Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Ashok, who was convicted by the Trial Court for the rape and murder of a ten-year-old girl and sentenced to death, later commuted to life imprisonment by the High Court. The incident occurred on 27 May 2009 when the victim and her seven-year-old cousin (PW-2) went grazing goats. The victim approached the appellant, a tubewell operator, for water; the appellant allegedly took her inside the cabin, raped, and murdered her. PW-2 claimed to have witnessed the act and informed the victim's father (PW-1), who found the body hidden in a haystack. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 376, 302, 201 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, imposing death penalty, which the High Court commuted to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that PW-2's testimony was not of sterling quality: his deposition did not match what PW-1 claimed he reported, his statement under Section 161 CrPC was recorded after 21 days, and there was a possibility of tutoring. The recovery of the victim's slippers and underwear at the appellant's instance was not proved as the recovery memo lacked time and place details, and the independent witnesses were not examined. Crucially, the trial court's examination under Section 313 CrPC was grossly inadequate—only three composite questions were put, and the specific incriminating circumstances from PW-1 and PW-2's depositions were not put to the appellant, prejudicing his defence. Relying on Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court held that the conviction was unsustainable. The Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, directing his release unless required in another case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Examination of Accused - Section 313 CrPC - Duty of Trial Court - The trial court must put each material circumstance appearing in evidence against the accused specifically, distinctively and separately; failure to do so prejudices the accused's right of defence and renders the conviction unsustainable (Paras 14-17). B) Evidence Law - Child Witness - Sterling Quality - A conviction cannot be based solely on the testimony of a child witness unless it is of sterling quality; inconsistencies between the child's deposition and what was reported to the father, coupled with delay in recording statement and possibility of tutoring, make the evidence unreliable (Paras 10-12). C) Evidence Law - Recovery under Section 27 - Proof of Place and Time - For recovery to be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the prosecution must prove the exact place and time of recovery; failure to mention these in the recovery memo and non-examination of independent witnesses renders the recovery evidence inadmissible (Para 13). D) Criminal Law - Rape and Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Where the sole eyewitness is unreliable and recovery evidence is doubtful, the chain of circumstances is incomplete and the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 12-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 376, 302, 201 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act is sustainable in law, particularly when the sole eyewitness's testimony is unreliable, recovery evidence is doubtful, and incriminating circumstances were not put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of all charges. The appellant was directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Section 313 CrPC requires each material circumstance to be put to accused specifically
- distinctively and separately
- evidence of child witness must be of sterling quality to base conviction
- recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act requires proof of place and time
- failure to examine independent witnesses to recovery memo renders recovery doubtful
- conviction cannot be based on sole eyewitness if testimony is inconsistent and tutored
