2025 INSC 317 Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 1 of 20

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2025

SANJAY … APPELLANT(S)

Versus

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH … RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. The present appeal arises from the final judgment and

order dated 26

th

July, 2005 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.4911 of 2004 &

Reference No.15, which confirmed the judgment and order dated

21

st

September, 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

Fast Track Court No.16, Bulandshahar, in Sessions Case

No.306/2004 whereby the accused-appellant, Sanjay, was

Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 2 of 20

convicted under Section 302 and 376(2)(G) of the Indian Penal

Code (hereinafter ‘IPC’) and sentenced to death. The incident in

question relates to the alleged rape and murder of a four-year-old

girl child.

Prosecution Case

2. The prosecution case emerging from the record, as also set

out by the Courts below, is as under :

2.1 On 22

nd

April, 2004, Sanjay (hereinafter referred to as

the accused) accompanied the complainant’s daughter,

aged 4 years (hereinafter referred to as ‘X’) and her

paternal aunt, Rajkumari, to the marriage of one Naresh.

It was part of seven combined marriages taking place at

the same hall. After some time, the accused informed

Rajkumari that he was taking ‘X’ home. However, ‘X’

did not reach home. On query the accused informed that

he had left her at the marriage hall itself.

2.2 Later, on 28

th

August, 2004, on questioning, the

accused confessed to having left the body of ‘X’ in the

sugarcane field after committing rape and murder.

Upon discovery of the dead body, the complainant

lodged an FIR being Criminal Case No.36/2004, P.S.

Jahangirabad on 28.02.2004 at 5:45 PM under Sections

376, 302 and 201 IPC.

Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 3 of 20

2.3 S.I. Jai Ram Yadav commenced investigation of the

incident, before whom also the accused confessed his

guilt and got recovered specific articles from the spot

where he had disposed of the body of the deceased.

2.4 With the completion of investigation, the challan was

presented in the Court for trial, where the prosecution

examined eight witnesses and marked Exhibits Ka 1 to

Ka 17. The defence did not adduce any oral evidence.

The reasoning of the Courts below

3. The Trial Court, after elaborate consideration, vide

judgment and order dated 20

th

September, 2004, convicted the

accused under Section 376, 302 and 201 of the IPC. The Court

gave the following findings:

a. On consideration of the testimonies of PW1 and PW5,

the identity of the body recovered, being ‘X’, was not in

doubt.

b. Given the testimonies of PW1 and PW2, the

confessional statement of the accused stood proved,

leading to the conclusion that it was he who had killed

the deceased by strangulation.

c. Recoveries of articles related to the crime, made at the

behest of the accused, are admissible under S.27 of the

Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 4 of 20

Indian Evidence Act as proven through PW1, PW2 and

PW8.

d. PW3, PW6 and PW7 prove that ‘X’ was last seen with

the accused.

e. The chain of circumstantial evidence is complete

against the accused.

f. Given the nature of crime committed on the deceased

child, the death sentence is appropriate to be awarded.

4. The accused-appellant preferred an appeal before the High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which was numbered as

Criminal Appeal No.4911 of 2004. A reference for confirmation

of the death sentence was also submitted to the High Court,

which came to be numbered as Reference No.15 in consonance

with Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Vide

the impugned judgment and order dated 26

th

July, 2005, the High

Court confirmed the conviction and death sentence awarded to

the accused, giving the following findings:

a. The evidence on record shows that the dead body was

recovered on the pointing out of the accused and

identified by PW1, the father of the deceased.

b. After considering the testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3,

PW6, and PW7, the circumstances of the last sight of

the deceased with the accused stood established.

Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 5 of 20

c. The confession made by the accused stood proved by

cogent evidence. The recovery of the dead body, frock,

and underwear on the pointing out of the accused

corroborated the extra-judicial confession, which was a

very strong circumstance against him.

d. The circumstances taken cumulatively pointed

unerringly towards the guilt of the accused and formed

a chain so complete that there is no escape from such a

conclusion.

e. The Sessions Judge had rightly sentenced the accused to

death.

Issue for consideration

5. The question that arises for consideration before this Court

is whether or not the conviction and sentence imposed by the

Trial Court, as affirmed by the High Court, are sustainable in law.

Our View

6. We now proceed to examine the prosecution case, as has

unfurled through the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

PW Name Role Relation

1 Dinesh Complainant Father of X

Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 6 of 20

2 Lakhpat Witness to extra-judicial

confession, last seen and

recovery

Grandparent of

X

3 Rajkumar Witness to extra-judicial

confession, last seen and

recovery

Aunt of X

4 C.P. Rajpal

Singh

Registration of FIR -

5 Dr.

Yashwant

Singh

Post-mortem -

6 Santo Last seen witness Not related

7 Babli Last seen witness Not related

8 S.I. Ram

Yadav

Investigating Officer -

7. PW1, Dinesh is the father of the deceased. He deposed that

he knew the accused as he was the son of his maternal uncle and

had resided in his house for the last 8 months. On 22

nd

February,

2004, he went to the wedding of one Naresh along with his

family. His sister-in-law Rajkumari (PW3) informed him that the

accused had taken ‘X’ home from the wedding hall. However,

when they returned home, ‘X’ was not found. The accused told

him that he had left ‘X’ at the wedding hall. Thereafter, despite

continuous search, his daughter was not found.

8. Further that, when 8 days after the incident, he, along with

Rameshwar, Lakhpat Singh (PW2) and Ramachandra, enquired

about the whereabouts of ‘X’ from the accused, he confessed of

having committed an act of rape and murder of ‘X’. The accused

Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 7 of 20

then took them to the sugarcane field, where he pointed out the

body of the deceased child and other articles worn by her.

Consequently, they proceeded to the police station, where

Gyanendra Singh lodged a report. He identifies his signature on

the FIR (Ex. Ka-1) and the recovery memo. Lastly, he identified

the accused in the Court. In his cross-examination, he deposed

that he had left his daughter with his sister-in-law Rajkumari

while leaving the wedding venue. He further stated that the

accused was part of the search efforts and confessed his crime at

the marriage hall.

9. PW2, Lakhpat deposed that he had accompanied the

accused to the marriage hall. His testimony is similar to that of

PW1. ‘X’ was his grand daughter. He deposed that the accused

took ‘X’ with him from the marriage hall. The accused had also

joined the party searching for the deceased, which continued for

5-6 days. Thereafter, at the marriage hall, the accused confessed

that he had committed rape and murder of ‘X’ by strangulation.

He further deposed to having witnessed recovery of the body of

the deceased at the behest of accused.

10. PW3, Rajkumari is the aunt of ‘X’. She deposed that at the

marriage hall, around 2:00 PM, the accused left with the deceased

child. The accused seemed dull from the date of the incident and

was not eating properly. Pertinently, she deposed that the accused

confessed to the crime in the field near tube well. This is in

Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 8 of 20

contradiction to the statements of PWs 1 and 2, who deposed that

the confession took place in the marriage hall. Moreover, in the

cross-examination, PW3 then states that she has not witnessed

the confession.

11. PW4, C.P. Rajpal Singh, is the police officer who had

made GD Entry of the crime based on the written complaint of

PW1. He verified his signature on Ex. K-3.

12. PW5, Dr. Yashwant Singh, is the medical officer who

conducted a post-mortem on the deceased. He deposed that

animals ate away some parts of the dead body. The reason for

death, time of death, and sex could not be determined due to the

condition of the dead body. He verified his signature on Ex. K-4.

13. PW6, Santo, and PW7, Babli, deposed that they saw the

accused leaving the marriage hall with the deceased child.

14. PW8, S.I. Jai Ram Yadav, is the investigating officer of

the case. He deposed that on 28

th

February, 2004, he took the

statement of accused-appellant confessing the crime.

Furthermore, the accused disclosed that the dead body was lying

in the field of sugarcane. Thereafter, he along with PW1,

constables, and some other people, came to the sugarcane field

where the dead body was recovered. PW1 identified the dead

body, after which the recovery memo was drawn (Ex.Ka-5),

which bears his signature. Other articles recovered from near the

body of the deceased, i.e., the shirt's button and hair of the

Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 9 of 20

deceased, were recorded vide memo Ex.-Ka-6. The accused took

him to the house of PW1, where he recovered the clothes (Ex.

Ka-8) worn on the day of the incident. He further deposed that

the underwear and frock of the deceased, along with the clothes

of the accused, were sent to the forensic laboratory Agra for

testing, the report of which remained awaited on the date of the

examination. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the

accused had suffered injuries during an inquiry by witnesses.

15. Undoubtedly, the case at hand is one based on

circumstantial evidence. It is the settled law that in a case based

on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must convince the

Court that circumstances point towards the guilt of the accused

alone and none else, as also lack of his innocence. This Court in

Pritinder Singh alias Lovely v. State of Punjab

1

succinctly

summarized the position of law on circumstantial evidence :

“17. It can thus be seen that this Court has held that the

circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be

drawn should be fully established. It has been held that the

circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may

be” established. It has been held that there is not only a

grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be

proved” and “must be or should be proved”. It has been held

that the facts so established should be consistent only with

the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they

should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except

that the accused is guilty. It has been held that the

circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and

tendency and they should exclude every possible

hypothesis except the one sought to be proved, and that

1

(2023) 7 SCC 727

Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 10 of 20

there must be a chain of evidence so complete so as not to

leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent

with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all

human probability the act must have been done by the

accused.

18. It is a settled principle of law that, however strong a

suspicion may be, it cannot take the place of proof beyond

a reasonable doubt. In the light of these guiding principles,

we will have to consider the present case."

(Emphasis supplied)

16. More recently, this came to be reiterated by this Court in

Pradeep Kumar v. State of Haryana

2

observing that in

circumstantial evidence cases, all facts must be consistent with

the hypothesis of the accused's guilt, excluding his innocence and

also exclusion of third-party involvement. Moreover, in Pradeep

Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

3

, this Court clarified that in

cases where there is a heavy reliance on circumstantial evidence

and on a perusal of evidence, two views are possible, the one

which is favourable to the accused must be adopted. [See also:

Kali Ram v. State of H.P.

4

]

17. The conviction handed to the accused-appellant has been

based on (a) last seen circumstance; (b) extra-judicial confession

given by him, leading to the recovery of the dead body of ‘X’

along with articles worn by her at the time of death; (c) the FSL

2

(2024) 3 SCC 324

3

(2023) 5 SCC 350

4

(1973) 2 SCC 808

Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 11 of 20

Report of the articles recovered, both of the deceased and the

accused.

18. In the considered view of this Court, the conviction of the

accused by the Courts below is based on improper appreciation

of evidence on record and in correct appreciation of settled

principles of law resulting in the travesty of justice. The entire

case of the prosecution, from its genesis, is doubtful.

19. In the first instance, the conduct of the accused does not

give rise to suspicion. PW1 and PW2 have deposed to the fact

that the appellant was part of the search parties for 5-6 days after

the incident. He was always present. In our view, it is improbable

that a person who killed ‘X’ would have been there all along, as

a search party looking for her. None suspected him. None

pointed a finger of suspension against him, despite the hypothesis

of the last seen theory.

20. Another aspect which creates doubt in the prosecution

story is that for six days from when the child disappears, there is

not a single person who lodges a missing report with the police

or any other authority. This aspect is more suspicious coupled

with the deposition of PW1 to 3, PW6 and PW7. All these

witnesses deposed that they had last seen ‘X’, leaving the

marriage hall with the accused. Despite all these witnesses

having made this observation, neither raises a suspicion nor

registers a complaint about the missing child. The explanation

Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 12 of 20

given by PWs 1 and 2 that for six days they were searching for

the child in other villages only renders the genuineness of the

prosecution story to be unbelievable. There is no reason ascribed

to why they thought ‘X’ would have been taken to another

village, and there is no evidence to support the claim that they

actually visited other areas around the spot of the incident.

Possibility of involvement of others, including PW3, who also

appeared to be a suspect, as is evident from the examination,

cannot be ruled out.

21. Furthermore, the body of ‘X’ was recovered in an open

sugarcane field six days after the incident. PWs 2 and 3 deposed

that a foul smell was coming from the spot as well. However, no

single villager came upon this open spot for six days, which

creates suspicion in our minds about the prosecution story. The

field is not a jungle; it was cultivated; sugarcane crop was grown;

it was privately owned; and the village was inhabited, hence, it is

unbelievable that no one noticed the foul smell, particularly when

the entire area was combed over for nearly 5-6 days.

22. These circumstances make us doubt the genesis of the

prosecution story as also the veracity of the prosecution witnesses

and their testimonies.

23. There is no doubt that the case of the prosecution depends

entirely on the extra judicial confession of the accused on 28

th

Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 13 of 20

February, 2004, leading to the recovery of body from the

sugarcane field, along with other articles worn by the deceased.

24. The principles of the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial

confession are summarized by this Court recently in Kalinga v.

State of Karnataka

5

as under :

“16. It is no more res integra that an extra-judicial

confession must be accepted with great care and caution. If

it is not supported by other evidence on record, it fails to

inspire confidence and in such a case, it shall not be treated

as a strong piece of evidence for the purpose of arriving at

the conclusion of guilt. Furthermore, the extent of

acceptability of an extra-judicial confession depends on the

trustworthiness of the witness before whom it is given and

the circumstances in which it was given. The prosecution

must establish that a confession was indeed made by the

accused, that it was voluntary in nature and that the contents

of the confession were true. The standard required for

proving an extra-judicial confession to the satisfaction of

the Court is on the higher side and these essential

ingredients must be established beyond any reasonable

doubt. The standard becomes even higher when the entire

case of the prosecution necessarily rests on the extra-

judicial confession.”

(Emphasis supplied)

25. We must also advert to the exposition of this Court in

Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B.

6

, where B.R. Gavai, J.,

writing for the bench, observed as follows:

“16. It is a settled principle of law that extra-judicial

confession is a weak piece of evidence. It has been held that

where suspicious circumstances surround an extra-judicial

confession, its credibility becomes doubtful and loses

5

(2024) 4 SCC 735

6

(2023) 6 SCC 605

Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 14 of 20

importance. It has further been held that it is well-settled

that it is a rule of caution where the Court would generally

look for an independent, reliable corroboration before

placing any reliance upon such extra-judicial confession. It

has been held that there is no doubt that conviction can be

based on extra-judicial confession, but in the very nature of

things, it is a weak piece of evidence.”

(Emphasis supplied)

26. The extra-judicial confession and the consequent recovery

are also surrounded by suspicious circumstances.

27. The first suspicion of this extra-judicial confession arises

from different versions of where the confession took place. PW1

has deposed that the accused confessed his crime at the marriage

hall. Meanwhile, PW2 has deposed that it was so done at the tube

well. PW3 brings out a different version in her deposition by

stating that the confession took place in the field near the tube

well. PW3 changes the story in her cross-examination, stating

that the confession was not witnessed by her. In the considered

view of this Court, these are not minor contradictions that can be

brushed off. There are three different versions of one confession,

which does not inspire confidence in the testimony of these

witnesses.

28. Apart from the above contradiction, another circumstance

which does not inspire confidence of the Court in the testimony

of PW1, the Complainant and star witness of the prosecution, is

that in his deposition, he stated that he had accompanied his

family to the marriage hall. It directly contradicts the testimony

Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 15 of 20

of PW8, who deposed that during the investigation when he had

recorded the statement of PW1, such a fact was not disclosed.

29. The most pertinent suspicion in the prosecution case is that

no single independent witness is adjoined or examined in support

of the confession or consequent recovery. We must clarify that

this is not a case where the Investigating Officer tried to adjoin

independent witnesses, but it was refused. PW1, in his statement

categorically states that a large public from the village had

gathered when the accused led them to the spot where the body

of the deceased was recovered. The investigating officer, PW8,

himself deposed that ‘some other people’ were present during the

recovery. No explanation is provided for their non-joining, more

so when the entire prosecution case rests on this circumstance.

The recovery of the body of the deceased is from a field which is

accessible and open to the public, which further warrants need

for an independent witness.

30. Given the availability of independent witnesses in this

case, the investigating officer has deliberated to exclude them.

PW1, in his testimony, also mentions that his father,

Ramchandra, and one Rameshwar had also witnessed the

confession of the accused. The prosecution has also not examined

these two persons. This is a glaring omission in the attending

facts and circumstances.

Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 16 of 20

31. We are now considering the report of the Assistant

Director, Forensic Lab, Agra. This report has miserably failed to

link the accused with the crime. The examination conducted only

verifies whether the blood found is of human origin, and that

semen was present on the underwear allegedly belonging to the

deceased. There is no testing undertaken to compare the blood

found on the clothes of the deceased with the blood of the

accused-appellant. How does signs of semen found on the

clothes of the accused link him to the crime of either rape or

murder. It is not the proven case of the prosecution that the

semen of the accused was found on any part of the body or

clothes of the deceased or for that matter, blood of the deceased

found on the clothes of the accused. Alleged recovery of a button

of a shirt does not link the accused to the crime in any manner.

Cumulatively, therefore, the contents of this report do not point

towards the guilt of the accused and fail to substantiate the

conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 376 IPC.

32. 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. This Court in Krishnan v. State

of T.N.

7

had observed :

7

(2014) 12 SCC 279

Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 17 of 20

“21. The conviction cannot be based only on the

circumstance of last seen together with the deceased.

In Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar [1994 Supp (2) SCC

372 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1551] this Court held as

follows: (SCC p. 385, para 31)

"31. Thus the evidence that the

Appellant had gone to Sitaram in the

evening of 19-7-1985 and had stayed

in the night at the house of deceased

Sitaram is very shaky and

inconclusive. Even if it is accepted

that they were there it would at best

amount to be the evidence of the

appellants having been seen last

together with the deceased. But it is

settled law that the only circumstance

of last seen will not complete the

chain of circumstances to record the

finding that it is consistent only with

the hypothesis of the guilt of the

accused and, therefore, no conviction

on that basis alone can be founded."

24. In Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab [(2005) 12 SCC

438 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 579] this Court held that in

the absence of any other links in the chain of

circumstantial evidence, the Appellant cannot be

convicted solely based on "last seen together" even

if version of the prosecution witness in this regard is

believed.”

(Emphasis supplied)

33. We must also clarify that 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

Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 18 of 20

the marriage hall with the deceased. The reason for this omission

at the first instance remains unexplained.

34. This Court is of the view that the circumstances presented

before us do not establish conclusively the guilt of the accused in

committing the murder and rape of ‘X’.

35. We deem it appropriate to reiterate what came to be

observed by this Court in Randeep Singh v. State of Haryana

8

,

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. 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,

meeting with the principles enunciated by this Court in Sharad

Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra

9

.

36. Therefore, in view of the above, the conviction of the

accused-appellant under Sections 302 and 376 of the IPC is set

aside. The impugned order dated 26

th

July, 2005 passed by the

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.

4911 of 2004 & Reference No.15, which confirmed the judgment

and order dated 21

st

September, 2004 passed by the Additional

Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.16, Bulandshahar in

8

2024 SCC OnLine SC 3383

9

(1984) 4 SCC 116

Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 19 of 20

Sessions Case No.306/2004 is quashed and set aside. The

accused-appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not

required in another detention order.

……………………J.

(VIKRAM NATH)

……………………J.

(SANJAY KAROL)

………………………J.

(SANDEEP MEHTA)

New Delhi;

February 6, 2025.

Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 20 of 20

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITON (CRIMINAL) NO.224 OF 2019

SANJAY PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. Dr. S. Muralidhar, learned senior

counsel, submits that as the mercy petition of

the petitoner has been rejected by the President

of India, the present petition has been rendered

infructuous.

2. In view of the above submission, we

dismiss this petition as having become

infructuous.

....................,J.

(VIKRAM NATH)

....................,J.

(SANJAY KAROL)

..................,J.

(SANDEEP MEHTA)

NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 06, 2025.