The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction and life sentence imposed on the appellant for offences under Sections 363, 376(2)(i) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, holding that the investigation suffered from serious procedural infirmities and the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of incriminating circumstances to convict the accused.
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that criminal trials must remain anchored to the pursuit of truth, cautioning that “when investigations are carried out in a manner that betrays their foundational purpose, and trials become mechanical exercises divorced from the quest for truth, the resulting miscarriage of justice reverberates far beyond the confines of the courtroom”
The case arose from a June 2013 FIR alleging sexual assault on a four-year-old girl. The complaint was initially lodged against unknown persons; however, the accused was later implicated during the investigation on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The Trial Court convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Gujarat High Court, by its judgment dated April 5, 2016, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Court noted that despite the informant claiming complete knowledge of the incident, the FIR failed to name the accused or identify the alleged key witnesses. The subsequent introduction of witnesses and allegations was found to be a clear afterthought, unsupported by contemporaneous record and marked by unnatural conduct, contradictions, and embellishments.
Applying the principles governing conviction on circumstantial evidence, including Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Court held that the prosecution failed to exclude every hypothesis consistent with innocence. Accordingly, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of all charges, and directed his immediate release.
Appearance:
For Appellant(s): AOR Vijay Kumar, and Adv.Vidushi Garg
For Respondent(s): AOR Swati Ghildiyal, and Adv. Rishi Yadav, adv.
