Circumstances must be conclusive and exclude all other hypotheses: Supreme Court upholds conviction in child murder, Read Judgment

The Supreme Court in a recent judgment emphasized, "The circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved," as it deliberated upon the guilt of an appellant accused of heinous crimes involving a child.

The Court noted that the case primarily relied on circumstantial evidence and examined whether the evidence presented was consistent with the hypothesis of guilt.

On April 13, 2016, Pravingiri Gosai (PW-9) and his wife Artiben (PW-13.2) left home at 6:00 AM, leaving their two small children, Rohit (4 years old, deceased) and Rajeshwari (3 months old), with PW-9's mother. Upon their return at 11:00 AM, they found the children missing. Rohit was last seen playing near a temple around 12:30 PM, when the appellant, a villager, took him. Later, PW-9 and Artiben searched for the child and found his body near the Pir Dargah lake around 2:00 PM. A post-mortem revealed the cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling, along with evidence of sexual assault. The appellant was arrested on April 14, 2016, and his injuries were noted. Prosecution relied on a discovery panchnama and recoveries linked to the appellant.

The appellant's defense disputed the prosecution's evidence, particularly the discovery panchnama (Exh.18) and the recovery of the victim’s clothes, which they claim was made after the location of the crime was already known. The defense also challenged the admissibility of the recovery of the victim’s clothes and contended that no proper statement was made by the appellant regarding the location of these items, which raises doubts about the authenticity of the recovery process.

The prosecution argued that the appellant was responsible for the death of Rohit, citing the postmortem findings and injuries on the body, including sexual assault. They relied on the discovery panchnama, asserting that the appellant led to the location where the crime occurred and the victim's clothes were found. The prosecution also pointed out that the appellant’s medical examination showed injury marks consistent with the crime.

The Court emphasized that the case was based on circumstantial evidence and referred to the five golden principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116. These principles require that the circumstances from which guilt is drawn must be fully established, consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, and of a conclusive nature. The Court observed, "The circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved," and "There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused."

The Court noted that the appellant was last seen with the deceased child, Rohit, under the pretext of buying ice cream. Testimonies from PW-10 and PW-11 corroborated this, with PW-11 stating, "On the day of the incident, the appellant Shambhu passed by his shop at about 12 O'clock; that Pravingiri's son was with the appellant." Despite the defense challenging some witnesses' credibility, the Court found no reason to discredit their testimony. The appellant failed to offer a plausible explanation for what happened to the child, with the Court noting, "In the case of a small child who has been picked up from neighborhood of his house, it would be normal to expect that the small child would be dropped back home."

The Court also pointed out the appellant's presence near the crime scene at 2:00 PM, which was "a clear link in the chain of circumstances" pointing to his guilt. Additionally, the Court highlighted the appellant's failure to explain the circumstances, stating that under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proving facts within their knowledge lies with the accused.

The Court affirmed that the lack of DNA testing was not detrimental to the prosecution's case, as stated in Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022). The Court concluded that the circumstantial evidence, alongside the presumption under the POCSO Act, established the appellant's guilt for enticement, sexual assault, and murder, as per Sections 364 IPC, 377 IPC, and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The Court upheld the conviction, stating, "The circumstances are conclusive in nature and further that the chain of circumstance is so complete as to point to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the offences charged."

Regarding sentencing, the Court considered both aggravating and mitigating factors. While recognizing the "diabolic" nature of the crime, it noted the appellant’s age, lack of criminal antecedents, and mental health issues. The Court stated that a life sentence, typically serving only 14 years, would be disproportionate. It concluded that a sentence of 25 years without remission would be "a just dessert," quoting, "a delicate balance has to be struck," from Swami Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (2008). The High Court's confirmation of the death sentence was modified, and the final sentence was 25 years without remission, aligning with the principles of proportionality and justice.

The Court upheld the conviction under Sections 302, 364, 377 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act but replaced the death sentence under Section 302 with 25 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission. Sentences for Section 364 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act were ordered to run concurrently with the 25-year sentence. The fine amounts were set aside due to the accused's socio-economic condition.

The Court dismissed the petition challenging the denial of parole, stating no further orders were needed, but allowed the petitioner to seek other legal remedies.

Picture Source :