Pranav B Prem

The Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the conviction and death sentence awarded to Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap for the rape and murder of a 23-year-old woman in 2014. Citing major lapses in the prosecution's case, the Court acquitted the appellant of all charges.

A three-judge bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and K.V. Viswanathan observed that in cases relying solely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The bench remarked, “There are gaping holes in the prosecution story leading to the irresistible conclusion that there is something more than what meets the eye in this case.”

Case Background

The case involved the rape and murder of a 23-year-old woman traveling from Andhra Pradesh to Mumbai for work in 2014. Her body was discovered in a partially burnt and decomposed state. The chemical analysis report concluded that the cause of death was head injury and smothering, accompanied by genital injuries likely caused by the forcible insertion of an object. The prosecution argued that the accused was last seen with the deceased and relied on circumstantial evidence to establish guilt. The Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death, a decision upheld by the Bombay High Court. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Observations

Failure of Circumstantial Evidence

The Supreme Court emphasized that the evidence presented by the prosecution failed to meet the high standard required in circumstantial evidence cases. Referring to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984), the Court reiterated that: “The circumstances relied upon, when stitched together, do not lead to the sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The chain is not so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.”

Admissibility of CCTV Footage

The prosecution relied heavily on CCTV footage to argue that the appellant was last seen with the deceased. However, the Supreme Court found the footage inadmissible due to the lack of a Section 65-B(4) certificate under the Indian Evidence Act, as mandated in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014). The bench observed: “When the prosecution was aware of the need for the 65-B(4) certificate and they themselves collected it for the CDRs, there was no reason as to why they did not collect the same for the CCTV footage. In view of the above, we are not able to place any reliance on the CCTV footage.”

Last Seen Theory

The prosecution’s reliance on the “last seen” theory was also found to be flawed. Witnesses PW-20 and PW-21, who allegedly saw the appellant with the deceased, only recorded their statements two and a half months after the incident. The Court observed that the unexplained delay significantly weakened their testimonies: “Analyzing the evidence, we must record that the witnesses fail to inspire the necessary confidence that a Court of Law looks for, to clinchingly establish the circumstances of last seen.”

Extrajudicial Confession

The prosecution also relied on an extrajudicial confession allegedly made by the appellant to PW-9. The Court rejected this as unreliable, stating: “Extra-judicial confession, by its very nature, has been held to be a weak piece of evidence... From the evidence mentioned above, we are not able to find that PW-9 enjoyed the confidence of the accused so as to safely infer that the accused would have made a clean breast of things to PW-9.”

Recovery of Trolley Bag

The recovery of the victim’s trolley bag, another key piece of evidence, was also dismissed. The witness who testified about the bag’s recovery could not clearly recall who had handed it over to her, further weakening the prosecution’s case.

Conclusion

After examining the evidence in detail, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The bench stated: “The prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, we are constrained to come to the sole irresistible conclusion that the appellant is not guilty of the offences for which he has been charged.” The Court acquitted Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap of all charges, highlighting the “gaping holes” in the prosecution's story and emphasizing the necessity of adhering to strict standards of proof in cases involving circumstantial evidence.

Cause Title: CHANDRABHAN SUDAM SANAP v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 879 OF 2019

Date: January-28-2025

Bench:  Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice K.V. Viswanathan

[Read/Download order]