These legal documents detail the Supreme Court of India’s decision to overturn the conviction and death sentence of Sanjay, who was accused of raping and murdering a four-year-old girl. The Court found the prosecution’s case, based on circumstantial evidence, to be riddled with inconsistencies and lacking sufficient corroboration. Key issues included contradictory accounts of the accused’s confession, the absence of independent witnesses for crucial recoveries, and the inconclusive nature of forensic evidence. Consequently, the Court concluded that Sanjay’s guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to his acquittal. The second document indicates that a separate mercy petition by Sanjay was dismissed as infructuous because the Supreme Court had already vacated his conviction.
Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 and 376(2)(G) – Murder/Rape – Conviction set aside – Circumstantial evidence – Evidence of last seen – Extra judicial confession – FSL report – Appreciation of evidence – Rape and murder of a four-year-old girl child – Death sentence – Conviction handed to the accused-appellant has been based on (a) last seen circumstance; (b) extra-judicial confession given by him, leading to the recovery of the dead body of ‘X’ along with articles worn by her at the time of death; (c) the FSL Report of the articles recovered, both of the deceased and the accused.
Held that 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.
Held that the conduct of the accused does not give rise to suspicion. PW1 and PW2 have deposed to the fact that the appellant was part of the search parties for 5-6 days after the incident – He was always present – It is improbable that a person who killed ‘X’ would have been there all along, as a search party looking for her – None suspected him – None pointed a finger of suspension against him, despite the hypothesis of the last seen theory – For six days from when the child disappears, there is not a single person who lodges a missing report with the police or any other authority – The explanation given by PWs 1 and 2 that for six days they were searching for the child in other villages only renders the genuineness of the prosecution story to be unbelievable .
Body of ‘X’ was recovered in an open sugarcane field six days after the incident – PWs 2 and 3 deposed that a foul smell was coming from the spot as well – However, no single villager came upon this open spot for six days, which creates suspicion about the prosecution story.
Case of the prosecution depends entirely on the extra judicial confession of the accused on 28th February, 2004, leading to the recovery of body from the sugarcane field, along with other articles worn by the deceased – Extra-judicial confession and the consequent recovery are also surrounded by suspicious circumstances – No single independent witness is adjoined or examined in support of the confession or consequent recovery – FSL report has miserably failed to link the accused with the crime – The examination conducted only verifies whether the blood found is of human origin, and that semen was present on the underwear allegedly belonging to the deceased – There is no testing undertaken to compare the blood found on the clothes of the deceased with the blood of the accused-appellant – How does signs of semen found on the clothes of the accused link him to the crime of either rape or murder
Even the last-seen theory against the accused-appellant is not free from suspicion – In her cross- examination, PW7, an independent witness, who has been relied upon for this circumstance, admits that she had not told the I.O.- PW8, on the first instance, that she had seen the accused leaving the marriage hall with the deceased – The reason for this omission at the first instance remains unexplained.
Held that the circumstances presented do not establish conclusively the guilt of the accused in committing the murder and rape of ‘X’ – Conviction of the accused-appellant under Sections 302 and 376 of the IPC is set aside.
(Para 15 to 36)
Sanjay V. Union Of India
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 317: (DoJ 06-02-2025)
