Case Note & Summary
The case before the Supreme Court of India concerns the conviction of Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar for the brutal sexual assault of a four-year-old girl. On the night of 13 June 2013, Nazir Mohammed (PW-1) encountered three to four boys carrying a naked, bleeding child. The complainant stopped them and learned they had found the child near a house in Ode Faliya and were taking her to Nayak Faliya for identification. Upon inspection, the child was bleeding from her private parts. The complainant, with the help of a journalist Vivekbhai Suthar (PW-2), arranged an ambulance and the child was admitted to Kalol Government Hospital. The treating doctor confirmed sexual assault. Nazir Mohammed lodged a complaint at Kalol Police Station against unknown persons under Sections 376(1)(i) and 201 IPC. During investigation, four boys—Arifkhan (PW-3), Shahejadkhan (PW-4), Bilal Ahemad (PW-5), and Mohsin Gafurkhan (PW-6)—stated they had seen the appellant pushing the child victim out of his house. The appellant was arrested and his house was inspected. Blood-stained clothes of the child, bedding, and other articles were seized; forensic analysis detected blood group ‘A’ matching the victim and semen. The appellant was charged under Sections 363, 376(2)(i), 201 IPC and Sections 3, 4 of the POCSO Act. The trial court convicted and sentenced him to life imprisonment, relying on the last seen together circumstance, medical evidence, and forensic corroboration. The High Court of Gujarat dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court, while hearing the appeal by special leave, expressed grave concerns about the investigation, noting that the FIR lacked crucial details, the investigation was botched, and witnesses displayed unnatural conduct, contradictions, and insensitivity, raising serious doubts about the prosecution’s case. The Court observed that such failures undermine public faith in the justice system. The judgment proceeds to examine the factual matrix and evidence on record.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 363, 376(2)(i), 201 IPC and Sections 3, 4 of the POCSO Act is sustainable in light of serious investigative lapses, unreliable witness testimonies, and procedural infirmities.
