The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction and death sentence of a man accused of raping and murdering a four-year-old girl, citing insufficient evidence beyond the last-seen theory.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has overturned the conviction and death sentence of a man accused of raping and murdering a four-year-old girl. The ruling came in response to a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused, challenging the decision of the Allahabad High Court, which had upheld his conviction under Sections 302 (murder) and 376(2)(G) (gang rape) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced him to death.
A three-judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta carefully examined the evidence presented in the case. The Bench emphasized that
“The only piece of circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime was the “last-seen theory.””
Multiple prosecution witnesses, including PW1, PW2, PW3, PW6, and PW7, testified that they had seen the accused with the deceased child shortly before her death. However, the Court highlighted a well-established legal principle that
“A conviction cannot rest solely on the last-seen theory without strong corroborative evidence”
Reaffirming this stance, the Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Randeep Singh v. State of Haryana, highlighting that
“a conviction must be based on proof beyond reasonable doubt rather than on moral presumptions“
The Court categorically stated,
“There cannot be a moral conviction in law,” reinforcing the principle that the justice system must be guided by concrete evidence rather than subjective moral beliefs.
Given the lack of conclusive proof beyond the last-seen theory, the Supreme Court found the evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction and, consequently, set aside both the conviction and the death sentence of the accused.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court: “In Matters of Liberty, Courts Should Not Postpone Issues for Long”
Factual Background
The case dates back to 2004, when the appellant-accused accompanied the complainant’s four-year-old daughter and her paternal aunt to a wedding ceremony. The event was one of seven combined marriages being conducted at the same venue. During the ceremony, the accused allegedly informed the victim’s aunt that he was taking the child home. However, the child never reached her residence.
When questioned, the accused initially claimed that he had left the child at the wedding hall itself. Later, under further scrutiny, he reportedly confessed to disposing of the victim’s body in a nearby sugarcane field after allegedly committing rape and murder. Following the discovery of the child’s lifeless body, the complainant promptly lodged a First Information Report (FIR), initiating criminal proceedings.
The Trial Court, after assessing the evidence presented by the prosecution, found the accused guilty and convicted him under Sections 376 (rape), 302 (murder), and 201 (causing the disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Consequently, the accused was sentenced to death. Dissatisfied with the verdict, the accused filed an appeal before the Allahabad High Court.
Simultaneously, the matter was referred to the High Court for confirmation of the death penalty. The High Court upheld both the conviction and the death sentence, prompting the accused to seek relief before the Supreme Court of India.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Reasoning
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta, undertook a detailed examination of the case.
The Court observed that the prosecution’s case primarily relied on the last-seen theory, which posits that when a victim is last seen alive in the company of the accused, the burden shifts onto the accused to explain the circumstances leading to the victim’s death.
However, the Bench found serious inconsistencies in the evidence supporting this theory. A key prosecution witness (PW7), who was relied upon to establish that the accused was last seen with the deceased, admitted during cross-examination that she had not initially informed the Investigating Officer (PW8) that she had seen the accused leaving the wedding hall with the victim.
The Court noted that
“this unexplained omission significantly weakened the prosecution’s narrative and cast doubt on the reliability of the witness testimony“
Given these inconsistencies, the Supreme Court held that
“The circumstances presented before it did not conclusively prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt”
The Bench emphasized that
“While the crime was undoubtedly heinous and deeply disturbing, the judicial system must remain guided by concrete, unimpeachable evidence rather than moral outrage.“
The Court reiterated the principle laid down in Randeep Singh v. State of Haryana, affirming that a conviction must be based on clear and conclusive proof rather than mere suspicion or moral conviction.
Recognizing the inadequacy of the prosecution’s evidence to meet the threshold of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and death sentence awarded to the accused.
The Supreme Court’s judgment highlights the fundamental principle that
“Criminal convictions, particularly those carrying the death penalty, must be based on indisputable evidence rather than conjecture or circumstantial theories.“
While the crime itself was abhorrent, the Court maintained that
“Judicial decisions must be anchored in law and evidence, ensuring that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution”
Consequently, the accused was acquitted of all charges, reaffirming the necessity of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before imposing the gravest of punishments.
Case Details:
- Cause Title: Sanjay v. State of Uttar Pradesh
- Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 317
Legal Representation:
- For the Appellant: Senior Advocate S. Muralidhar, Advocates Anish R. Shah, Pratiksha Basarkar, and Maitreya Subramaniam.
- For the Respondent (State of Uttar Pradesh): Senior Additional Advocate General (AAG) Garima Prasad, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Suryaprakash V. Raju, Advocates Arvind Kumar Sharma, Vijendra Singh, Pradeep Misra, Zoheb Hussain, Annam Venkatesh, Samrat Goswami, Deepak Goel, Shailesh Sharma, Kumar Abhinandan, Apurva Mahndiyan, Daleep Dhyani, and Suraj Singh.
READ JUDGEMENT HERE:
READ MORE REPORTS ON DEATH SENTENCE
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
