Uttarakhand High Court upholds acquittal in alleged child-sacrifice case, citing lack of reliable evidence

Deepak, the four-year-old deaf and mute grandson of informant Kaliram, went missing on 25 August 1998; his body was recovered from the Banganga river the next day.

The informant’s missing report did not mention suspicion against the accused, an alleged pooja, or a refusal to allow him into an accused’s house.

After the local police filed a final report, further investigation was conducted by the CBCID following a protest petition.

The prosecution alleged that Deepak had been kidnapped and killed as part of a human-sacrifice ritual.

At trial, the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including alleged recovery of the body and an extra-judicial confession.

The trial court acquitted Sitaram, Biram and Rajpal of offences under Sections 364, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC.

The informant and the State appealed that acquittal.

1. Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstances proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the charged offences

2. Whether the alleged recovery of the body, extra-judicial confession and other evidence reliably connected the accused to Deepak’s kidnapping and death

3. Whether the trial court’s acquittal disclosed perversity, illegality or misreading of the evidence warranting appellate interference

For a conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be firmly established, the circumstances must form a complete chain, and that chain must be inconsistent with the accused’s innocence.

Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a discovery is relevant only when the fact is discovered in consequence of information received from an accused in police custody; the prosecution must establish the required link between the disclosure and the recovery.

An extra-judicial confession is a weak form of evidence requiring strict scrutiny and, ordinarily, corroboration by reliable independent circumstances.

Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof.

The charged offences were under Sections 364, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish any reliable last-seen circumstance: no witness saw Deepak with an accused before his disappearance.

The informant’s account rested on suspicion and was not supported by his missing report; another witness materially improved his account, while the alleged confession lacked reliable corroboration.

The evidence also did not establish that the body was recovered pursuant to an accused’s disclosure under Section 27: witnesses differed about the recovery, and no recovery memo or other reliable evidence proved the necessary connection.

Further, forensic examination found no blood on soil collected from the alleged ritual site, and the prosecution produced no other scientific or medical evidence substantiating the sacrifice theory.

These deficiencies, together with the defence evidence, left the circumstances short of a complete chain pointing to guilt.

The Court held that the trial court’s assessment was a possible and reasonable view of the evidence, not one warranting appellate interference.

It dismissed both the informant’s criminal appeal and the State’s government appeal, discharged any bail bonds, and directed that the trial court record be transmitted forthwith.