seen the accused last with the child, and that this omission cast doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution story. The Court observed: “These circumstances make us doubt the genesis of the prosecution story as also the veracity of the prosecution witnesses and their testimonies.” It recorded that the extra-judicial confession was surrounded by “different versions” regarding where it took place—some witnesses claimed it occurred at the marriage hall, others at a tube well, and another in a field—which “does not inspire confidence in the testimony of these witnesses.”
On the recovery of the body and articles, the Court stated: “No single independent witness is adjoined or examined in support of the confession or consequent recovery.” It observed that this omission was serious, particularly when the entire case rested on that recovery. Regarding forensic evidence, the Court noted: “The report has miserably failed to link the accused with the crime… there is no testing undertaken to compare the blood found on the clothes of the deceased with the blood of the accused-appellant.” The Bench further stated: “Conviction cannot be based solely on last-seen theory.” It recorded that even the last-seen circumstance was doubtful due to contradictions in witness statements. Summing up, the Court observed: “Though the offence in question strikes at the human conscience, the evidence brought by the prosecution is not clear and unimpeachable, pointing towards the guilt of the accused alone.”
The Supreme Court directed: “The conviction of the accused-appellant under Sections 302 and 376 of the IPC is set aside. The impugned order dated 26th July, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad… which confirmed the judgment and order dated 21st September, 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.16, Bulandshahar… is quashed and set aside.” “The accused-appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in another detention order.” “As the mercy petition of the petitioner has been rejected by the President of India, the present petition has been rendered infructuous… we dismiss this petition as having become infructuous.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner(s): Dr. S. Muralidhar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pratiksha Basarkar, Adv. Mr. Maitreya Subramaniam, Adv. Mr. Anish R. Shah, AOR.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Suryaprakash V.Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Samrat Goswami, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. A.A.G. Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR Mr. Deepak Goel, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kumar Abhinandan, Adv. Ms. Apurva Mahndiyan, Adv. Ms. Garima Prasad, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Adv. Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv.
Case Title: Sanjay v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 317
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 239 of 2025
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Sandeep Mehta
Source: https://24law.in/story/extra-judicial-confession-unreliable-without-independent-corroboration-supreme-court-acquits-death
No comments:
Post a Comment