Sanjay vs. Union Of India

2025 INSC 317
REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2025

SANJAY … APPELLANT(S)

Versus

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH … RESPONDENT(S)


O R D E R


SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. The present appeal arises from the final judgment and
th
order dated 26 July, 2005 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.4911 of 2004 &
Reference No.15, which confirmed the judgment and order dated
st
21 September, 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court No.16, Bulandshahar, in Sessions Case
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.03.04
18:17:44 IST
Reason:
No.306/2004 whereby the accused-appellant, Sanjay, was
Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 1 of 20

convicted under Section 302 and 376(2)(G) of the Indian Penal
Code (hereinafter ‘IPC’) and sentenced to death. The incident in
question relates to the alleged rape and murder of a four-year-old
girl child.

Prosecution Case

2. The prosecution case emerging from the record, as also set
out by the Courts below, is as under :
nd
2.1 On 22 April, 2004, Sanjay (hereinafter referred to as
the accused) accompanied the complainant’s daughter,
aged 4 years (hereinafter referred to as ‘X’) and her
paternal aunt, Rajkumari, to the marriage of one Naresh.
It was part of seven combined marriages taking place at
the same hall. After some time, the accused informed
Rajkumari that he was taking ‘X’ home. However, ‘X’
did not reach home. On query the accused informed that
he had left her at the marriage hall itself.
th
2.2 Later, on 28 August, 2004, on questioning, the
accused confessed to having left the body of ‘X’ in the
sugarcane field after committing rape and murder.
Upon discovery of the dead body, the complainant
lodged an FIR being Criminal Case No.36/2004, P.S.
Jahangirabad on 28.02.2004 at 5:45 PM under Sections
376, 302 and 201 IPC.
Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 2 of 20

2.3 S.I. Jai Ram Yadav commenced investigation of the
incident, before whom also the accused confessed his
guilt and got recovered specific articles from the spot
where he had disposed of the body of the deceased.
2.4 With the completion of investigation, the challan was
presented in the Court for trial, where the prosecution
examined eight witnesses and marked Exhibits Ka 1 to
Ka 17. The defence did not adduce any oral evidence.


The reasoning of the Courts below


3. The Trial Court, after elaborate consideration, vide
th
judgment and order dated 20 September, 2004, convicted the
accused under Section 376, 302 and 201 of the IPC. The Court
gave the following findings:
a. On consideration of the testimonies of PW1 and PW5,
the identity of the body recovered, being ‘X’, was not in
doubt.

b. Given the testimonies of PW1 and PW2, the
confessional statement of the accused stood proved,
leading to the conclusion that it was he who had killed
the deceased by strangulation.
c. Recoveries of articles related to the crime, made at the
behest of the accused, are admissible under S.27 of the
Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 3 of 20

Indian Evidence Act as proven through PW1, PW2 and
PW8.
d. PW3, PW6 and PW7 prove that ‘X’ was last seen with
the accused.
e. The chain of circumstantial evidence is complete
against the accused.

f. Given the nature of crime committed on the deceased
child, the death sentence is appropriate to be awarded.
4. The accused-appellant preferred an appeal before the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which was numbered as
Criminal Appeal No.4911 of 2004. A reference for confirmation
of the death sentence was also submitted to the High Court,
which came to be numbered as Reference No.15 in consonance
with Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Vide
th
the impugned judgment and order dated 26 July, 2005, the High
Court confirmed the conviction and death sentence awarded to
the accused, giving the following findings:
a. The evidence on record shows that the dead body was
recovered on the pointing out of the accused and
identified by PW1, the father of the deceased.
b. After considering the testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3,
PW6, and PW7, the circumstances of the last sight of
the deceased with the accused stood established.
Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 4 of 20

c. The confession made by the accused stood proved by
cogent evidence. The recovery of the dead body, frock,
and underwear on the pointing out of the accused
corroborated the extra-judicial confession, which was a
very strong circumstance against him.
d. The circumstances taken cumulatively pointed
unerringly towards the guilt of the accused and formed
a chain so complete that there is no escape from such a
conclusion.
e. The Sessions Judge had rightly sentenced the accused to
death.

Issue for consideration

5. The question that arises for consideration before this Court
is whether or not the conviction and sentence imposed by the
Trial Court, as affirmed by the High Court, are sustainable in law.

Our View
6. We now proceed to examine the prosecution case, as has
unfurled through the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 5 of 20

7. PW1, Dinesh is the father of the deceased. He deposed that
he knew the accused as he was the son of his maternal uncle and
nd
had resided in his house for the last 8 months. On 22 February,
2004, he went to the wedding of one Naresh along with his
family. His sister-in-law Rajkumari (PW3) informed him that the
accused had taken ‘X’ home from the wedding hall. However,
when they returned home, ‘X’ was not found. The accused told
him that he had left ‘X’ at the wedding hall. Thereafter, despite
continuous search, his daughter was not found.
8. Further that, when 8 days after the incident, he, along with
Rameshwar, Lakhpat Singh ( PW2) and Ramachandra, enquired
about the whereabouts of ‘X’ from the accused, he confessed of
having committed an act of rape and murder of ‘X’. The accused
Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 6 of 20

then took them to the sugarcane field, where he pointed out the
body of the deceased child and other articles worn by her.
Consequently, they proceeded to the police station, where
Gyanendra Singh lodged a report. He identifies his signature on
the FIR (Ex. Ka-1) and the recovery memo. Lastly, he identified
the accused in the Court. In his cross-examination, he deposed
that he had left his daughter with his sister-in-law Rajkumari
while leaving the wedding venue. He further stated that the
accused was part of the search efforts and confessed his crime at
the marriage hall.
9. PW2, Lakhpat deposed that he had accompanied the
accused to the marriage hall. His testimony is similar to that of
PW1. ‘X’ was his grand daughter. He deposed that the accused
took ‘X’ with him from the marriage hall. The accused had also
joined the party searching for the deceased, which continued for
5-6 days. Thereafter, at the marriage hall, the accused confessed
that he had committed rape and murder of ‘X’ by strangulation.
He further deposed to having witnessed recovery of the body of
the deceased at the behest of accused.
10. PW3, Rajkumari is the aunt of ‘X’. She deposed that at the
marriage hall, around 2:00 PM, the accused left with the deceased
child. The accused seemed dull from the date of the incident and
was not eating properly. Pertinently, she deposed that the accused
confessed to the crime in the field near tube well. This is in
Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 7 of 20

contradiction to the statements of PWs 1 and 2, who deposed that
the confession took place in the marriage hall. Moreover, in the
cross-examination, PW3 then states that she has not witnessed
the confession.
11. PW4, C.P. Rajpal Singh, is the police officer who had
made GD Entry of the crime based on the written complaint of
PW1. He verified his signature on Ex. K-3.
12. PW5, Dr. Yashwant Singh, is the medical officer who
conducted a post-mortem on the deceased. He deposed that
animals ate away some parts of the dead body. The reason for
death, time of death, and sex could not be determined due to the
condition of the dead body. He verified his signature on Ex. K-4.
13. PW6, Santo, and PW7, Babli, deposed that they saw the
accused leaving the marriage hall with the deceased child.
14. PW8, S.I. Jai Ram Yadav, is the investigating officer of
th
the case. He deposed that on 28 February, 2004, he took the
statement of accused-appellant confessing the crime.
Furthermore, the accused disclosed that the dead body was lying
in the field of sugarcane. Thereafter, he along with PW1,
constables, and some other people, came to the sugarcane field
where the dead body was recovered. PW1 identified the dead
body, after which the recovery memo was drawn (Ex.Ka-5),
which bears his signature. Other articles recovered from near the
body of the deceased, i.e., the shirt's button and hair of the
Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 8 of 20

deceased, were recorded vide memo Ex.-Ka-6. The accused took
him to the house of PW1, where he recovered the clothes (Ex.
Ka-8) worn on the day of the incident. He further deposed that
the underwear and frock of the deceased, along with the clothes
of the accused, were sent to the forensic laboratory Agra for
testing, the report of which remained awaited on the date of the
examination. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the
accused had suffered injuries during an inquiry by witnesses.
15. Undoubtedly, the case at hand is one based on
circumstantial evidence. It is the settled law that in a case based
on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must convince the
Court that circumstances point towards the guilt of the accused
alone and none else, as also lack of his innocence. This Court in
1
Pritinder Singh alias Lovely v. State of Punjab succinctly
summarized the position of law on circumstantial evidence :
“17. It can thus be seen that this Court has held that the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should be fully established. It has been held that the
circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may
be” established. It has been held that there is not only a
grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be
proved” and “must be or should be proved”. It has been held
that the facts so established should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they
should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except
that the accused is guilty. It has been held that the
circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency and they should exclude every possible
hypothesis except the one sought to be proved, and that

1
(2023) 7 SCC 727
Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 9 of 20

there must be a chain of evidence so complete so as not to
leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all
human probability the act must have been done by the
accused.

18. It is a settled principle of law that, however strong a
suspicion may be, it cannot take the place of proof beyond
a reasonable doubt. In the light of these guiding principles,
we will have to consider the present case."
(Emphasis supplied)

16. More recently, this came to be reiterated by this Court in
2
Pradeep Kumar v. State of Haryana observing that in
circumstantial evidence cases, all facts must be consistent with
the hypothesis of the accused's guilt, excluding his innocence and
also exclusion of third-party involvement. Moreover, in Pradeep
3
Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh , this Court clarified that in
cases where there is a heavy reliance on circumstantial evidence
and on a perusal of evidence, two views are possible, the one
which is favourable to the accused must be adopted. [See also:
4
Kali Ram v. State of H.P. ]
17. The conviction handed to the accused-appellant has been
based on (a) last seen circumstance; (b) extra-judicial confession
given by him, leading to the recovery of the dead body of ‘X’
along with articles worn by her at the time of death; (c) the FSL

2
(2024) 3 SCC 324
3
(2023) 5 SCC 350
4
(1973) 2 SCC 808
Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 10 of 20

Report of the articles recovered, both of the deceased and the
accused.
18. In the considered view of this Court, the conviction of the
accused by the Courts below is based on improper appreciation
of evidence on record and in correct appreciation of settled
principles of law resulting in the travesty of justice. The entire
case of the prosecution, from its genesis, is doubtful.
19. In the first instance, the conduct of the accused does not
give rise to suspicion. PW1 and PW2 have deposed to the fact
that the appellant was part of the search parties for 5-6 days after
the incident. He was always present. In our view, it is improbable
that a person who killed ‘X’ would have been there all along, as
a search party looking for her. None suspected him. None
pointed a finger of suspension against him, despite the hypothesis
of the last seen theory.
20. Another aspect which creates doubt in the prosecution
story is that for six days from when the child disappears, there is
not a single person who lodges a missing report with the police
or any other authority. This aspect is more suspicious coupled
with the deposition of PW1 to 3, PW6 and PW7. All these
witnesses deposed that they had last seen ‘X’, leaving the
marriage hall with the accused. Despite all these witnesses
having made this observation, neither raises a suspicion nor
registers a complaint about the missing child. The explanation
Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 11 of 20

given by PWs 1 and 2 that for six days they were searching for
the child in other villages only renders the genuineness of the
prosecution story to be unbelievable. There is no reason ascribed
to why they thought ‘X’ would have been taken to another
village, and there is no evidence to support the claim that they
actually visited other areas around the spot of the incident.
Possibility of involvement of others, including PW3, who also
appeared to be a suspect, as is evident from the examination,
cannot be ruled out.
21. Furthermore, the body of ‘X’ was recovered in an open
sugarcane field six days after the incident. PWs 2 and 3 deposed
that a foul smell was coming from the spot as well. However, no
single villager came upon this open spot for six days, which
creates suspicion in our minds about the prosecution story. The
field is not a jungle; it was cultivated; sugarcane crop was grown;
it was privately owned; and the village was inhabited, hence, it is
unbelievable that no one noticed the foul smell, particularly when
the entire area was combed over for nearly 5-6 days.
22. These circumstances make us doubt the genesis of the
prosecution story as also the veracity of the prosecution witnesses
and their testimonies.
23. There is no doubt that the case of the prosecution depends
th
entirely on the extra judicial confession of the accused on 28
Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 12 of 20

February, 2004, leading to the recovery of body from the
sugarcane field, along with other articles worn by the deceased.
24. The principles of the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial
confession are summarized by this Court recently in Kalinga v.
5
State of Karnataka as under :

“ 16. It is no more res integra that an extra-judicial
confession must be accepted with great care and caution. If
it is not supported by other evidence on record, it fails to
inspire confidence and in such a case, it shall not be treated
as a strong piece of evidence for the purpose of arriving at
the conclusion of guilt. Furthermore, the extent of
acceptability of an extra-judicial confession depends on the
trustworthiness of the witness before whom it is given and
the circumstances in which it was given. The prosecution
must establish that a confession was indeed made by the
accused, that it was voluntary in nature and that the contents
of the confession were true. The standard required for
proving an extra-judicial confession to the satisfaction of
the Court is on the higher side and these essential
ingredients must be established beyond any reasonable
doubt. The standard becomes even higher when the entire
case of the prosecution necessarily rests on the extra-
judicial confession.”

(Emphasis supplied)


25. We must also advert to the exposition of this Court in
6
Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. , where B.R. Gavai, J.,
writing for the bench, observed as follows:
“ 16. It is a settled principle of law that extra-judicial
confession is a weak piece of evidence. It has been held that
where suspicious circumstances surround an extra-judicial
confession, its credibility becomes doubtful and loses

5
(2024) 4 SCC 735
6
(2023) 6 SCC 605
Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 13 of 20

importance. It has further been held that it is well-settled
that it is a rule of caution where the Court would generally
look for an independent, reliable corroboration before
placing any reliance upon such extra-judicial confession. It
has been held that there is no doubt that conviction can be
based on extra-judicial confession, but in the very nature of
things, it is a weak piece of evidence.”

(Emphasis supplied)
26. The extra-judicial confession and the consequent recovery
are also surrounded by suspicious circumstances.
27. The first suspicion of this extra-judicial confession arises
from different versions of where the confession took place. PW1
has deposed that the accused confessed his crime at the marriage
hall. Meanwhile, PW2 has deposed that it was so done at the tube
well. PW3 brings out a different version in her deposition by
stating that the confession took place in the field near the tube
well. PW3 changes the story in her cross-examination, stating
that the confession was not witnessed by her. In the considered
view of this Court, these are not minor contradictions that can be
brushed off. There are three different versions of one confession,
which does not inspire confidence in the testimony of these
witnesses.
28. Apart from the above contradiction, another circumstance
which does not inspire confidence of the Court in the testimony
of PW1, the Complainant and star witness of the prosecution, is
that in his deposition, he stated that he had accompanied his
family to the marriage hall. It directly contradicts the testimony
Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 14 of 20

of PW8, who deposed that during the investigation when he had

recorded the statement of PW1, such a fact was not disclosed.
29. The most pertinent suspicion in the prosecution case is that
no single independent witness is adjoined or examined in support
of the confession or consequent recovery. We must clarify that
this is not a case where the Investigating Officer tried to adjoin
independent witnesses, but it was refused. PW1, in his statement
categorically states that a large public from the village had
gathered when the accused led them to the spot where the body
of the deceased was recovered. The investigating officer, PW8,
himself deposed that ‘ some other people ’ were present during the
recovery. No explanation is provided for their non-joining, more
so when the entire prosecution case rests on this circumstance.
The recovery of the body of the deceased is from a field which is
accessible and open to the public, which further warrants need
for an independent witness.
30. Given the availability of independent witnesses in this
case, the investigating officer has deliberated to exclude them.
PW1, in his testimony, also mentions that his father,
Ramchandra, and one Rameshwar had also witnessed the
confession of the accused. The prosecution has also not examined
these two persons. This is a glaring omission in the attending
facts and circumstances.
Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 15 of 20

31. We are now considering the report of the Assistant
Director, Forensic Lab, Agra. This report has miserably failed to
link the accused with the crime. The examination conducted only
verifies whether the blood found is of human origin, and that
semen was present on the underwear allegedly belonging to the
deceased. There is no testing undertaken to compare the blood
found on the clothes of the deceased with the blood of the
accused-appellant. How does signs of semen found on the
clothes of the accused link him to the crime of either rape or
murder. It is not the proven case of the prosecution that the
semen of the accused was found on any part of the body or
clothes of the deceased or for that matter, blood of the deceased
found on the clothes of the accused. Alleged recovery of a button
of a shirt does not link the accused to the crime in any manner.
Cumulatively, therefore, the contents of this report do not point
towards the guilt of the accused and fail to substantiate the
conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 376 IPC.
32. The only circumstance remaining against the accused that
can be believed, is the last-seen theory. PW1, PW2, PW3 and
PW6 and PW7 have deposed that they saw the accused lastly with
the deceased. It is settled law, however, that conviction cannot be
solely based on last-seen theory. This Court in Krishnan v. State
7
of T.N. had observed :

7
(2014) 12 SCC 279
Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 16 of 20

“21. The conviction cannot be based only on the
circumstance of last seen together with the deceased.
In Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar [1994 Supp (2) SCC
372 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1551] this Court held as
follows: (SCC p. 385, para 31)

"31. Thus the evidence that the
Appellant had gone to Sitaram in the
evening of 19-7-1985 and had stayed
in the night at the house of deceased
Sitaram is very shaky and
inconclusive. Even if it is accepted
that they were there it would at best
amount to be the evidence of the
appellants having been seen last
together with the deceased. But it is
settled law that the only circumstance
of last seen will not complete the
chain of circumstances to record the
finding that it is consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused and, therefore, no conviction
on that basis alone can be founded."

24. In Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab [(2005) 12 SCC
438 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 579] this Court held that in
the absence of any other links in the chain of
circumstantial evidence, the Appellant cannot be
convicted solely based on "last seen together" even
if version of the prosecution witness in this regard is
believed.”

(Emphasis supplied)

33. We must also clarify that even the last-seen theory against
the accused-appellant is not free from suspicion. In her cross-
examination, PW7, an independent witness, who has been relied
upon for this circumstance, admits that she had not told the I.O.-
PW8, on the first instance, that she had seen the accused leaving
Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 17 of 20

the marriage hall with the deceased. The reason for this omission
at the first instance remains unexplained.
34. This Court is of the view that the circumstances presented
before us do not establish conclusively the guilt of the accused in
committing the murder and rape of ‘X’.
35. We deem it appropriate to reiterate what came to be
8
observed by this Court in Randeep Singh v. State of Haryana ,
that a conviction can only be made when guilt is established
beyond reasonable doubt, and as such, there cannot be a moral
conviction in law. Though the offence in question strikes at the
human conscience, there being a murder of a four-year-old girl
child, the evidence brought by the prosecution is not clear and
unimpeachable, pointing towards the guilt of the accused alone,
meeting with the principles enunciated by this Court in Sharad
9
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra .
36. Therefore, in view of the above, the conviction of the
accused-appellant under Sections 302 and 376 of the IPC is set
th
aside. The impugned order dated 26 July, 2005 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.
4911 of 2004 & Reference No.15, which confirmed the judgment
st
and order dated 21 September, 2004 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.16, Bulandshahar in

8
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3383
9
(1984) 4 SCC 116
Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 18 of 20

Sessions Case No.306/2004 is quashed and set aside. The
accused-appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not
required in another detention order.

……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)


……………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)



………………………J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
New Delhi;
February 6, 2025.

Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 19 of 20

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITON (CRIMINAL) NO.224 OF 2019


SANJAY PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. Dr. S. Muralidhar, learned senior
counsel, submits that as the mercy petition of
the petitoner has been rejected by the President
of India, the present petition has been rendered
infructuous.
2. In view of the above submission, we
dismiss this petition as having become
infructuous.
....................,J.
(VIKRAM NATH)


....................,J.
(SANJAY KAROL)

..................,J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 06, 2025.
Crl.A.No.239/2025 Page 20 of 20