Supreme Court Quashes Death Sentence In Child Rape-Murder Case | Slams Maharashtra Police For Shabby And Fabricated Investigation.
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India, three Judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta, quashed the conviction and death sentence previously upheld by the Bombay High Court. The Supreme Court directed the immediate acquittal and release of the appellant from custody. The court concluded that the prosecution had failed due to significant lapses in the investigation and found the lower courts' judgments unsustainable, resting purely on circumstantial evidence.
The case originated from an incident dated 30 September 2013, involving the disappearance and subsequent murder of a young girl aged approximately three years and nine months in Thane, Maharashtra. The complainant, a painter, resided at Old Waghbil Gaon, Thane, with his mother and daughter. On the morning of the incident, around 10:00 A.M., the complainant’s mother left the house to fetch water, and by 10:30 A.M., the complainant also left home, leaving the child alone. Upon returning at 10:45 A.M., he discovered his daughter and pet dog missing.
A frantic search ensued, and upon locating the family dog but not his child, the complainant approached Kasarvadavali Police Station, lodging an FIR under Section 363 IPC for kidnapping. Two days later, the severely decomposed body of the child was discovered in a pond approximately one kilometer from the chawl. Post-mortem examinations revealed severe injuries indicating sexual assault and head trauma sufficient to cause death.
The initial investigation led by API Vikas Sarjerao Lokre recorded witness testimonies and collected forensic samples from several watchmen residing nearby. Suspicion soon fell on the appellant, a watchman in the vicinity, who was arrested on 3 October 2013. The prosecution claimed the accused appellant confessed, leading them to incriminating evidence such as blood-stained clothing and shoes bearing mud consistent with soil near the recovery site of the child's body. However, crucial DNA tests failed to conclusively link the appellant to the crime.
The prosecution built its case around three circumstantial evidence points: the “last seen together” theory, an extra-judicial confession to a supervisor, and forensic soil analysis.
Witnesses including PW-9, PW-14, and PW-15 testified about seeing the victim near the accused. PW-17 the supervisor, under whom the accused appellant was working, claimed that the appellant made a vague confession of wrongdoing. Yet, their testimonies suffered from inconsistencies, delayed reporting, and improvements over their initial statements.
Despite these weaknesses, the trial court in Thane convicted the accused appellant on 5 March 2019 under Sections 302, 363, 376(2)(i), and 201 IPC, sentencing him to death and rigorous imprisonment. On 25 November 2021, the Bombay High Court confirmed this sentence.
The appellant then approached the Supreme Court, challenging both the trial and High Court judgments, arguing severe investigative lapses and lack of reliable evidence.
The Supreme Court examined the prosecution’s case; specifically addressing the circumstantial evidence relied upon.
Regarding investigative failures, the Supreme Court observed: “The instant case is yet another classic example of shabby and perfunctory investigation leading to failure of the prosecution case involving a gruesome incident of rape and murder of the budding life of a tender young girl aged about 3 years and 9 months.”
On the “last seen” evidence, the Court recorded: “The evidence of the witnesses of the last seen circumstance is vacillating, shaky, and tainted with wholesale improvements, and hence, unworthy of credence.”
Concerning witness behaviour and credibility, the Court noted: “The conduct of the witnesses of the last seen circumstance in failing to timely step forward...clearly indicates that these witnesses are untrustworthy and were created by the investigation agency for ulterior motives.”
Evaluating the extra-judicial confession evidence, the court stated: “The evidence of extra-judicial confession...is also unacceptable because the said witness too did not step forward to inform the police immediately.”
On forensic evidence involving soil samples, the court observed critically: “Even if it is held that the soil/mud found on the shoes of the appellant tallied with the soil found in the pond, that would be just an indication of the fact that the accused appellant may have visited the area surrounding the pond at some point of time. This, by itself, would not incriminate the accused appellant in any manner.”
Addressing investigative shortcomings, the Supreme Court explicitly recorded: “Flawed and tainted investigation has eventually led to the failure of the prosecution case involving the gruesome rape and murder.”
The Supreme Court further cited established jurisprudence regarding circumstantial evidence from the landmark judgment Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra, stating that: “There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.”
Finding this standard unmet, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the accused appellant’s guilt conclusively. The accused appellant had to suffer incarceration for almost 12 years, without there being any reliable evidence on record of the case.
The Supreme Court ordered that the earlier judgments from both the trial and appellate courts be quashed, clearly stating: “The judgment dated 25th November 2021 by the High Court and the judgment dated 5th March 2019 by the trial court, along with the order of sentence dated 8th March 2019, are set aside.”
The court further explicitly directed that "The appellant is acquitted of the charges. He is in custody and shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.”
Additionally, the court disposed of all related pending applications.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant(s): Mr. Raghenth Basant, Senior Advocate; Ms. Fauzia Shakil, AOR; Ms. Aathma Sudhir Kumar, Advocate; Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Advocate; Ms. Pratiksha Basarkar, Advocate; Ms. Kaushitaki Sharma, Advocate; Ms. Hima Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Advocate; Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Advocate; Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR; Ms. Soumya Priyadarshinee, Advocate; Mr. Vinayak Aren, Advocate; Mr. Amlaan Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Jatin Dhamija, Advocate; Mr. Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Case Title: XXXX vs. State of Maharashtra
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 702
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No(s). 1954-1955 of 2022
Bench Composition: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Sandeep Mehta
[Read/Download order]
