Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1449
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. of 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6850 of 2024)
Shaik Shabuddin
…Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana
…Respondent
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In the Special Leave Petition, notice was issued
limited to the quantum of sentence. Despite that we
perused the judgment to satisfy ourselves regarding the
conviction. We have very serious reservation about the
conviction under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
1
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 and also on
Signature Not Verified
1
‘the SC/ST Act’
Digitally signed by
SAPNA BISHT
Date: 2025.12.17
17:11:12 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 14
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024
certain circumstances found by the Division Bench of the
High Court to convict the accused, which we are duty-
bound to notice since while confirming the conviction for
rape and murder we may not be understood as having
approved the said reasoning of the High Court, whose
order merges with our order.
3. Briefly stated, on 24.11.2019, the deceased, wife of
PW-1 who had been dropped at Yellapatar Village, by
PW1, to pursue their vocation of hawking utensils, was
found missing and the calls to her mobile were not
answered. A complaint was lodged with the police who
along with PW1 and his relatives, searched for the missing
person. Eventually her dead body was found on the next
day, first detected by PW3, within the bushes on the right
side of the road leading to Yellapatar Village. PW1 rushed
to the spot, identified the body and immediately intimated
the police upon which an inquest was carried out and the
criminal law put in motion. Based on Ex. P2 complaint of
Page 2 of 14
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024
PW1, PW24 altered the provisions of law to Sections 376D
and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
2
1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
4. Trial was conducted and A1 to A3 were convicted &
sentenced for offences under Sections 302 & 376D read
with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST
Act with death and life imprisonment respectively and fine
of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) and Rs.2,000/-
(Rupees two thousand) with default sentences respectively
of simple imprisonment (S.I.) for three and two months.
Further, under Section 3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST Act, a sentence
of rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for 3 years and a fine of
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) with default sentence of
S.I. for 1 month was imposed on all the accused. A2 and A3
were further convicted under Section 404 read with Section
34 of the IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 3 years and to pay
fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default sentence of S.I. for 1
month.
2
for short, ‘the ‘IPC’
Page 3 of 14
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024
5. Prosecution allegation was that A1 to A3 followed the
deceased while she was proceeding to the village, and in
an isolated area, pulled her towards the bushes and
committed rape on her one by one, despite vehement
protests made by her. To ensure that the accused are not
implicated after the commission of rape, A1 slit her throat
while A2 and A3 held her hands and legs to render her
immobile. It was also alleged that A2 stole a mobile from
the woman and A3 took Rs.200/- which was found in his
possession.
6. The trial court had relied on various circumstances,
one of which was the ‘last seen together’ theory, based
only on the deposition of PW4 and PW5 that they saw the
woman and A1 to A3 proceeding in the same direction
towards Yellapatar Village. The High Court also found that
the circumstance of no explanation having been offered,
after being seen together, provides an additional link in
the chain of circumstances under Section 106 of the Indian
Page 4 of 14
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024
3
Evidence Act, 1872 . We cannot but notice that there is no
acquaintance proved between the accused and the
deceased and there cannot be any ‘ last seen together
theory’ propounded as a circumstance in the above case,
though it has to be accepted that the accused and the
deceased were found in the same vicinity just prior to the
time of the crime.
7.
Further, the High Court relied upon the confession
made by the accused to one PW15 who was called to the
police station as a witness. It was the prosecution version
that PW25, the DSP Asifabad, the Investigating Officer,
secured the presence of PW15 and one Md. Yunus as
panch witnesses and the confession was made to them.
There can be no reliance placed on such a confession at
the behest of the police and the finding of the High Court
that it could be relied on cannot at all be countenanced for
the reason also that it was made while in police custody.
The next aspect on which we have serious reservation is
3
for short, ‘the ‘Evidence Act’
Page 5 of 14
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024
with respect to the recovery made of MO1/mobile,
MO11/knife and MO21/cash as purportedly admissible
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Even as per the
prosecution story, the same were handed over along with
the confession, to PW15, which material objects were said
to be in the possession of the accused at the time of arrest.
MOs 12 to 20/clothes were projected as seized under
Section 27 which were worn by the accused at the time of
arrest.
8. There was no concealment as such and in any event,
on an arrest, when the material objects could have been
seized from the body of the accused on a mere search by
the police, the attempt to convert it as a recovery under
Section 27 cannot at all accepted. It goes against the very
principle of Section 27, insofar as the disclosure relied
upon can only relate to the concealment and the recovery
of material objects on such disclosure made, which
recovery has to be made in the persons of witnesses. We
Page 6 of 14
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024
find absolutely no reason to accept the circumstances as
hereinabove stated, relied on by the High Court, to convict
the accused.
9. Having said that, we notice the fact that the accused
were in the vicinity in which the deceased was also present
just prior to her rape and murder; clearly established by
the prosecution. PW5 while he was crossing Yellapatar
Village on his motorcycle at about 9:00 am saw the accused
going to Ramnaik Thanda and noticed that the deceased
was also proceeding in the same direction with a bag full of
utensils on her head. PW4 who was working in the adjacent
field on the fateful day, at about 10:30 am, heard the
shrieks of a lady and went in search, but failed to find
anybody. He also deposed of having seen the accused at
the same time proceeding from Ramnaik Thanda, the
specific location in which the dead body was detected, to
Yellapatar Village. He spoke of PW1, the husband of the
deceased having come in search of her in the evening and
Page 7 of 14
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024
confirmed that the shrieks he heard came from the location
in which the body was eventually found. PW6 on the very
same day, at about 11:30 am, spoke of the accused having
come to his kirana shop and sat on a bench. A2 took water
from a pot and drank it, and PW6 observed blood stains on
the clothes of all the accused. PW8 deposed that the
accused, residents of the village were missing from the
village after the incident took place.
10. The medical evidence clearly indicated a homicide,
and it noticed 14 ante-mortem external injuries, which also
conclusively proved that the victim was raped. The
approximate time of death indicated in the preliminary
postmortem report produced as Ex. P18 tallied with the
time the witnesses saw the accused and the deceased and
when PW4 heard the shrieks of a woman. The time
indicated of the death, as noticed in Ex. P18, preliminary
postmortem examination report, was 24 to 28 hours prior,
which placed the murder exactly at the time when the
Page 8 of 14
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024
above-mentioned witnesses saw the accused and the
deceased, then alive, in the vicinity of Ramnaik Thanda.
11. PW18, the doctor who conducted postmortem, also
deposed that the vaginal smear and swab of semen and
spermatozoa and DNA profile from the dead body was
handed over to the police for onboard transmission to the
Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for analysis.
Blood samples were also obtained from the accused, and
they were also sent for DNA test and serology report as
deposed by PW21 who collected the blood samples. PW21
also spoke of the Autosomal SRT analysis having indicated
that the seminal stains on the saree of the victim matched
with the DNA profiles of A1 and A2 and they are of the
same biological origin.
12. The medical evidence regarding the homicidal death
and the rape committed on the victim, the time of death as
stated in the postmortem report, the accused having been
found in the same vicinity as the victim and the failure of
Page 9 of 14
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024
the accused to establish the alibi as spoken of under
Section 313 questioning, would provide a complete chain
of circumstances to convict the accused under Sections 302
& 376D read with Section 34 of the IPC.
13. However, we are not convinced that any offence is
made out or that there could be any conviction entered
under the provisions of the SC/ST Act. Though the
prosecution has proved the caste of the victim/deceased,
there is nothing to indicate that the accused knew the caste
of the victim or even that they were in any manner
acquainted with the victim, to be aware of her caste status.
The offence hence cannot be said to have been committed
with the knowledge of the caste status of the victim; which
is an essential ingredient under both the provisions
charged under the SC/ST Act.
14. Further, the conviction under Section 404 against A2
cannot also be sustained since, as we found, there can be
no circumstance of Section 27 recovery accepted as an
Page 10 of 14
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024
incriminating circumstance, on the alleged recovery of the
mobile by PW15, as handed over to him by A2. Yet again,
though, the mobile number has been proved to be that of
PW11 as per the evidence of PW22, there is nothing to
indicate that the mobile handset was the one in which the
SIM card was used. The prosecution has not produced any
SIM card, and their case is that while the mobile was
appropriated from the possession of the deceased victim,
the SIM card was thrown away. Neither was the SIM card
traced out nor is the ownership of the mobile established
which persuades us to acquit A2 under Section 404 read
with Section 34 of the IPC. So would A2 be acquitted of the
offences alleged under Sections 3(1)(w)(i) & 3(2)(v) of the
SC/ST Act.
15. Now, we come to the sentencing, which the High
Court has modified from death sentence as awarded by the
trial court to imprisonment of life, under Section 302, with a
Page 11 of 14
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024
rider that the accused shall remain in custody till the last
breath, without remission.
16. We are in this case concerned only with A2 and we
have considered the mitigating circumstances with respect
to A2, as found by the High Court. A2 was aged 40 years at
the time of commission of the offence, and he is said to
have a family consisting of his wife, four children and aged
parents. He was the only earning member of the family. A2
did not have any past criminal record, nor can it be said, as
has been found by the High Court, that he poses a grave
danger to the society at large, which requires his life to be
extinguished. It was also found by the High Court, rightly
so, that the subject case is not one which can be
categorized as the rarest of the rare requiring death to be
handed down. The trial court has further noticed that
despite A2 being in custody, there is no report from the jail
authorities about his adverse conduct or that he is beyond
reformation. Even before us, the State Counsel does not
Page 12 of 14
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024
argue on any such adverse conduct while in prison or that
the person is beyond reformation. Despite the aforesaid
circumstances, the Division Bench proceeded to impose a
sentence of life imprisonment, till the remainder of his life.
We are convinced that the case is one in which
imprisonment of life till the remainder of A2’s life can be
modified to one extending to 25 years without remission.
The conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
the IPC is thus modified and that under 376D read with
Section 34 of the IPC is affirmed, which sentences shall be
concurrently suffered.
17. The appeal stands partly allowed.
18. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
19. Before leaving the matter, we notice that all together
there were three accused in the case, all of whom were
convicted and sentenced, identically. There is no appeal
filed by the other two accused. We direct the Registry of
this Court to forward a copy of this Judgment to the
Page 13 of 14
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024
Member Secretary, Telangana Legal Services Authority,
who shall through the concerned District Legal Services
Authority provide legal assistance to the other accused to
file an appeal to this Court through the Supreme Court
Legal Services Committee.
….…..….…..……………………. J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
…..………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI
December 17, 2025.
Page 14 of 14
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. of 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6850 of 2024)
Shaik Shabuddin
…Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana
…Respondent
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In the Special Leave Petition, notice was issued
limited to the quantum of sentence. Despite that we
perused the judgment to satisfy ourselves regarding the
conviction. We have very serious reservation about the
conviction under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
1
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 and also on
Signature Not Verified
1
‘the SC/ST Act’
Digitally signed by
SAPNA BISHT
Date: 2025.12.17
17:11:12 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 14
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024
certain circumstances found by the Division Bench of the
High Court to convict the accused, which we are duty-
bound to notice since while confirming the conviction for
rape and murder we may not be understood as having
approved the said reasoning of the High Court, whose
order merges with our order.
3. Briefly stated, on 24.11.2019, the deceased, wife of
PW-1 who had been dropped at Yellapatar Village, by
PW1, to pursue their vocation of hawking utensils, was
found missing and the calls to her mobile were not
answered. A complaint was lodged with the police who
along with PW1 and his relatives, searched for the missing
person. Eventually her dead body was found on the next
day, first detected by PW3, within the bushes on the right
side of the road leading to Yellapatar Village. PW1 rushed
to the spot, identified the body and immediately intimated
the police upon which an inquest was carried out and the
criminal law put in motion. Based on Ex. P2 complaint of
Page 2 of 14
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024
PW1, PW24 altered the provisions of law to Sections 376D
and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
2
1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
4. Trial was conducted and A1 to A3 were convicted &
sentenced for offences under Sections 302 & 376D read
with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST
Act with death and life imprisonment respectively and fine
of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) and Rs.2,000/-
(Rupees two thousand) with default sentences respectively
of simple imprisonment (S.I.) for three and two months.
Further, under Section 3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST Act, a sentence
of rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for 3 years and a fine of
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) with default sentence of
S.I. for 1 month was imposed on all the accused. A2 and A3
were further convicted under Section 404 read with Section
34 of the IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 3 years and to pay
fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default sentence of S.I. for 1
month.
2
for short, ‘the ‘IPC’
Page 3 of 14
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024
5. Prosecution allegation was that A1 to A3 followed the
deceased while she was proceeding to the village, and in
an isolated area, pulled her towards the bushes and
committed rape on her one by one, despite vehement
protests made by her. To ensure that the accused are not
implicated after the commission of rape, A1 slit her throat
while A2 and A3 held her hands and legs to render her
immobile. It was also alleged that A2 stole a mobile from
the woman and A3 took Rs.200/- which was found in his
possession.
6. The trial court had relied on various circumstances,
one of which was the ‘last seen together’ theory, based
only on the deposition of PW4 and PW5 that they saw the
woman and A1 to A3 proceeding in the same direction
towards Yellapatar Village. The High Court also found that
the circumstance of no explanation having been offered,
after being seen together, provides an additional link in
the chain of circumstances under Section 106 of the Indian
Page 4 of 14
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024
3
Evidence Act, 1872 . We cannot but notice that there is no
acquaintance proved between the accused and the
deceased and there cannot be any ‘ last seen together
theory’ propounded as a circumstance in the above case,
though it has to be accepted that the accused and the
deceased were found in the same vicinity just prior to the
time of the crime.
7.
Further, the High Court relied upon the confession
made by the accused to one PW15 who was called to the
police station as a witness. It was the prosecution version
that PW25, the DSP Asifabad, the Investigating Officer,
secured the presence of PW15 and one Md. Yunus as
panch witnesses and the confession was made to them.
There can be no reliance placed on such a confession at
the behest of the police and the finding of the High Court
that it could be relied on cannot at all be countenanced for
the reason also that it was made while in police custody.
The next aspect on which we have serious reservation is
3
for short, ‘the ‘Evidence Act’
Page 5 of 14
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024
with respect to the recovery made of MO1/mobile,
MO11/knife and MO21/cash as purportedly admissible
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Even as per the
prosecution story, the same were handed over along with
the confession, to PW15, which material objects were said
to be in the possession of the accused at the time of arrest.
MOs 12 to 20/clothes were projected as seized under
Section 27 which were worn by the accused at the time of
arrest.
8. There was no concealment as such and in any event,
on an arrest, when the material objects could have been
seized from the body of the accused on a mere search by
the police, the attempt to convert it as a recovery under
Section 27 cannot at all accepted. It goes against the very
principle of Section 27, insofar as the disclosure relied
upon can only relate to the concealment and the recovery
of material objects on such disclosure made, which
recovery has to be made in the persons of witnesses. We
Page 6 of 14
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024
find absolutely no reason to accept the circumstances as
hereinabove stated, relied on by the High Court, to convict
the accused.
9. Having said that, we notice the fact that the accused
were in the vicinity in which the deceased was also present
just prior to her rape and murder; clearly established by
the prosecution. PW5 while he was crossing Yellapatar
Village on his motorcycle at about 9:00 am saw the accused
going to Ramnaik Thanda and noticed that the deceased
was also proceeding in the same direction with a bag full of
utensils on her head. PW4 who was working in the adjacent
field on the fateful day, at about 10:30 am, heard the
shrieks of a lady and went in search, but failed to find
anybody. He also deposed of having seen the accused at
the same time proceeding from Ramnaik Thanda, the
specific location in which the dead body was detected, to
Yellapatar Village. He spoke of PW1, the husband of the
deceased having come in search of her in the evening and
Page 7 of 14
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024
confirmed that the shrieks he heard came from the location
in which the body was eventually found. PW6 on the very
same day, at about 11:30 am, spoke of the accused having
come to his kirana shop and sat on a bench. A2 took water
from a pot and drank it, and PW6 observed blood stains on
the clothes of all the accused. PW8 deposed that the
accused, residents of the village were missing from the
village after the incident took place.
10. The medical evidence clearly indicated a homicide,
and it noticed 14 ante-mortem external injuries, which also
conclusively proved that the victim was raped. The
approximate time of death indicated in the preliminary
postmortem report produced as Ex. P18 tallied with the
time the witnesses saw the accused and the deceased and
when PW4 heard the shrieks of a woman. The time
indicated of the death, as noticed in Ex. P18, preliminary
postmortem examination report, was 24 to 28 hours prior,
which placed the murder exactly at the time when the
Page 8 of 14
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024
above-mentioned witnesses saw the accused and the
deceased, then alive, in the vicinity of Ramnaik Thanda.
11. PW18, the doctor who conducted postmortem, also
deposed that the vaginal smear and swab of semen and
spermatozoa and DNA profile from the dead body was
handed over to the police for onboard transmission to the
Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for analysis.
Blood samples were also obtained from the accused, and
they were also sent for DNA test and serology report as
deposed by PW21 who collected the blood samples. PW21
also spoke of the Autosomal SRT analysis having indicated
that the seminal stains on the saree of the victim matched
with the DNA profiles of A1 and A2 and they are of the
same biological origin.
12. The medical evidence regarding the homicidal death
and the rape committed on the victim, the time of death as
stated in the postmortem report, the accused having been
found in the same vicinity as the victim and the failure of
Page 9 of 14
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024
the accused to establish the alibi as spoken of under
Section 313 questioning, would provide a complete chain
of circumstances to convict the accused under Sections 302
& 376D read with Section 34 of the IPC.
13. However, we are not convinced that any offence is
made out or that there could be any conviction entered
under the provisions of the SC/ST Act. Though the
prosecution has proved the caste of the victim/deceased,
there is nothing to indicate that the accused knew the caste
of the victim or even that they were in any manner
acquainted with the victim, to be aware of her caste status.
The offence hence cannot be said to have been committed
with the knowledge of the caste status of the victim; which
is an essential ingredient under both the provisions
charged under the SC/ST Act.
14. Further, the conviction under Section 404 against A2
cannot also be sustained since, as we found, there can be
no circumstance of Section 27 recovery accepted as an
Page 10 of 14
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024
incriminating circumstance, on the alleged recovery of the
mobile by PW15, as handed over to him by A2. Yet again,
though, the mobile number has been proved to be that of
PW11 as per the evidence of PW22, there is nothing to
indicate that the mobile handset was the one in which the
SIM card was used. The prosecution has not produced any
SIM card, and their case is that while the mobile was
appropriated from the possession of the deceased victim,
the SIM card was thrown away. Neither was the SIM card
traced out nor is the ownership of the mobile established
which persuades us to acquit A2 under Section 404 read
with Section 34 of the IPC. So would A2 be acquitted of the
offences alleged under Sections 3(1)(w)(i) & 3(2)(v) of the
SC/ST Act.
15. Now, we come to the sentencing, which the High
Court has modified from death sentence as awarded by the
trial court to imprisonment of life, under Section 302, with a
Page 11 of 14
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024
rider that the accused shall remain in custody till the last
breath, without remission.
16. We are in this case concerned only with A2 and we
have considered the mitigating circumstances with respect
to A2, as found by the High Court. A2 was aged 40 years at
the time of commission of the offence, and he is said to
have a family consisting of his wife, four children and aged
parents. He was the only earning member of the family. A2
did not have any past criminal record, nor can it be said, as
has been found by the High Court, that he poses a grave
danger to the society at large, which requires his life to be
extinguished. It was also found by the High Court, rightly
so, that the subject case is not one which can be
categorized as the rarest of the rare requiring death to be
handed down. The trial court has further noticed that
despite A2 being in custody, there is no report from the jail
authorities about his adverse conduct or that he is beyond
reformation. Even before us, the State Counsel does not
Page 12 of 14
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024
argue on any such adverse conduct while in prison or that
the person is beyond reformation. Despite the aforesaid
circumstances, the Division Bench proceeded to impose a
sentence of life imprisonment, till the remainder of his life.
We are convinced that the case is one in which
imprisonment of life till the remainder of A2’s life can be
modified to one extending to 25 years without remission.
The conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
the IPC is thus modified and that under 376D read with
Section 34 of the IPC is affirmed, which sentences shall be
concurrently suffered.
17. The appeal stands partly allowed.
18. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
19. Before leaving the matter, we notice that all together
there were three accused in the case, all of whom were
convicted and sentenced, identically. There is no appeal
filed by the other two accused. We direct the Registry of
this Court to forward a copy of this Judgment to the
Page 13 of 14
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024
Member Secretary, Telangana Legal Services Authority,
who shall through the concerned District Legal Services
Authority provide legal assistance to the other accused to
file an appeal to this Court through the Supreme Court
Legal Services Committee.
….…..….…..……………………. J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
…..………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI
December 17, 2025.
Page 14 of 14
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024