The Court ruled that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to sustain the conviction. Highlighting the flaws in the prosecution’s case, the Bench stated, “All the facts show that there is a gaping hole in the prosecution story and there is more than meets the eye.”
NEW DELHI: Today (28th Jan): The Supreme Court of India has acquitted Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap, a man who was on death row since 2015 for the rape and murder of a 23-year-old techie, Esther Anuhya, in 2014.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice BR Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Justice KV Viswanathan.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Acquits Man In 1997 Murder Case
The Court ruled that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to sustain the conviction. Highlighting the flaws in the prosecution’s case, the Bench stated, “All the facts show that there is a gaping hole in the prosecution story and there is more than meets the eye.”
Declaring the accused not guilty, the Court ordered, “We hold appellant is not guilty of offence. Appellant to be set free. He is not guilty. He is acquitted.”
Background
Esther Anuhya, a 23-year-old software engineer working at Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) in Goregaon, Mumbai, hailed from Machilipatnam, Andhra Pradesh. According to the prosecution’s case, she had been kidnapped, raped, and murdered by the accused. It was further alleged that Sanap burned her body at a secluded location near the Eastern Expressway to destroy evidence.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Acquits Defendant in Alleged Rape Case, Questions Complainant’s Credibility
In 2018, the Bombay High Court had confirmed Sanap’s death sentence. The High Court observed that the crime warranted the death penalty, stating that such a person “would surely remain a menace to the society.”
The trial court had also earlier awarded the death sentence, describing the crime as one committed with “extreme brutality” and in a “pre-planned and diabolical manner.”
The Supreme Court’s decision to set aside the conviction was based on its assessment of the evidence presented during the trial.
The Bench noted significant discrepancies in the prosecution’s story, emphasizing that it would be “extremely unsafe to sustain the conviction” under such circumstances.
