Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court acquitted a man convicted of raping and murdering a three-year-old girl, ruling that his statement after alleged commission of crime about he being “tensed up” was wrongly treated as an extra-judicial confession.

The Court held that such confessions are inherently weak and must be corroborated, yet the witness, to whom the confession was made, failed to mention it in his Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement before the magistrate and only offered an improved version during the trial.

The Court emphasized that if an extra-judicial confession was truly made to a witness, the witness should have promptly disclosed it to the police and would not have omitted mentioning it during the recording of their Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, rather than presenting an improved version during trial.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta heard the case in which the appellant was sentenced to death. One key factor was the accused's remark to his supervisor that he was “tensed up” when questioned about his absence from work, which was treated as an extra-judicial confession during trial, even though the witness had not mentioned it in his Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement.

Setting aside the conviction, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta observed:

“When the witness asked the accused appellant about his absence, the accused appellant replied that he was tensed up. On hearing this, the witness told the accused appellant that staying idle would not help and that he should resume his duty to relieve the tension. The accused appellant agreed and complied with the suggestion and resumed his duty. Thus, in the previous statement of the witness (PW17) recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., there is no reference to any extra-judicial confession having been made by the accused appellant. Furthermore, the statement of the said witness under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded as late as on 12th October 2013, as stated by the Investigating Officer (PW-18).”

“Hence, the statement of the witness (PW-17) on the aspect of extra-judicial confession is full of improvements and contradictions and hence, it is totally unreliable. If at all, the accused appellant had made an extra-judicial confession before the witness on 1st October, 2013, his immediate reaction would have been to rush to the police and divulge this fact to the Investigating Officer (PW-16). However, he made no such effort whatsoever.”, the court added.

In this background, the evidence of the witness regarding the extra-judicial confession, which is otherwise also a very weak piece of evidence, was termed to be unreliable and unacceptable and does not lend succour to the prosecution's case, the court said.

Other Relevant Observations

“Thus, we are compelled to hold that flawed and tainted investigation has eventually led to the failure of the prosecution case involving the gruesome rape and murder of a child at the tender age of 3 years and 9 months only. Despite there being hardly any reliable evidence on the record of the case, the accused appellant was convicted and sentenced by the Courts below and has suffered incarceration for almost 12 years of which 6 years were under the Damocles sword of death penalty. The findings recorded in the impugned judgments holding the accused guilty of charges framed against him, are based on conjectures and surmises and hence, both the judgments and the order of sentence are unsustainable on the face of record.”, the court said.

The Court concluded that:

"(i) the evidence of the witnesses of last seen circumstance is vacillating, shaky and tainted with wholesale improvements, and hence, unworthy of credence.

(ii) the conduct of the witnesses of the last seen circumstance in failing to timely step forward to make a disclosure to the Investigating Officer (PW-16) that they had seen the accused appellant and the deceased child victim together on the date of the incident in spite of the fact that the police officers were regularly visiting Unnati Woods area, right from late hours of 30th September, 2013 onwards, clearly indicates for ulterior motive;

(iii) There was a clear reference to the witnesses of last seen circumstance, namely the complainant, i.e., Manoj Bhaskar Sadavarte [(PW-1), father of the deceased child], Dipendrakumar Dhirendranath Shukla (PW-9), Pradipkumar Ganesh Rawat (PW14) and Sanjay Ganesh Rawat (PW-15) in the spot panchnama (Exh. 34) which was prepared by Vikas Sarjerao Lokre (PW-16, i.e., Investigating Officer) on 1st October, 2013, at around 7.30 A.M. In spite thereof, the 1st Investigating Officer (PW-16) made no effort whatsoever to record the statements of these witnesses at the earliest available opportunity. Rather, the said Investigating Officer did not record the statements of these witnesses at all, and the witnesses were examined for the first time on 3rd October, 2013 by the 2nd Investigating Officer, i.e., Shri Mandar Vasant Dharmadhikari (PW-18). This omission is vital and indicative of gross negligence on the part of the Investigation Officers.

(iv) The evidence of extra-judicial confession as deposed by Anil Mahatam Singh (PW-17) is also unacceptable because the said witness too did not step forward to inform the police regarding the fact of the so called extrajudicial confession made by the accused appellant before him, in spite of being aware that the police was searching for the child.

(v) That the FSL report (Ext. 105) regarding the similarity of soil samples is also inconsequential for the reasons mentioned supra.

(vi) The reports pertaining to the comparison of the samples taken from the other watchmen never saw the light of the day because prosecution chose not to place the same on record. Hence, it is clearly a case where the prosecution has withheld important evidence thereby, compelling the Court to draw adverse inference against the prosecution."

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court allowed the appeal.

Case Title: RAMKIRAT MUNILAL GOUD VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raghenth Basant, Sr. Adv. Ms. Fauzia Shakil, AOR Ms. Aathma Sudhir Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Adv. Ms. Pratiksha Basarkar, Adv. Ms. Kaushitaki Sharma, Adv. Ms. Hima Bhardwaj, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Ms. Soumya Priyadarshinee, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Aren, Adv. Mr. Amlaan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Jatin Dhamija, Adv. Mr. Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv.