A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case concerns the alleged rape and murder of a four-year-old girl (‘X’). The Trial Court convicted Sanjay for offences under Sections 302 and 376(2)(g) IPC and imposed the death sentence, which the High Court confirmed. The prosecution’s case rested principally on three strands:

(i) last-seen evidence placing the accused with the child after a marriage ceremony;

(ii) an extra-judicial confession by the accused leading to the discovery of the child’s body and certain clothes; and

(iii) forensic testing of recovered articles.

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and sentence. The Court emphasised settled principles for circumstantial cases: all facts must be fully established and consistent only with the accused’s guilt; extra-judicial confessions must be proved to be voluntary and trustworthy and are weak unless independently corroborated; last-seen evidence alone cannot complete a chain of circumstances; independent witnesses to recovery are required where available; and forensic links must meaningfully connect the accused to the crime.

Material contradictions in witness versions about where the confession occurred, the absence of independent witnesses to the recovery despite their availability, delay and gaps in reportage and search conduct, incomplete forensic linkage, and inexplicable omissions in investigation raised reasonable doubts. On that basis the Court held two views were possible and adopted the view favourable to the accused, set aside conviction under Sections 302 and 376 IPC and ordered his release if not otherwise detained.

Keywords: Death penalty; Circumstantial evidence; Extra-judicial confession; Last-seen evidence; Forensic corroboration.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arises from the disappearance of a four-year-old girl during attendance at a mass marriage event on 22 February 2004 and subsequent discovery of her dead body in a sugarcane field. The police case began after the accused, a relative lodging with the complainant family, allegedly confessed on 28 February 2004 that he had raped and strangled the child and pointed out the place of disposal. The Trial Court convicted the accused after relying on last-seen testimony, the extra-judicial confession and recovery, and some forensic examination of clothing and recovered articles; the Trial Court awarded death sentence given the age of the victim and nature of the crime.

The High Court affirmed conviction and confirmed sentence, finding the chain of circumstantial evidence complete. On appeal, the Supreme Court undertook a rigorous re-appraisal of the quality of evidence and the processes followed in investigation and trial. The Court framed the dispute as essentially one of appreciation of circumstantial and confession evidence in light of settled Supreme Court precedents, and examined contradictions in witness accounts, the absence of independent witnesses to a public recovery, lacunae in forensic linkage, and unexplained investigative choices.

The judgment engages contemporaneous authorities on the weight to be attached to extra-judicial confessions and last-seen evidence and reiterates the principle that where two views are possible in circumstantial cases, the one favourable to the accused must prevail.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The accused, Sanjay, had lived with the complainant’s family for approximately eight months. On the date of the marriage celebration, the accused reportedly took X from the hall, stating he would take her home; she did not reach home. Multiple family witnesses and others later stated they had last seen the accused leave the hall with the child. Over the subsequent days the family conducted searches; the accused also participated in search parties. No missing report was lodged with police for six days according to the prosecution chronology.

On 28 February 2004 the accused allegedly confessed in the presence of some villagers that he had raped and strangled X and led them to a nearby sugarcane field where the decomposed remains were found along with items purportedly of the child. The investigating officer recorded the confession, drew recovery memos and sent clothing and articles for FSL testing. The medical officer reported that due to animal activity and decomposition, time and cause of death could not be conclusively determined.

Forensic testing reportedly detected human blood and presence of semen on the underwear, but no conclusive comparison was made to link the accused biologically to those traces. The prosecution examined eight witnesses; the defence did not call witnesses. Trial and High Court relied on last-seen testimony, confession, and recoveries to convict and impose death. The Supreme Court reexamined each factual claim and the integrity of the evidentiary chain.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence?
ii. Whether the extra-judicial confession was proved to be voluntary, true, and reliable so as to sustain conviction when it formed the backbone of prosecution?
iii. Whether last-seen evidence alone could justify conviction in absence of other unimpeachable links?
iv. Whether the investigating agency’s failure to adjoin or examine independent witnesses present at the recovery vitiated the recovery’s evidentiary value?
v. Whether forensic reports produced a probative link between the accused and the sexual assault/murder that could support conviction beyond reasonable doubt?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Petitioner/Appellant submitted that the prosecution case was rife with inconsistencies and omissions. It was urged that the accused’s participation in search parties and the absence of contemporaneous suspicion undermined any inference of guilt. The counsel pointed to contradictory accounts about where the confession occurred, gaps in investigative steps such as failure to adjoin available independent witnesses to the recovery, and inadequate forensic linkage no comparison of blood/semen traces with the accused was performed thereby rendering the extra-judicial confession unsafe to ground conviction. Reliance on last-seen evidence to the exclusion of positive corroboration was argued to be legally insufficient under settled precedents.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Respondent submitted that the accused had confessed and led to recovery of the body and clothing; identification of the dead child by the father and corroboration by multiple witnesses established a chain of circumstance. The prosecution relied on Section 27 recoveries and forensic findings (presence of semen) as supporting the narrative of rape and murder. The State urged that cumulative circumstances pointed unerringly to the accused and justified upholding conviction and death sentence.

H) JUDGMENT 

The Court undertook a methodical re-appraisal. It reiterated that circumstantial evidence must be complete, consistent only with guilt and exclude innocence and third-party involvement; where two views reasonably arise, the view favourable to the accused must be adopted (citing Pritinder Singh (2023) 7 SCC 727; Pradeep Kumar (2024) 3 SCC 324; Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023) 5 SCC 350). The Court found material shortcomings in the prosecution narrative: contradictory accounts of the locus and witnesses to the confession (PW1, PW2, PW3 gave differing versions and PW3 recanted witnessing the confession), unexplained delay and absence of a missing report for six days, improbability that an open cultivated sugarcane field with a foul smell remained unnoticed for six days in a populated area combed for search, and that the accused participated in searches without arousing suspicion facts that created reasonable doubt about the genesis of the prosecution case.

The Court stressed that extra-judicial confessions are weak and require independent corroboration; the circumstances here different accounts of where it occurred, lack of independent joined witnesses despite availability, and the investigating officer’s failure to examine other persons PW1 claimed were present made the confession unreliable (relying on Kalinga v. State of Karnataka (2024) 4 SCC 735; Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. (2023) 6 SCC 605). Forensic evidence failed to provide a direct link: tests only indicated human blood and presence of semen but no comparative testing to connect the accused to the biological material was conducted; the assistant director’s report did not link the accused to the crime.

The Court found the last-seen theory inadequate because even that evidence had lacunae: an independent witness (PW7) admitted omission in first disclosure to the IO. In aggregate the Court concluded that the prosecution had not eliminated reasonable hypotheses of innocence or third-party involvement; therefore, conviction could not be sustained beyond reasonable doubt. The Court set aside convictions under Sections 302 and 376 IPC and ordered release if no other detention existed.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The decisive legal proposition is that in circumstantial cases the prosecution must establish every fact constituting the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt such that the only inference open is guilt; extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence and demand independent trustworthy corroboration; absence of available independent witnesses at public recoveries and failure to perform conclusive forensic comparisons weaken prosecution’s case; when two views are possible the benefit must go to the accused. Application of these principles led to acquittal.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The judgment restates and endorses recent precedents on cautious treatment of extra-judicial confession and last-seen evidence (citing Krishnan v. State of T.N. (2014) 12 SCC 279; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (1984) 4 SCC 116) and reaffirms that heinousness cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt when deciding on capital punishment. The Court also importantly critiques investigative omissions (failure to adjoin expected independent witnesses) as having critical evidentiary consequences.

c. GUIDELINES

1. In circumstantial prosecutions ensure that each circumstance is fully proved and together exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt.

2. Treat extra-judicial confessions with caution; secure independent corroboration and establish voluntariness and trustworthiness of the witnesses to it.

3. Where recovery occurs in publicly accessible places, investigating officers should adjoin available independent persons as witnesses and examine them at trial; omission weakens the recovery’s probative value.

4. Forensic testing must aim to produce comparative results that meaningfully link accused to biological traces; perfunctory or non-comparative reports are insufficient.

5. When multiple reasonable inferences exist, courts must adopt the inference favourable to the accused; capital punishment requires unimpeachable proof.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment is a careful application of established evidentiary principles to a fact-intensive, emotionally charged case. The Court resisted the impulse to allow moral outrage at the atrocity to eclipse the bedrock requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, especially when the conviction would entail the death penalty. The decision underscores prosecutorial and investigative duties: contemporaneous registration of missing persons complaints, transparent conduct of recoveries with independent witnesses, and robust forensic comparisons.

Practically, the judgment will serve as precedent in circumscribing reliance on uncorroborated extra-judicial confessions and last-seen evidence, and in reminding trial courts to weigh investigative omissions heavily when the consequences are capital. The Court’s approach reinforces the protection of the accused through doctrinal safeguards while acknowledging the gravity of offences against children; it thereby balances societal condemnation of heinous crimes with legal standards of proof.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Sanjay v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1790 : 2025 INSC 317 (attached judgment).

2. Pritinder Singh alias Lovely v. State of Punjab, (2023) 7 SCC 727.

3. Pradeep Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2024) 3 SCC 324.

4. Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2023) 5 SCC 350.

5. Kalinga v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 4 SCC 735.

6. Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B., (2023) 6 SCC 605.

7. Krishnan v. State of T.N., (2014) 12 SCC 279.

8. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116.

9. Randeep Singh v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3383.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 302, 376(2)(g), 201).

2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (provisions on reference and confirmation of death sentence).