Supreme Court Directs Trial Courts To Standardise Witness And Evidence Cataloguing In Criminal Judgments, Allows Appeal And Acquits POCSO-Accused Over Evidence Lapses
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside the conviction and acquitted an appellant accused of sexually assaulting a four-year-old girl, directing that he be released from custody unless required in any other case. The Court found that the prosecution’s case, based on circumstantial evidence, did not establish an unbroken chain linking the accused to the offence, citing unreliable last-seen testimony and infirmities in the recovery, cataloguing and custody of seized articles. In the same order pronounced on Monday, December 15, 2025, it issued nationwide directions to trial courts to improve the legibility of criminal judgments by appending standardized, tabulated charts that list witnesses, exhibited documents and material objects for ready reference.
On 13 June 2013 at about 11 p.m., the informant saw three to four boys carrying a four-year-old girl without clothes and noticed blood on her legs. He accompanied them to a nearby locality to identify her family, and, when she did not respond to questions, an ambulance was called and she was taken to the government hospital. The treating doctor examined the child and opined that she had been sexually assaulted and was bleeding from her private parts, after which a complaint was lodged at the police station against unknown persons under Sections 376(1)(i) and 201 IPC.
During investigation, the police recorded statements of witnesses and identified the four boys who had brought the child; their statements under Section 161 CrPC recorded on 14 June 2013 claimed that they saw the accused pushing the child out of his house. The accused was arrested, the house was inspected, and blood-stained clothes and bedding were seized for forensic examination. A chargesheet was filed and charges were framed under Sections 363, 376(2)(i) and 201 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act.
At trial, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses, exhibited 19 documents, and produced material objects. The accused, in his Section 313 CrPC statement, denied the circumstances and stated that he had been falsely implicated. The case proceeded on circumstantial evidence, including last-seen allegations, recoveries and medical evidence; the defence challenged aspects including proof of possession/ownership of the premises, the chain of custody and handling of seized articles, and reliance on forensic results.
The Court recorded, “A grave and distressing case of brutal sexual assault upon a four-year old girl stands before this Court, enveloped in layers of investigative apathy and procedural infirmities.” It stated, “The First Information Report, despite the informant’s professed complete knowledge of the incident, is bereft of even the most rudimentary details, neither the name of the accused person (appellant herein) nor those of the purported witnesses of the last seen together circumstance find mention.” The Court observed, “What followed was an investigation hopelessly botched and a trial conducted with a pedantic rigidity that obscured, rather than unveiled, the truth.” It noted, “The highly unnatural conduct of the witnesses, marked by gross insensitivity/rank apathy, contradictions and apparent concoctions raises serious doubts about the reliability of the prosecution’s case.” It added, “This Court cannot remain oblivious to the sobering reality that such handling of criminal cases leaves scars not merely upon the individuals involved but upon the justice system itself.” and “When investigations are carried out in a manner that betrays their foundational purpose, and trials become mechanical exercises divorced from the quest for truth, the resulting miscarriage of justice reverberates far beyond the confines of the courtroom.”
On the nature of proof, the Court recorded, “Admittedly there is no direct evidence in the present case, and the case of the prosecution rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, to be specific, in form of last seen together circumstance, incriminating recoveries and medical evidence.” It stated, “Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” On “last seen”, the Court observed, “We find that the evidence of these witnesses is absolutely unconvincing and that they seem to have cooked up the last seen together theory so as to somehow implicate the accused-appellant in the case for oblique motives.” It recorded, “In the complaint, neither the names nor description of the four boys who were seen by Nazir Mohammed (PW-1), taking the child victim in a denuded state finds a mention.” and “The omission of these material facts in the FIR brings the entire case of the prosecution under a grave cloud of doubt.”
On recoveries and forensic material, the Court recorded, “In their entire evidence, both police officers failed to state anything regarding the sealing of the seized articles, their deposit in the police station malkhana or the manner of their transmission to the FSL.” It stated, “This vital link evidence, necessary to establish the sanctity of the muddamal articles was therefore never provided.” and “Consequently, neither the recoveries nor the forensic reports can be read in evidence.” It added, “The attempt of the prosecution to rely on the FSL report despite these grave infirmities is unacceptable.”
The Court directed: “The appellant stands acquitted of the charges. He is in custody and shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.”
“Accordingly, to ensure a systematic presentation of evidence that enables efficient appreciation of the record, we issue the following directions to all trial Courts across the country. These directions aim to institutionalize a standardized format for cataloguing witnesses, documentary evidence, and material objects. This will serve to facilitate better comprehension and immediate reference for all stakeholders, including the Appellate Courts. Hence, we are passing the following directions, which shall be adhered to by all trial Courts across the country.”
“All trial Courts dealing with criminal matters shall, at the conclusion of the judgment, incorporate tabulated charts summarizing: - a. Witnesses examined, b. Documents exhibited, and c. Material objects (muddamal) produced and exhibited.”
“These charts shall form an appendix or concluding segment of the judgment and shall be prepared in a clear, structured and easily comprehensible format.”
“Each criminal judgment shall contain a witness chart with at least the following columns: a. Serial Number b. Name of the Witness c. Brief Description/Role of the Witness, such as: Informant, Eye-witness, Medical Jurist/Doctor, Investigating Officer (I.O.), Panch Witness, etc.”
“A separate chart shall be prepared for all documents exhibited during trial. This chart shall include: a. Exhibit Number; b. Description of document; c. The Witness who proved or attested the document.”
“Whenever material objects are produced and marked as exhibits, the trial Court shall prepare a third chart with: a. Material Object (M.O.) Number; b. Description of the Object; c. Witness who proved the Object’s Relevance (e.g., weapon, clothing, tool, article seized under panchnama, etc.)”
“Where the number of witnesses or documents is unusually large, the trial Court may prepare charts only for the material, relevant, and relied-upon witnesses and documents, clearly indicating that the chart is confined to such items.”
“The aforesaid directions shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to all witnesses examined and all evidence adduced by the defence.”
“The specimen charts provided herein shall ordinarily serve as the standard format to be followed by trial Courts across the country. While these directions are primarily intended to streamline criminal trials, we leave it open to the High Courts to consider, wherever appropriate, the adoption of similar tabulated formats in civil matters as well, particularly in cases involving voluminous documentary or oral evidence, so as to promote clarity, uniformity, and ease of reference.”
“The High Court may consider incorporating the above directions in their respective rules governing the procedure of trial Courts. Registry shall forthwith transmit a copy of this judgment to the Registrar General of all the High Courts to ensure due compliance with the directions issued by this Court in paragraph Nos. 81-90 (supra).”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vijay Kumar, AOR Mrs. Vithika Garg, Adv. Ms. Vidushi Garg, Adv.
For the Respondents: Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Mr. Rishi Yadav, Adv.
Case Title: Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) Versus State of Gujarat
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1433
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No(s). 2973 of 2023
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta
