'Evidence Not Clear, There Can't Be Moral Conviction', Supreme Court Acquits Death Row Convict In Child Rape-Murder Case

The Supreme Court recently acquitted a man who was convicted and sentenced to death for an offence of murder and raping of a 4-year-old girl, noting that the accused's extra-judicial confession, which formed the cornerstone of the prosecution's case, was unreliable and insufficient for conviction as it was marred by glaring inconsistencies, coupled with a lack of independent witnesses supporting the discovery of the deceased body based on the accused extra-judicial confessions.

The Court observed hat a conviction can only be made when guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt, and as such, there "cannot be a moral conviction in law."

"Though the offence in question strikes at the human conscience, there being a murder of a four-year-old girl child, the evidence brought by the prosecution is not clear and unimpeachable, pointing towards the guilt of the accused alone," the Court held.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta heard the case where the accused had allegedly made an extra-judicial confession to the victim's family that he admitted to having committed the rape and murder of the four-year-old girl and offered to show the location of the body. Based on the accused's confession, the prosecution claimed the body was recovered, and the case against the accused was established. While the accused's extra-judicial confession was the direct link between the accused and the crime, there was no independent, reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon such extra-judicial confession.

Setting aside the impugned judgments, the judgment authored by Justice Karol emphasized that while extra-judicial confessions are admissible, their evidentiary value depends on the circumstances, credibility of the witness, and corroboration by independent facts.

The Court noted that the different testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding where the confession took place don't inspire confidence to sustain the accused's conviction based on inconsistent witnesses' testimony.

“The first suspicion of this extra-judicial confession arises from different versions of where the confession took place. PW1 has deposed that the accused confessed his crime at the marriage hall. Meanwhile, PW2 has deposed that it was so done at the tube well. PW3 brings out a different version in her deposition by stating that the confession took place in the field near the tube well. PW3 changes the story in her cross-examination, stating that the confession was not witnessed by her. In the considered view of this Court, these are not minor contradictions that can be brushed off. There are three different versions of one confession, which does not inspire confidence in the testimony of these witnesses.”, the court observed.

Another glaring defect noted by the Court in the prosecution's case was the failure to examine any independent witness to corroborate either the accused's alleged extra-judicial confession or the recovery of the victim's body. The Court observed that if, as claimed, several persons were present during the recovery, there was no justification for the police's omission to include any of them as independent witnesses in the proceedings.

“The most pertinent suspicion in the prosecution case is that no single independent witness is adjoined or examined in support of the confession or consequent recovery. We must clarify that this is not a case where the Investigating Officer tried to adjoin independent witnesses, but it was refused. PW1, in his statement categorically states that a large public from the village had gathered when the accused led them to the spot where the body of the deceased was recovered. The investigating officer, PW8, himself deposed that 'some other people' were present during the recovery. No explanation is provided for their non-joining, more so when the entire prosecution case rests on this circumstance. The recovery of the body of the deceased is from a field which is accessible and open to the public, which further warrants need for an independent witness.”, the court observed.

“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 entire case of the prosecution, from its genesis, is doubtful.”, the court held.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: SANJAY Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1033

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Dr. S. Muralidhar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pratiksha Basarkar, Adv. Mr. Maitreya Subramaniam, Adv. Mr. Anish R. Shah, AOR

For 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.