Conviction Can’t Be Based On Last-Seen Theory; There Can’t Be Moral Conviction In Law: Supreme Court Sets Aside Death Sentence Of Man In 4-Yr-Old Girl’s Rape & Murder Case
The Supreme Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal of an accused against his conviction under Sections 302 and 376(2)(G) of the IPC and death sentence.
The Supreme Court has set aside the death sentence and conviction of a man who was accused of raping and killing a four-year-old girl child.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which confirmed his conviction under Sections 302 and 376(2)(G) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced him to death.
The three-Judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta reiterated, “The only circumstance remaining against the accused that can be believed, is the last-seen theory. PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW6 and PW7 have deposed that they saw the accused lastly with the deceased. It is settled law, however, that conviction cannot be solely based on last-seen theory. … We deem it appropriate to reiterate what came to be observed by this Court in Randeep Singh v. State of Haryana8, that a conviction can only be made when guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt, and as such, there cannot be a moral conviction in law.”
Senior Advocate S. Muralidhar represented the Appellant/Accused while Senior AAG Garima Prasad and ASG Suryaprakash V. Raju represented the Respondent/State.
Factual Background
As per the prosecution case, in 2004, the Appellant-accused accompanied the Complainant’s daughter aged 4 years and her paternal aunt to a marriage. It was part of seven combined marriages taking place at the same hall. After some time, the accused informed aunt that he was taking the victim home. However, the victim did not reach home and on query the accused informed that he had left her at the marriage hall itself.
Later, on questioning, the accused confessed to having left the body of the victim in the sugarcane field after allegedly committing rape and murder. Upon discovery of the dead body, the Complainant lodged an FIR. Thereafter, the Trial Court vide Judgment, convicted the accused under Sections 376, 302, and 201 of the IPC. Being aggrieved, he filed an Appeal before the High Court. A reference for confirmation of his death sentence was also submitted. The High Court confirmed his conviction and death sentence, and hence, the accused was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “… 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.”
The Court was of the view that the circumstances presented before it, do not establish conclusively the guilt of the accused in committing the murder and rape of the victim.
The Court further said that though the offence in question strikes at the human conscience, there being a murder of a four-year-old girl child, the evidence brought by the prosecution is not clear and unimpeachable, pointing towards the guilt of the accused alone.
Accordingly, the Apex Court set aside the conviction and death sentence of the accused.
Cause Title- Sanjay v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 317)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate S. Muralidhar, AOR Anish R. Shah, Advocates Pratiksha Basarkar, and Maitreya Subramaniam.
Respondent: Senior AAG Garima Prasad, ASG Suryaprakash V. Raju, AORs Arvind Kumar Sharma, Vijendra Singh, Pradeep Misra, Advocates Zoheb Hussain, Annam Venkatesh, Samrat Goswami, Deepak Goel, Shailesh Sharma, Kumar Abhinandan, Apurva Mahndiyan, Daleep Dhyani, and Suraj Singh.
