Date of the Judgment: 28 September 2022
The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment, overturned the death penalty awarded to the appellant in a case involving the rape and murder of a six-year-old girl. The case hinged on circumstantial evidence, and the court found serious flaws in the prosecution’s case, including untrustworthy witness testimonies, unexplained delays in filing the FIR, and a failure to conduct crucial medical examinations. This decision highlights the importance of a thorough and fair investigation, especially in cases involving serious crimes. The bench comprised Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, A.S. Bopanna, and V. Ramasubramanian, with the majority opinion authored by Justice V. Ramasubramanian.
Case Background
On March 8, 2012, Kishun Bahadur, a resident of Village Semgarha, filed a complaint at Police Station Ikauna, stating that his six-year-old niece had been taken by the appellant, Chotkau, under the pretext of showing her dance and song performances for the Holi festival. When the girl did not return home, a search was conducted. The appellant was not found at his residence, but the girl’s body was discovered in a sugarcane field south of the village. Another villager, Fatehpur Bahadur, claimed to have seen the appellant leaving the sugarcane field about half an hour later. Based on this circumstantial evidence, the appellant was charged with rape and murder.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| March 8, 2012, 4:00 PM | Appellant took the victim under the pretext of showing dance and song performances. |
| March 8, 2012, 8:10 PM | Complaint lodged at Police Station Ikauna by Kishun Bahadur. |
| March 8, 2012 | Victim’s body found in a sugarcane field. |
| March 13, 2012 | Copy of the FIR received by the Court of the CJM, Shravasti. |
| September 28, 2022 | Supreme Court of India overturns the death penalty. |
Course of Proceedings
The Sessions Court convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 302 (murder) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced him to death, deeming it a “rarest of rare cases.” The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad confirmed this conviction and sentence, relying on the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence. The High Court dismissed the discrepancies in the testimonies as minor and rejected the appellant’s theory of false implication.
Legal Framework
The case primarily involves the application of the following legal provisions:
-
Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
“Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” -
Section 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for rape.
“Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” -
Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the burden of proving facts especially within the knowledge of a person.
“When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” -
Section 53, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section allows for the medical examination of an accused person.
“When a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence of such a nature and alleged to have been committed under such circumstances that there are reasonable grounds for believing that an examination of his person will afford evidence as to the commission of an offence, it shall be lawful for a registered medical practitioner…” -
Section 53A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section specifically addresses the medical examination of a person accused of rape.
“When a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence of rape or an attempt to commit rape and there are reasonable grounds for believing that an examination of his person will afford evidence as to the commission of such offence, it shall be lawful for a registered medical practitioner…” -
Section 157(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section mandates that the officer in charge of a police station shall send the FIR forthwith to a Magistrate.
“If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate…”
Arguments
The appellant’s counsel, Shri S. Nagamuthu, argued that:
- The testimonies of PWs 1 to 3 were unreliable due to significant contradictions.
- There was an unexplained delay of five days in forwarding the FIR to the jurisdictional court.
- There were serious discrepancies regarding the location of the victim’s body and the inquest.
- The evidence supporting the “last seen” theory was insufficient for conviction.
- The prosecution failed to examine material witnesses and produce forensic/medical evidence.
- The mandatory requirements of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were not met.
The State’s counsel, Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, contended that:
- There was no reason for PWs 1 to 3 to falsely implicate the appellant.
- Their evidence was deemed cogent and trustworthy by the lower courts.
- The delay in forwarding the FIR did not prejudice the appellant.
- Any defects in the questioning under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, did not invalidate the findings.
- Forensic/medical evidence was not always mandatory.
The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant was that he presented a theory of false implication involving a powerful local figure, Zalim Khan, and his land dispute with the appellant’s family. This theory was supported by cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and the testimony of the appellant’s mother.
| Main Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Submissions | State’s Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Trustworthiness of Witnesses |
|
|
| Delay in FIR Transmission |
|
|
| Forensic/Medical Evidence |
|
|
| Section 313 Compliance |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:
- The trustworthiness of the testimonies of PWs 1 to 3, in light of certain contradictions.
- The consequences of the delay on the part of the Police in forwarding the FIR to the Court.
- The failure of the prosecution to produce forensic/medical evidence and its effect.
- The manner in which the questioning under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was undertaken and its effect upon the findings recorded.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Trustworthiness of PWs 1 to 3 | The Court found the testimonies of PWs 1 to 3 to be untrustworthy due to significant contradictions and inconsistencies. |
| Delay in Forwarding FIR | The Court held that the five-day delay in transmitting the FIR to the jurisdictional court was fatal, especially given the untrustworthy nature of the witness testimonies. |
| Failure to Produce Forensic/Medical Evidence | The Court deemed the prosecution’s failure to subject the appellant to medical examination and obtain a forensic report on the victim’s clothing as a serious lapse, which was fatal to the prosecution’s case. |
| Section 313 Compliance | The Court did not go into the question of compliance of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as the other findings were sufficient to overturn the conviction. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on the five golden principles outlined in this case for evaluating circumstantial evidence. |
| Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) vs. State of U.P, (1994) 5 SCC 188 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to emphasize the importance of prompt lodging and transmission of the FIR. |
| Bhajan Singh alias Harbhajan Singh and Others vs. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 421 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to highlight the significance of the FIR reaching the Magistrate promptly. |
| Brahm Swaroop and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 6 SCC 288 | Supreme Court of India | The Court discussed the legal consequences of delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate. |
| Balram Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab, (2003) 11 SCC 286 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to discuss the impact of delay in transmitting the FIR on the prosecution’s case. |
| State of Rajasthan vs. Daud Khan, (2016) 2 SCC 607 | Supreme Court of India | The Court interpreted the word “forthwith” in Section 157(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. |
| Jafarudheen and Ors. vs. State of Kerala, 2022 SCC Online SC 495 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to emphasize the importance of timely transmission of the FIR to the Magistrate. |
| Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130 | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case to highlight the importance of forensic evidence and the consequences of not obtaining it, especially in rape cases. |
| Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik vs. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 12 SCC 460 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to discuss the non-mandatory nature of Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the testimonies of PWs 1 to 3 were unreliable due to significant contradictions. | The Court agreed, stating that the contradictions made the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 completely untrustworthy. |
| Appellant’s submission that there was an unexplained delay of five days in forwarding the FIR to the jurisdictional court. | The Court found the delay to be fatal, especially given the untrustworthy nature of the witness testimonies. |
| Appellant’s submission that the prosecution failed to examine material witnesses and produce forensic/medical evidence. | The Court concurred, holding that the failure to subject the appellant to medical examination was fatal to the prosecution’s case. |
| State’s submission that there was no reason for PWs 1 to 3 to falsely implicate the appellant. | The Court rejected this submission, stating that the cross-examination revealed that the witnesses were potentially influenced by Zalim Khan. |
| State’s submission that the delay in forwarding the FIR did not prejudice the appellant. | The Court disagreed, stating that the delay, combined with the untrustworthy evidence, was indeed prejudicial to the appellant. |
| State’s submission that forensic/medical evidence was not always mandatory. | The Court held that while not always mandatory, the lack of such evidence was fatal in this case, where the victim was deceased. |
The Court’s reasoning was further supported by the following authorities:
- Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116]*: The Court applied the five golden principles for evaluating circumstantial evidence, finding that the prosecution failed to meet these standards.
- Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) vs. State of U.P [(1994) 5 SCC 188]*: The Court emphasized the importance of prompt lodging and transmission of the FIR, noting that the delay in this case cast doubt on the genuineness of the FIR.
- Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana [(2011) 7 SCC 130]*: The Court highlighted the importance of forensic evidence in rape cases, stating that the failure to obtain a forensic report was fatal to the prosecution’s case.
- Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik vs. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 12 SCC 460]*: The Court discussed the non-mandatory nature of Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, while also noting that the failure to produce DNA evidence warranted an adverse inference against the prosecution.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Untrustworthiness of prosecution witnesses due to contradictions. | 30% |
| Unexplained delay in transmitting the FIR to the court. | 25% |
| Failure of the prosecution to produce forensic/medical evidence. | 35% |
| Lack of proper investigation and injustice to both the victim’s family and the accused. | 10% |
The Court’s reasoning was driven by a strong emphasis on procedural fairness, the reliability of evidence, and the importance of scientific evidence in cases involving serious crimes.
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Consideration of Factual Aspects of the Case (Fact) | 60% |
| Consideration of Legal Aspects of the Case (Law) | 40% |
The Court’s decision was significantly influenced by the factual inconsistencies and lack of credible evidence presented by the prosecution.
Logical Reasoning
Key Takeaways
- Importance of Credible Witness Testimony: The judgment emphasizes that witness testimonies must be consistent and free from significant contradictions to be considered reliable.
- Timely FIR Filing: Delays in filing and transmitting the FIR to the court can raise serious doubts about its authenticity and the fairness of the investigation.
- Mandatory Medical Examination: In cases of rape and murder, particularly where the victim is deceased, medical examination of the accused and forensic evidence are crucial for establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Fair Investigation: The court stressed that the prosecution must conduct a thorough and fair investigation, ensuring that all necessary evidence is collected and presented.
- Burden of Proof: The prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and any lapses in the investigation or presentation of evidence can be fatal to its case.
This judgment underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to ensuring that convictions are based on credible evidence and that the accused are not deprived of their liberty without a fair trial. The decision is a reminder that in cases involving serious crimes, a thorough and unbiased investigation is essential to ensure justice.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith if not wanted in connection with any other case.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, particularly in serious crimes like rape and murder, the prosecution must ensure:
- The testimonies of witnesses are credible and free from significant contradictions.
- The FIR is lodged and transmitted to the court without undue delay.
- All necessary medical and forensic evidence is obtained and presented.
This judgment reinforces the existing legal principles regarding the importance of thorough investigations and reliable evidence, and it serves as a caution against relying solely on circumstantial evidence without proper corroboration. This case does not change the previous position of the law, but rather emphasizes the importance of following due process and ensuring that investigations are conducted fairly and thoroughly.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court overturned the death penalty awarded to the appellant, Chotkau, due to significant flaws in the prosecution’s case. The Court found the testimonies of key witnesses to be unreliable, noted an unexplained delay in transmitting the FIR, and criticized the failure to conduct crucial medical examinations. This decision highlights the importance of a thorough and fair investigation, especially in cases involving serious crimes, and reinforces the principle that convictions must be based on credible evidence.