Intention To Kill Evident From Brutality: Gujarat High Court Upholds Conviction of Man Accused of Raping and Murdering Minor

The Court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the accused challenging the judgment of the Sessions Court convicting him for rape and murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment.

A Division Bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R.T. Vachhani, while dismissing the appeal, observed that “the intention/knowledge is clear from the brutality, throttling after rape shows a deliberate intention to kill, or at least knowledge that death was likely.”

Background

The prosecution's case arose from an incident in which a minor girl had attended a late-night social function in a village. The prosecution alleged that after the function concluded, the accused took the victim away from the place and committed sexual assault upon her.

The following morning, the victim was found dead in a nearby agricultural field with signs of violence. A complaint was lodged, and the police registered an FIR under Sections 376 and 302 IPC. During the investigation, the police conducted inquest proceedings, prepared the scene-of-offence panchnama, collected biological samples, seized clothes and other articles, and sent the materials for forensic examination.

The investigation also involved recording statements of witnesses, conducting medical examinations, and obtaining forensic science laboratory reports. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and since the offences were triable by the Court of Sessions, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court.

The Sessions Court framed charges against the accused for offences under Sections 376 and 302 IPC. After the trial, the court convicted the accused and sentenced him to life imprisonment for both offences, with the sentences directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court.

Court’s Observation

The High Court examined the evidence on record, including oral testimony of witnesses, documentary evidence, and forensic reports produced during the trial.

The Court noted that the prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence, as there was no direct eyewitness to the actual commission of the crime. However, it was observed that the chain of circumstances was complete and unbroken, clearly pointing towards the guilt of the accused.

The Bench relied on the testimony of witnesses who had seen the accused taking the victim away shortly before the incident, thereby establishing the “last-seen” circumstance. The Court found that this evidence was natural, consistent, and remained unshaken during cross-examination.

The Court also examined the medical evidence and the postmortem report, which recorded injuries indicating sexual assault along with signs of throttling leading to asphyxia. The medical expert had opined that the injuries were ante-mortem and that the death was homicidal in nature.

The forensic evidence further corroborated the prosecution's case. The Court noted that the FSL reports detected biological material linking the accused to the crime, while bloodstains recovered from the scene and other seized articles supported the prosecution’s version of events.

The Bench also referred to the recovery of incriminating articles based on the disclosure made by the accused during the investigation. The Court held that such recovery constituted an important link in the chain of circumstances as it indicated the accused’s knowledge about the location of material connected with the offence.

The Court further considered the conduct of the accused after the incident and noted that his conduct was inconsistent with innocence. His failure to provide any plausible explanation for the incriminating circumstances during examination under Section 313 CrPC also weighed against him.

The Bench reiterated the settled legal principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances which unerringly points to the guilt of the accused and excludes any other reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.

Applying this principle, the Court held that the prosecution had successfully established all the necessary links in the chain, including the last-seen circumstance, medical evidence of sexual assault and homicidal death, forensic corroboration, and recovery of incriminating articles.

The Court concluded that the brutality of the assault and the act of throttling after rape clearly demonstrated the accused’s intention to kill, or at least knowledge that death was likely, thereby bringing the case within the scope of murder under Section 300 IPC.

Conclusion

In light of the evidence on record, the Court held that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and unbroken, clearly pointing to the guilt of the accused. The testimonies of key witnesses, the prompt lodging of the FIR, the medical evidence confirming sexual assault and homicidal death, the forensic reports, and the conduct of the accused after the incident collectively established the prosecution's case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court therefore found no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Sessions Court and dismissed the criminal appeal, thereby affirming the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused.

Cause Title: Mukeshbhai Gorchandbhai Chamka v. State of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:16137-DB)

Appearances

Appellant: Gajendra P. Baghel and Shambhukumar, Advocates

Respondent: Ronak Raval, APP

Click here to read/download Judgment