Chattisgarh High Court
In Referance Of State Of Chhattisgarh vs Shankar Nishad on 1 May, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:20320-DB
Digitally
signed by
ANURADHA
ANURADHA TIWARI AFR
TIWARI Date:
2026.05.01
17:41:20
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Judgment Reserved on : 22.04.2026
Judgment Delivered on : 01.05.2026
CRREF No. 4 of 2025
In Reference of State of Chhattisgarh
--- Applicant
Versus
Shankar Nishad S/o Roop Singh Nishad Aged About 25 Years R/o
Village Sukhda, Thana Dabhra, District Sakti C.G.
--- Non-Applicant
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Applicant/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate
General assisted by Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy
Government Advocate
For Non-applicant : Mr. Ankit Pandey, Advocate
———————————————————————————————–
CRA No. 193 of 2026
Shankar Nishad S/o Rup Singh Nishad, Aged About 25 Years R/o
Village Sukhda, Police Station Dabhra, District Sakti (C.G.)
— Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station Dabhra, District Janjgir-
Champa (C.G.) Present District Shakti (C.G.)
— Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
2
———————————————————————————————–
For Appellant : Mr. Ankit Pandey, Advocate
For Applicant/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate
General assisted by Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy
Government Advocate
———————————————————————————————–
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
CAV Judgment
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
1. The appellant herein, namely Shankar Nishad, has been awarded
the sentence of death by the learned Special Judge under
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in
Special Sessions Trial No.80/2022 vide judgment dated
16.12.2025, after having found him guilty for offences punishable
under Sections 364, 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for short, “IPC“). The learned Trial Court, upon a detailed
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by
the prosecution, has recorded a finding that the prosecution has
been able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt in respect of the aforesaid offences. While returning such
finding of conviction, the trial Court has taken into consideration
the nature of evidence, including the testimony of material
witnesses, medical and forensic evidence, as well as the
surrounding circumstances forming a complete chain pointing
towards the culpability of the accused. Upon hearing the accused
3
on the question of sentence and after evaluating the aggravating
and mitigating circumstances, the learned Trial Court has
imposed capital punishment and directed that the appellant be
hanged by neck till death for the offences under Sections 376 and
302 IPC, along with imposition of fine, and has further awarded
sentence under Section 364 IPC, as specified in the impugned
judgment.
2. The learned Special Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, in
exercise of powers conferred under Section 366 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC‘) (corresponding to
Section 407 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for
short, ‘BNSS’)), having passed a sentence of death, has made a
reference to this Court for confirmation of the said sentence, as
required under law. It is settled that a sentence of death passed
by a Court of Session does not attain finality unless confirmed by
the High Court. In compliance with the statutory mandate, the
entire records of the case have been transmitted for independent
scrutiny by this Court.
3. Accordingly, the present Criminal Reference No.4/2025 has been
placed before this Court for consideration, along with Criminal
Appeal No.193/2026 preferred by the accused/appellant, wherein
the legality, correctness and propriety of the impugned judgment
of conviction and order of sentence have been assailed. Both the
death reference and the criminal appeal are, therefore, being
considered together for comprehensive adjudication on merits.
4
4. The case of the prosecution, as borne out from the record, is that
the deceased/victim, aged about 25 years, was employed as a
peon in the Family Court at Bemetara. On 09.08.2022, she had
come to her native village Khairmuda on leave. On 14.08.2022 at
about 09:00 a.m., she left her house on her Scooty (Activa)
bearing registration No. CG-11-AV-2212, informing her family
members that she was proceeding to Bemetara. However, she
did not reach her destination and her whereabouts remained
unknown. Despite efforts made by her family members and
inquiries from relatives and villagers, no trace of the victim could
be found. On 15.08.2022, the father of the victim (PW-01) lodged
a missing person report, which was registered as Missing Person
Case No.62/2022 at Police Station Dabhra (Ex. P-35). During the
course of inquiry, suspicion arose against the accused, who was
known to the victim. Statements of the father of victim (PW-01)
and younger sister of the deceased (PW-02) revealed that the
accused had been in regular contact with the victim over mobile
phone. On this basis, the call detail records (CDR) and customer
application forms (CAF) (Ex. P-47, P-48, P-34A) were obtained.
5. The investigation further revealed, on the basis of electronic
evidence including CCTV footage supported by certificate under
Section 65-B of the Evidence Act (Ex. P-23, P-45), that on
14.08.2022 at about 11:18 a.m., the accused was seen taking the
victim as a pillion rider on her Scooty (Activa) towards the
Palgada Valley area and was seen returning alone at about 12:04
5
p.m. It was also established that the mobile phone of the victim
was switched off after 11:00 a.m., thereby corroborating the
prosecution case.
6. During investigation, the accused was interrogated and his
memorandum statement (Ex. P-03) was recorded under Section
27 of the Evidence Act. In his disclosure statement, he admitted
that he had accompanied the victim, taken her to a secluded
forest area at Junadih Sajapali, Palgada Ghat, where he
restrained her by tying her hands, gagged her by stuffing leaves
into her mouth, and thereafter committed forcible sexual
intercourse with her. He further disclosed that he assaulted the
victim and caused her death.
7. Pursuant to the memorandum statement, the dead body of the
victim was recovered (Ex. P-04) and identified by her relatives
vide identification panchnama (Ex. P-05). Spot map (Ex. P-21)
and inquest panchnama (Ex. P-10) were prepared. Articles from
the spot and belongings of the deceased were seized vide
seizure memos (Ex. P-08, P-11, P-12, P-14, P-24). The vehicle
(Activa) and helmet were also seized and identified (Ex. P-15).
8. The post-mortem examination was conducted (Ex. P-41 & P-42)
by PW-08 Dr. Priti Ijardar and PW-12 Dr. Jai Agrawal, and the
medical evidence conclusively established that the death was
homicidal in nature. The injuries found on the body of the
deceased, coupled with the medical opinion, clearly indicated
sexual assault and violent death. The seized articles were sent
6
for forensic examination (Ex. P-25, P-27) and DNA analysis vide
Ex. P-30, which further corroborated the involvement of the
accused in the crime. The FSL report and DNA report established
the presence of biological material linking the accused with the
offence. The mobile phone analysis, CDR reports and electronic
evidence further strengthened the chain of circumstances.
9. During investigation, it was also found that the deceased
belonged to a Scheduled Tribe community, and accordingly,
Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(for short ‘Atrocities Act’) was added (Ex. P-19).
10. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against
the accused for offences under Sections 364, 376, 302, 201 IPC
and Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act.
11. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, examined as many
as 19 witnesses, including the father of the deceased (PW-01),
sister (PW-02), relatives (PW-03 to PW-05), independent
witnesses (PW-06, PW-07), medical experts (PW-08, PW-12),
and investigating officers (PW-17, PW-18, PW-19), and exhibited
documentary evidence Ex. P/01 to Ex. P/48 along with material
objects.
12. After appreciation of the entire evidence, the learned trial Court
acquitted the accused of the charges under Section 201 IPC and
Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act, however, held that the
prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt
7
that the accused had kidnapped the victim, committed rape upon
her and thereafter murdered her. Accordingly, the accused was
convicted under Sections 364, 376 and 302 IPC.
13. The chain of circumstances established by the prosecution,
namely, last seen evidence, electronic evidence (CCTV and
CDR), memorandum statement leading to recovery, medical and
forensic evidence, and conduct of the accused, was found to be
complete and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the
accused, leaving no reasonable ground for a conclusion
consistent with his innocence.
14. In the light of the prosecution case and the material available on
record, the following questions arise for consideration in the
present matter by the Trial Court :
• Whether the accused, on 14.08.2022 at or about 09:00 a.m.
within the jurisdiction of Police Station Dabhra, District
Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh), kidnapped or enticed the
victim under false pretext with the intention of taking her to a
secluded place?
• Whether the accused, on the said date, took the victim to the
forest area of Junadih Sajapali, Palgada Ghat, and
committed rape upon her against her will and without her
consent?
8
• Whether the accused, on the same date and place,
intentionally caused the death of the victim and thereby
committed the offence of murder?
• Whether the accused, after committing the said offences,
caused disappearance of evidence of the crime or attempted
to screen himself from legal punishment by concealing the
body of the deceased?
• Whether the accused, knowing that the victim belonged to a
Scheduled Tribe community, committed the offence of rape
and murder attracting the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the
Atrocities Act?
15. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of the entire oral and
documentary evidence, has held the following incriminating
circumstances to be proved against the accused:
• Last Seen Evidence: The prosecution has firmly
established, through cogent ocular and electronic evidence,
that the accused was last seen in the company of the
deceased on 14.08.2022. The testimonies of prosecution
witnesses, duly corroborated by CCTV footage (Ex. P/23,
P/45), clearly depict the accused accompanying the victim on
her Scooty (Activa) towards the isolated area of Palgada
valley. Significantly, the footage further shows the accused
returning alone shortly thereafter, thereby giving rise to a
strong incriminating circumstance. In the absence of any
9plausible explanation from the accused as to the fate of the
victim thereafter, this circumstance assumes great
evidentiary value and constitutes a vital link in the chain of
circumstances.
• Prior Acquaintance and Trust: It stands proved from the
statements of PW-01 and PW-02, as well as the call detail
records (Ex. P/47, P/48), that the accused and the deceased
were well acquainted and in regular communication prior to
the incident. The relationship between the two was such as to
inspire confidence and trust in the mind of the victim. The
accused, exploiting this position of familiarity and trust, lured
the victim to accompany him to a secluded location, thereby
facilitating the commission of the offence. This element of
breach of trust further aggravates the culpability of the
accused.
• Memorandum Statement and Discovery: The
memorandum statement of the accused (Ex. P/03), recorded
in accordance with law, led to the discovery of crucial facts,
most notably the recovery of the dead body of the deceased
(Ex. P/04) from a concealed location. This discovery, being
directly attributable to the disclosure made by the accused
while in custody, is admissible under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act and constitutes a highly incriminating
circumstance. The fact that the accused alone had
10knowledge of the place where the body was concealed
further strengthens the prosecution case.
• Recovery and Seizure of Articles: Pursuant to the
disclosure made by the accused, several incriminating
articles were recovered and seized under duly prepared
seizure memos (Ex. P/08, P/11, P/12, P/14). These include
the personal belongings of the deceased, articles found at or
near the place of occurrence, as well as the scooty (Activa)
of the deceased, which had been taken away by the accused
and was subsequently recovered at his instance from the
railway station. The recovery of the said scooty (Activa) from
a public place like the railway station, at the behest of the
accused, assumes considerable significance, as it
establishes his exclusive knowledge and possession, thereby
directly connecting him with the movement of the victim and
the commission of the offence. The cumulative effect of these
recoveries further fortifies the chain of circumstances and
establishes an unbroken link between the accused and the
crime.
• Medical and Forensic Evidence: The post-mortem reports
(Ex. P/41 & P/42), duly proved by the medical experts (PW-
08 and PW-12), conclusively establish that the death of the
victim was homicidal in nature. The nature, location, and
extent of injuries found on the body are consistent with a
violent assault coupled with sexual violence. The medical
11findings unequivocally negate any possibility of accidental or
natural death. Furthermore, the FSL and DNA reports (Ex.
P/27, P/30) lend strong corroboration to the prosecution case
by scientifically linking the accused with the crime and the
victim.
• Electronic Evidence (CDR and Location): The call detail
records and location analysis (Ex. P/47, P/48) provide a
technological corroboration of the prosecution version by
establishing the presence and movement of the accused
along with the deceased towards the place of occurrence.
The convergence of location data with the timeline of events
further reinforces the prosecution case and eliminates the
possibility of false implication.
• Conduct of the Accused: The conduct of the accused
before and after the incident constitutes an additional
incriminating circumstance. Notably, the accused has failed
to offer any credible explanation as to the circumstances
under which the victim, last seen in his company,
disappeared and was subsequently found dead. His false
and evasive answers further strengthen the inference of guilt
and provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances.
• Completeness of Chain of Circumstances: The
prosecution has successfully established a complete and
coherent chain of circumstances, each link of which has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt. The cumulative effect of
12
these circumstances is consistent only with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the accused and wholly inconsistent with any
hypothesis of innocence. There is no missing link in the
chain, and the circumstances unerringly point towards the
culpability of the accused.
• Nature of the Crime: The offence in question is marked by
extreme brutality and depravity. The accused, after luring the
victim to a secluded area, committed acts of sexual assault
followed by her murder in a cold-blooded manner. The
vulnerability of the victim, coupled with the calculated manner
in which the offence was executed, reflects a high degree of
moral turpitude and callousness on the part of the accused.
• Rarest of Rare Case: Having regard to the manner of
commission of the offence, the vulnerability of the victim, the
breach of trust reposed in the accused, and the brutality
involved, the learned trial Court has opined that the case falls
within the category of the “rarest of rare cases.” The
aggravating circumstances, in the opinion of the trial Court,
outweigh any mitigating factors, thereby justifying the
imposition of capital punishment.
16. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the judgment of conviction
and the order of sentence dated 16.12.2025 passed by the
learned Special Judge under Atrocities Act, Janjgir, District
Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No.80/2022, the
appellant herein has preferred Criminal Appeal No.193/2026
13
under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, calling in question the legality, validity and propriety of his
conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 376
and 302 IPC, with particular challenge to the imposition of capital
punishment.
17. At the same time, the learned Special Judge under Atrocities Act,
Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in compliance with the
mandate contained in Section 366(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 407 of the BNSS),
has submitted the proceedings of the case to this Court for
confirmation of the sentence of death.
18. Mr. Ankit Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/accused, has assailed the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence with considerable vehemence
and depth, contending that the learned Trial Court has committed
a grave and manifest error of law in awarding the extreme penalty
of death in a wholly mechanical, cursory, and perfunctory manner,
without adhering to the well-settled constitutional and legal
principles governing capital sentencing. It is submitted that the
application of the “rarest of rare” doctrine by the Trial Court is not
only superficial but also illusory, inasmuch as the Court has failed
to undertake the mandatory, structured, and individualized
sentencing analysis, which requires a careful, rational, and
reasoned balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
According to learned counsel, the impugned judgment proceeds
14
on an impermissible and legally untenable assumption that the
brutality or heinousness of the offence, by itself, is sufficient to
justify the imposition of capital punishment, thereby completely
disregarding the jurisprudential safeguards evolved to prevent
arbitrary deprivation of life.
19. Elaborating further, learned counsel submits that the learned Trial
Court has failed to record any categorical or reasoned finding to
the effect that the alternative sentence of imprisonment for life
was unquestionably foreclosed, which is an indispensable pre-
condition for the imposition of the death penalty. It is argued that
the sentencing exercise undertaken by the Trial Court is
manifestly arbitrary and suffers from non-application of mind, as it
does not reflect any meaningful or substantive consideration of
the mitigating circumstances placed on record. Particular
emphasis is laid on the fact that the appellant is a young
individual, with no prior criminal antecedents, belonging to a
modest socio-economic background, and had been in prolonged
judicial custody. Despite noticing these aspects, the Trial Court
has failed to assign any rational or proportionate weight to them,
thereby reducing the sentencing process to a mere formality
rather than a constitutionally guided exercise.
20. Mr. Pandey further submits that the conclusion recorded by the
Trial Court that the appellant is incapable of reformation or
rehabilitation is wholly unfounded, perverse, and unsupported by
any legally admissible evidence on record. It is contended that
15
such a sweeping and decisive finding has been arrived at merely
on conjectures, assumptions, and subjective perceptions of the
Court, without there being any objective material, empirical data,
psychological assessment, or expert opinion to substantiate the
same. Learned counsel submits that in the absence of any
material demonstrating that the appellant is beyond reform or
poses a continuing threat to society, the settled legal position
mandates that the benefit must tilt in favour of life imprisonment
rather than capital punishment. The failure of the Trial Court to
adopt such a cautious and principled approach, it is urged,
renders the sentencing order constitutionally vulnerable.
21. Assailing the conviction itself, learned counsel submits that the
entire prosecution case rests solely on circumstantial evidence
and is devoid of any direct or ocular testimony. It is argued that in
such a case, the law requires that each and every incriminating
circumstance must be firmly and conclusively established, and all
such circumstances must form a complete and unbroken chain
leading only to the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, to the
exclusion of every other possible hypothesis consistent with
innocence. According to learned counsel, the circumstances
relied upon by the prosecution in the present case suffer from
serious inconsistencies, gaps, and missing links, and do not meet
the stringent standard required for sustaining a conviction. It is
further contended that the possibility of an alternative hypothesis
16
has not been effectively ruled out, thereby rendering the
conviction itself unsafe and legally unsustainable.
22. Learned counsel has also drawn pointed attention to serious
forensic and evidentiary infirmities which, according to him, strike
at the very root of the prosecution case. It is submitted that no
DNA profiling or comparison test has been conducted to
scientifically establish any nexus between the appellant and the
alleged offences of rape and murder, which assumes critical
importance in a case of this nature. The absence of such
scientific evidence, it is argued, creates a significant gap in the
chain of circumstances and leaves room for reasonable doubt. It
is further contended that the electronic evidence relied upon by
the prosecution has not been proved in accordance with the
mandatory legal requirements governing its admissibility,
particularly with regard to certification and authenticity. The
reliance placed on such defective and inadmissible material,
according to learned counsel, has caused serious prejudice to the
appellant and has vitiated the findings recorded by the Trial
Court.
23. In continuation, it is also submitted that the Trial Court has erred
in placing reliance on isolated and uncorroborated circumstances,
which neither individually nor cumulatively establish the guilt of
the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution
evidence, it is urged, is fraught with inconsistencies and lacks the
degree of certainty required in criminal jurisprudence, especially
17
in a case involving capital punishment. Learned counsel
emphasizes that where the evidence itself is doubtful or
susceptible to multiple interpretations, the law mandates that the
interpretation favourable to the accused must be adopted, and in
such circumstances, the imposition of the irreversible punishment
of death is wholly impermissible.
24. In sum and substance, learned counsel submits that the
impugned judgment suffers from serious legal, factual, and
constitutional infirmities, both in respect of the finding of guilt and
the imposition of sentence. It is urged that the death penalty
awarded in the present case is grossly disproportionate, arbitrary,
and contrary to settled principles of law. The learned counsel,
therefore, prays that this Court may be pleased to set aside the
conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Court. In
the alternative, it is submitted that even if the conviction is upheld,
the sentence of death deserves to be commuted to imprisonment
for life, in the interest of justice and in conformity with
constitutional safeguards.
25. In further buttressing his submissions, learned counsel has
placed strong reliance upon the authoritative pronouncements of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and
others, (2014) 10 SCC 473, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v.
Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others, (2020) 7 SCC 1,
and the recent decision in Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan and
another, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 344, to contend that compliance
18
with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is not a mere
procedural formality but a mandatory pre-condition for the
admissibility of electronic evidence. It is submitted that the law
has now been conclusively settled that any electronic record,
including CCTV footage, call detail records, or digital data, is
inadmissible in evidence unless accompanied by a valid and duly
proved certificate under Section 65B(4), issued by a competent
person having lawful control over the device. Learned counsel
submits that in the present case, the prosecution has failed to
strictly adhere to these mandatory requirements, as the
certificates produced are either defective, incomplete, or not
proved in accordance with law. It is further argued that the
absence of proper certification goes to the root of admissibility
and cannot be cured at a later stage. Consequently, the entire
electronic evidence relied upon by the prosecution becomes
legally inadmissible and cannot be read in evidence, thereby
demolishing a crucial link in the chain of circumstances.
26. Per contra, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate
General, ably assisted by Ms. Anusha Naik, learned Deputy
Government Advocate, opposes the submissions advanced on
behalf of the appellant and supports the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence in its entirety. It is submitted that
the learned Trial Court has meticulously appreciated the entire
oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and
has rightly returned a finding of guilt against the appellant, which
19
does not suffer from any perversity, illegality, or infirmity
warranting interference by this Court.
27. Learned State counsel submits that the prosecution has been
able to establish a complete and unbroken chain of
circumstances, which conclusively points towards the guilt of the
appellant and rules out every hypothesis consistent with his
innocence. It is contended that the evidence on record clearly
demonstrates that the appellant was last seen in the company of
the victim on the fateful day, which is duly corroborated by the
testimony of prosecution witnesses as well as the electronic
evidence in the form of call detail records and video footage. The
conduct of the appellant, both prior to and subsequent to the
incident, is stated to be highly incriminating and forms a vital link
in the chain of circumstances. It is further submitted that the
memorandum statement of the appellant, recorded during the
course of investigation, led to the recovery of the dead body of
the victim and other incriminating articles, thereby lending strong
corroboration to the prosecution case.
28. Elaborating further, learned State counsel submits that the
medical and forensic evidence on record clearly establishes that
the death of the victim was homicidal in nature and that she was
subjected to forcible sexual assault prior to her death. The post-
mortem report, coupled with the testimony of the medical experts,
unequivocally proves the brutal nature of the crime. It is
contended that the manner in which the offence has been
20
committed by deceitfully taking the victim to a secluded forest
area, sexually assaulting her against her will, and thereafter
mercilessly causing her death reflects the depravity and brutality
of the appellant’s conduct. The nature of injuries sustained by the
victim and the circumstances under which the offence was
committed leave no manner of doubt regarding the culpability of
the appellant.
29. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the
contention of the appellant regarding absence of DNA evidence is
misconceived and does not dent the prosecution case, as the
conviction can be sustained on the basis of reliable and cogent
circumstantial evidence, if it forms a complete chain. It is argued
that the prosecution has duly proved each incriminating
circumstance through trustworthy evidence, and the absence of a
particular piece of forensic evidence is not fatal where the overall
evidence inspires confidence and establishes guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. Similarly, it is contended that the electronic
evidence relied upon by the prosecution has been duly proved in
accordance with law and has been rightly taken into
consideration by the learned Trial Court.
30. On the aspect of sentence, learned State counsel submits that
the present case squarely falls within the category of “rarest of
rare” cases, warranting the imposition of capital punishment. It is
argued that the crime committed by the appellant is not only
heinous and barbaric but also exhibits extreme depravity and a
21
complete disregard for human dignity. The victim, a young
woman, was lured on the pretext of assistance, taken to an
isolated location, sexually assaulted, and thereafter brutally
murdered in a calculated and cold-blooded manner. The manner
of commission of the offence, the vulnerability of the victim, and
the breach of trust involved are stated to be aggravating factors
of the highest degree.
31. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has duly
considered the mitigating circumstances put forth on behalf of the
appellant, including his age and absence of prior criminal
antecedents, but has rightly concluded that such factors are
outweighed by the aggravating circumstances present in the
case. Learned State counsel contends that the brutality of the
crime, coupled with the absence of any remorse on the part of the
appellant and the calculated manner in which the offence was
executed, leaves no scope for reformation or rehabilitation.
According to him, any lesser sentence would be wholly
inadequate and would fail to meet the ends of justice, as well as
the legitimate expectations of society.
32. In continuation, it is submitted that crimes of such a heinous
nature not only shock the collective conscience of society but
also undermine the sense of security among citizens, particularly
women. Learned counsel submits that the imposition of the death
penalty in such cases serves as a necessary deterrent and
reinforces the rule of law. The learned Trial Court, it is urged, has
22
rightly exercised its discretion in awarding the capital sentence
after due consideration of all relevant factors, and the same does
not call for any interference.
33. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned State counsel prays
that the conviction of the appellant as well as the sentence of
death awarded to him be affirmed, and the death reference made
by the learned Trial Court be answered in the affirmative. It is
submitted that both the appeal preferred by the appellant and the
challenge to the sentence are devoid of merit and deserve to be
dismissed.
34. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable
length and have given our anxious and thoughtful consideration
to the rival submissions advanced herein-above. We have also
meticulously perused the entire record of the case, including the
original record of the trial Court, with utmost care and
circumspection. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by
the prosecution has been examined in detail, along with the
statements of witnesses, material exhibits, medical and forensic
reports, and all other relevant documents brought on record.
35. We have further scrutinized the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court in the
light of the submissions made by both sides, to ascertain whether
the findings recorded therein are supported by the evidence
available on record and are in accordance with law. The
appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Court has been re-
23
evaluated to determine whether the conclusions drawn are
reasonable, plausible, and free from any perversity, misreading of
evidence, or material irregularity.
36. In addition, we have carefully examined whether the chain of
circumstances, as projected by the prosecution, stands duly
established and is complete in all respects so as to unerringly
point towards the guilt of the appellant, excluding every
hypothesis consistent with innocence. We have also considered
the legal principles governing cases based on circumstantial
evidence, as well as the parameters for awarding sentence,
particularly where the punishment imposed is of the gravest
nature.
37. Upon such comprehensive consideration of the entire material
available on record, and after independently analyzing the
evidence and the reasoning assigned by the learned Trial Court,
we now proceed to deal with the issues arising for determination
in the present case.
38. In light of the rival submissions advanced by the parties, the
evidence available on record, and the findings returned by the
learned Trial Court, the following points arise for determination
before this Court:
• Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt on the
24basis of the evidence led, particularly in
absence/presence of any reliable eye-witness account?
This Court is required to examine whether the case rests on
direct evidence or is founded entirely on circumstantial evidence,
and if so, whether such evidence forms a complete and unbroken
chain pointing conclusively towards the guilt of the accused,
excluding every hypothesis consistent with his innocence.
• Whether the electronic evidence relied upon by the
prosecution has been duly proved in accordance with
law, particularly in compliance with the mandatory
requirements of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872?
It is to be determined whether the electronic records, if any, have
been properly exhibited and supported by the requisite
certification, and whether such evidence can be legally read in
evidence or has been erroneously relied upon by the learned Trial
Court.
• Whether the prosecution has successfully established
the commission of offences under Sections 364, 376
and 302 IPC, particularly the charge of sexual assault,
on the basis of cogent, reliable, and legally admissible
medical, forensic, and other corroborative evidence?
This includes an evaluation of the medical evidence, post-mortem
report, forensic findings, and surrounding circumstances to
25ascertain whether the allegation of sexual assault stands proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether the sentence of death imposed upon the
accused satisfies the settled principles governing
capital punishment, including the “rarest of rare”
doctrine, and whether the learned Trial Court has
undertaken a proper balancing of aggravating and
mitigating circumstances?
The Court must examine whether the alternative option of life
imprisonment was unquestionably foreclosed, and whether the
sentencing exercise has been conducted in a fair, reasoned, and
legally sustainable manner.
Point No.1 — Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in
absence of any reliable eye-witness account?
39. At the outset, it is to be noted that the present case does not rest
on any direct ocular evidence of the occurrence. There is no eye-
witness who has seen the actual commission of the crime. The
prosecution case is, therefore, founded entirely on circumstantial
evidence. In such a situation, the settled principle of criminal
jurisprudence requires that each incriminating circumstance must
be firmly established, and all such circumstances must form a
complete and unbroken chain which points only towards the guilt
26
of the accused and rules out every hypothesis consistent with his
innocence.
40. Proceeding to examine the evidence on record in the aforesaid
backdrop, this Court finds that the prosecution has relied upon a
series of interconnected circumstances, which may be analysed
as under:
(i) “Last Seen Together” Evidence
41. The testimony of PW-2 and PW-6 assumes decisive significance
in the present case, as both these witnesses have consistently
and in a natural manner established the foundational
circumstance of “last seen together,” which is one of the most
crucial links in a case resting on circumstantial evidence. PW-2,
in his substantive deposition, has clearly stated that on
14.08.2022 at about 09:00 a.m., he had seen the deceased
accompanying the accused near Bhadri Chowk, Faguram. He
has further deposed that the accused was seen taking the
deceased on her Scooty (Activa) towards the side of Palgada
Ghat road. PW-6 has fully corroborated this version and has
stated in categorical terms that he also witnessed the deceased
in the company of the accused at the same time and place. The
consistency between the two testimonies, both as to time, place,
and manner of seeing the accused and the deceased together,
lends a high degree of authenticity and reliability to their
evidence.
27
42. A careful scrutiny of their cross-examination reveals that nothing
material could be elicited to discredit or dislodge their version.
Both witnesses have withstood the test of cross-examination and
remained firm on material particulars. The defence has not been
able to suggest any prior animosity, motive, or reason as to why
these witnesses would falsely implicate the accused. Their
presence at the relevant place appears natural and probable in
the ordinary course of human conduct, and their testimony does
not suffer from any inherent improbability or contradiction. Minor
variations, if any, in their narration are purely natural
discrepancies which are bound to occur due to lapse of time and
do not affect the core of the prosecution story.
43. PW-2 has further clarified that the deceased and accused
appeared to be proceeding together without any sign of distress
or resistance at that moment, which indicates voluntary
association at that point of time. PW-6 has similarly supported the
prosecution case by stating that the accused was the only person
seen with the deceased shortly before her disappearance. Both
witnesses have thus provided a coherent and mutually reinforcing
account, thereby forming a reliable evidentiary foundation for the
prosecution case. Importantly, the evidentiary value of PW-2 and
PW-6 does not stand in isolation, but receives strong
corroboration from the surrounding circumstances. Their ocular
testimony is duly supported by electronic evidence in the form of
call detail records (Ex.P-48), which show that the mobile location
28
of the accused was active in the same vicinity during the relevant
time frame. This independent technological corroboration not only
strengthens their version but also rules out any possibility of
mistaken identity or false implication. The convergence of oral
testimony and electronic data creates a consistent and coherent
chain of circumstances.
44. The “last seen together” circumstance, as proved through PW-2
and PW-6, assumes heightened significance in view of the very
short time gap between the deceased being last seen in the
company of the accused and her subsequent disappearance and
recovery of dead body. The proximity of time virtually eliminates
the possibility of intervention by any third person, thereby
narrowing the chain of events exclusively to the accused and the
deceased.
45. In such circumstances, a corresponding duty is cast upon the
accused to offer a plausible and satisfactory explanation as to
how and under what circumstances the deceased parted
company with him. However, the accused has remained
completely silent in this regard and has failed to discharge the
burden cast upon him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
This failure to explain a fact especially within his knowledge
operates as an additional incriminating circumstance against him.
46. Thus, the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-6, when read in
conjunction with the electronic evidence and the overall chain of
circumstances, form a strong, reliable, and legally admissible link
29
in the chain of circumstantial evidence, unerringly pointing
towards the involvement of the accused in the commission of the
offence.
(ii) CCTV Footage and Conduct of the Accused
47. The prosecution has, with due compliance of procedural and
evidentiary requirements, brought on record the CCTV footage
seized during the course of investigation, which has been duly
exhibited through competent witnesses. The said footage,
contained in the pen drive marked as Article-1, is supported by
the requisite certification under Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act vide Ex.P-23 and Ex.P-45, thereby lending
admissibility and evidentiary value to the electronic record. The
witnesses through whom the said material has been proved have
clearly deposed regarding the source, manner of extraction, and
safe custody of the electronic data, and nothing substantial has
been elicited in their cross-examination to discredit the
authenticity or integrity of the footage.
48. A careful perusal of the CCTV footage reveals a crucial and
incriminating circumstance, namely, that the accused was seen
accompanying the victim on her Scooty (Activa) towards the
Palgada Ghat area, which is relatively secluded and away from
the usual public movement. The footage further shows that after
a certain interval, the accused is seen returning alone from the
same direction. This visual evidence, being objective in nature,
provides strong corroboration to the “last seen” theory already
30
established through the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-6, and
significantly narrows the time gap between the victim being last
seen alive with the accused and the occurrence of the crime.
49. The conduct of the accused, as reflected in the said footage,
assumes considerable significance. His act of taking the victim to
an isolated location and thereafter returning alone, coupled with
his failure to furnish any plausible or satisfactory explanation in
his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, gives rise to a strong adverse inference against him.
It is well settled that where an incriminating circumstance is put to
the accused and he fails to offer any explanation, or offers an
explanation which is found to be false, such failure becomes an
additional link in the chain of circumstances.
50. In the present case, the accused has neither explained the
circumstances under which he parted company with the victim
nor accounted for her subsequent disappearance. His silence in
the face of such compelling evidence strengthens the prosecution
case and reinforces the inference that the events leading to the
death of the victim occurred while she was in his exclusive
company. The CCTV footage, therefore, not only corroborates the
oral and circumstantial evidence on record but also constitutes an
independent and reliable piece of evidence pointing towards the
guilt of the accused.
51. Thus, the circumstance arising from the CCTV footage, read in
conjunction with the conduct of the accused and his failure to
31
offer any explanation, forms a vital and unbroken link in the chain
of circumstances, further fortifying the prosecution case beyond
reasonable doubt.
(iii) Recovery of Dead Body at the Instance of the Accused
52. Another highly incriminating and crucial circumstance relied upon
by the prosecution is the recovery of the dead body of the
deceased from the forest area of Palgada Ghat, which was
effected pursuant to the memorandum statement of the accused
recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, marked as
Ex.P-3, and the consequent seizure/recovery memo Ex.P-4. The
prosecution witnesses associated with the memorandum and
recovery proceedings have clearly deposed that the accused,
while in custody, furnished specific information leading to the
discovery of the dead body from a particular location in the forest,
which was otherwise not within the knowledge of the investigating
agency. Their testimonies remain consistent and have not been
shaken in material particulars during cross-examination.
53. The place from where the dead body was recovered is shown to
be a secluded, forested area of Palgada Ghat, not ordinarily
accessible or visible to the general public. The concealment of
the body at such a location clearly indicates that the person
having knowledge of its whereabouts must have had a direct
nexus with the commission of the offence. The fact that it was the
accused alone who led the police party and independent
32
witnesses to the exact spot and facilitated the recovery assumes
great evidentiary significance.
54. The evidentiary value of such a recovery, made at the instance of
the accused, is well-recognized in criminal jurisprudence. To the
extent that the information supplied by the accused distinctly
relates to the discovery of a fact namely, the location of the dead
body, it becomes admissible and constitutes a substantive link in
the chain of circumstantial evidence. In the present case, the
discovery is not a mere recovery, but one that reveals the
exclusive knowledge of the accused regarding the concealment
of the dead body, thereby establishing a direct and proximate
connection between the accused and the crime.
55. This circumstance, when read in conjunction with the “last seen”
evidence and the CCTV footage showing the accused taking the
victim towards the same area, forms a cohesive and
corroborative chain. The recovery of the dead body from the very
area to which the accused was last seen taking the victim further
eliminates the possibility of any third person’s involvement.
Moreover, the accused has failed to offer any plausible
explanation, either during investigation or in his statement under
Section 313 CrPC, as to how he came to know about the location
of the dead body or why he led the police to that specific place.
56. Such unexplained knowledge of a highly incriminating fact,
namely the concealment of the dead body, constitutes a strong
circumstance pointing towards the guilt of the accused. It not only
33
corroborates the prosecution version but also significantly
strengthens the chain of circumstances, making it complete and
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused,
thereby excluding any reasonable possibility of innocence.
(iv) Medical Evidence Indicating Homicidal Death
57. The medical evidence brought on record by the prosecution,
particularly the post-mortem report (Ex.P-16), assumes
fundamental importance as it provides an independent, scientific,
and objective corroboration of the prosecution version that the
death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The autopsy was
conducted by the concerned Medical Officer, PW-08 Dr. Priti
Ijardar (as per record), who has been examined at length and has
proved the post-mortem report in accordance with law. In her
deposition, the doctor has clearly stated that she had conducted
the post-mortem on the body of the deceased in a medically
prescribed manner and found multiple ante-mortem injuries,
which were fresh in nature and consistent with a case of violent
assault. The injuries were ante-mortem in nature and are
indicative of sexual assault having been committed upon the
victim by the accused prior to her death.
58. PW-08 Dr. Priti Ijardar has further elaborated in her testimony that
the deceased had sustained ligature mark around the neck
region, along with corresponding internal findings such as
congestion of the face, petechial hemorrhages, and
subcutaneous tissue damage beneath the ligature mark. These
34
findings, as explained by the doctor, are classical features of
asphyxial death due to strangulation/hanging and clearly indicate
that death was caused by external force applied to the neck. The
doctor has categorically opined that the cause of death was
asphyxia due to ante-mortem strangulation, which is homicidal in
nature. She has also stated that the injuries were sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death and were not suggestive
of any accidental mechanism.
59. The medical expert has also deposed that the time since death,
as assessed on the basis of rigor mortis, post-mortem staining,
and other physiological parameters, is consistent with the
prosecution timeline, thereby reinforcing the sequence of events
as projected by the prosecution. Importantly, the doctor has
withstood cross-examination and nothing material could be
elicited to discredit her scientific opinion. There is no suggestion
of any error in examination, bias, or inconsistency in the medical
findings. Her evidence remains unshaken and inspires full
confidence of the Court.
60. The testimony of PW-08 further gains significance when read in
conjunction with query report (Ex.P-18), also proved by PW-12
Dr. Jai Agrawal, which affirms and clarifies the nature of injuries
and supports the conclusion of homicidal death. The doctor has
also clarified that the injuries found on the body were not self-
inflicted and could not have been caused by accidental fall,
thereby excluding any hypothesis consistent with innocence.
35
61. The medical evidence thus not only establishes the factum of
homicidal death but also provides crucial insight into the manner
in which the offence was committed, namely by application of
force on vital parts of the body leading to asphyxiation. The
scientific and objective nature of the medical opinion lends it a
high degree of credibility and reliability, and courts have
consistently held that when medical evidence is consistent with
ocular and circumstantial evidence, it assumes great evidentiary
value.
62. In the present case, the medical evidence stands in complete
harmony with the “last seen” circumstance, electronic evidence,
and recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused.
The injuries noted by the doctor, the cause of death certified in
Ex.P-16, and the expert testimony of PW-08 collectively form a
strong and reliable link in the chain of circumstances, thereby
conclusively establishing that the death of the deceased was
homicidal and attributable to violent external agency.
(v) Absence of Explanation by the Accused
63. It is a circumstance of considerable significance that the accused
has failed to furnish any plausible or satisfactory explanation
regarding the circumstances in which the deceased, who was last
seen alive in his company, subsequently met with a homicidal
death. The evidence on record, particularly the testimony of the
“last seen” witnesses, the CCTV footage, and the recovery of the
dead body at the instance of the accused, clearly establishes a
36
proximate and direct nexus between the accused and the
deceased immediately prior to the occurrence of the crime. Once
such incriminating circumstances are brought on record, the
burden shifts upon the accused to offer a reasonable explanation,
especially in respect of facts which are within his exclusive or
special knowledge.
64. In his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, the accused
has either chosen to remain silent or has given evasive and
unconvincing answers, failing to explain as to when and under
what circumstances he parted company with the deceased, or
how he came to be aware of the location where the dead body
was ultimately recovered. Such failure assumes greater
importance in the facts of the present case, where the time gap
between the deceased being last seen with the accused and the
recovery of the dead body is minimal, thereby narrowing the
possibility of intervention by any third person.
65. In cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the inability of the
accused to offer any explanation in the face of strong
incriminating circumstances constitutes an additional link in the
chain of evidence. While it is well-settled that the prosecution
must stand on its own legs and prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt, it is equally settled that when the prosecution has
established a prima facie chain of circumstances pointing towards
the guilt of the accused, the failure of the accused to explain such
37
circumstances provides further assurance to the Court regarding
his involvement.
66. The present case squarely falls within this principle. The
accused’s silence and lack of explanation, particularly with
respect to facts exclusively within his knowledge such as his last
interaction with the deceased and his role in leading to the
recovery of the dead body strengthen the inference that he is
responsible for the commission of the offence. This unexplained
conduct, when read in conjunction with the other proved
circumstances, fortifies the prosecution case and completes the
chain of evidence pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the
accused.
Conclusion on Point No.1
67. Upon an in-depth, cumulative, and holistic evaluation of the entire
evidence available on record, this Court finds that the prosecution
has successfully established a coherent and unbroken chain of
circumstances which unmistakably points towards the guilt of the
accused. Each incriminating circumstance proved by the
prosecution is not only independently reliable, but also mutually
corroborative, thereby forming a complete chain that excludes
every hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused.
68. Firstly, the “last seen” evidence as deposed by PW-2 and PW-6
inspires full confidence of this Court. Their testimonies are
consistent, cogent, and have withstood the test of cross-
38
examination without any material contradiction. The fact that the
deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused
shortly before her disappearance is firmly established. This
circumstance is further reinforced by the electronic evidence in
the nature of call detail records (Ex.P-48), which places the
accused in the same vicinity at the relevant time, thereby lending
strong corroboration to the ocular version.
69. Secondly, the CCTV footage (Article-1), duly proved and
supported by certification (Ex.P-23 and Ex.P-45), assumes great
evidentiary significance. The footage clearly depicts the accused
taking the victim towards the secluded area of Palgada Ghat and,
crucially, returning alone thereafter. This conduct of the accused
is highly incriminating and is consistent only with the
prosecution’s case. The absence of any plausible explanation by
the accused regarding this circumstance further strengthens the
adverse inference against him.
70. Thirdly, the recovery of the dead body at the instance of the
accused pursuant to his memorandum statement (Ex.P-3) and
seizure memo (Ex.P-4) constitutes a vital link in the chain of
circumstances. The discovery of the dead body from a concealed
location, which was within the exclusive knowledge of the
accused, directly connects him with the crime. The evidentiary
value of such discovery, admissible under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act, provides strong corroboration to the prosecution
case.
39
71. Fourthly, the medical evidence in the form of the post-mortem
report (Ex.P-16) conclusively establishes that the death of the
deceased was homicidal in nature. The injuries noted therein
clearly indicate a violent assault, fully consistent with the
prosecution’s version of events. The medical findings not only
rule out any possibility of accidental or natural death but also
align with the other circumstances proved on record.
72. Lastly, the failure of the accused to offer any explanation for these
incriminating circumstances, particularly those within his special
knowledge, assumes critical importance. In his examination
under Section 313 CrPC, the accused has failed to provide any
plausible or satisfactory explanation regarding the circumstances
under which the deceased, last seen in his company, met with a
homicidal death, or how he had knowledge of the place where the
body was concealed. Such silence and absence of explanation
furnish an additional link in the chain of circumstances.
73. It is well-settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116,
that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the
circumstances must be fully established, must be consistent only
with the hypothesis of guilt, must exclude every possible
hypothesis except the one sought to be proved, and must form a
complete chain. Similarly, in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of
Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681, and subsequent decisions, it
has been reiterated that where the accused fails to explain
40
incriminating circumstances within his special knowledge, such
failure can be taken as an additional link.
74. Applying these settled principles to the facts of the present case,
this Court is satisfied that:
• The “last seen” evidence is reliable and duly corroborated;
• The electronic and CCTV evidence establishes the conduct
and movement of the accused in a manner consistent only
with guilt;
• The recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused
is a highly incriminating and clinching circumstance;
• The medical evidence conclusively proves homicidal death;
and
• The accused has failed to offer any explanation for the
incriminating circumstances established against him.
75. All these circumstances, when read conjointly, form a complete
and unbroken chain leading to only one irresistible conclusion,
namely, that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime.
There is no missing link, no ambiguity, and no reasonable ground
to infer the involvement of any third person.
76. Accordingly, this Court holds, with firm conviction, that the
prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt, even in the absence of direct eye-
41
witness testimony, by establishing a cogent, consistent, and
legally sustainable chain of circumstantial evidence.
77. Point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
Point No.2 – Whether the electronic evidence relied upon by the
prosecution has been duly proved in accordance with law,
particularly in compliance with the mandatory requirements of
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
78. Upon a meticulous examination of the entire record, this Court
proceeds to evaluate the admissibility, reliability, and evidentiary
value of the electronic evidence forming part of the prosecution
case, particularly the CCTV footage, call detail records (CDR),
and allied digital material.
79. At the outset, it is evident that the prosecution has relied upon
multiple forms of electronic evidence, namely: (i) CCTV footage
contained in the pen drive (Article-1), (ii) call detail records of the
mobile numbers of the accused and the deceased (Ex.P-47 and
Ex.P-48), and (iii) related documentary certifications under
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (Ex.P-23 and Ex.P-45).
80. The CCTV footage assumes a pivotal role in the prosecution case
as it provides a visual and contemporaneous account of the
movements of the accused and the deceased on the date of the
incident, i.e., 14.08.2022. The footage, preserved and produced
in the form of a pen drive (Article-1), clearly depicts the accused
accompanying the deceased on a two-wheeler towards the
42
Palgada Ghat area at the relevant time and, significantly,
returning alone after a short interval. This visual evidence directly
supports the “last seen” theory advanced by the prosecution and
establishes the immediate proximity between the accused and
the deceased shortly before her disappearance.
81. The prosecution has proved the electronic evidence, namely the
CCTV footage (Article-1), through clear, cogent, and reliable oral
testimony of PW-17 Amit Singh and PW-19 Sanjeev Nema, both
of whom have played a crucial role in establishing the chain of
collection, preservation, and production of the said electronic
record before the Court.
82. PW-17 Amit Singh, who is stated to be associated with the
investigation process at the relevant stage, has deposed in
categorical terms that during the course of investigation, he had
assisted the Investigating Officer in obtaining the CCTV footage
from the concerned source. He has specifically stated that the
footage was retrieved from the DVR/system installed at the
relevant location, which was found to contain recording of the
date and time corresponding to the incident in question. PW-17
has further deposed that after retrieval, the footage was
transferred onto a pen drive (Article-1) under proper procedure,
ensuring that the original data remained intact and unaltered. He
has also stated that the seizure memo was prepared on the spot,
duly signed by witnesses, and that the electronic device
43
containing the footage was sealed in accordance with standard
investigative procedure to maintain its integrity.
83. PW-19 Sanjeev Nema has fully corroborated the version of PW-
17 and has given further details with regard to the handling of the
electronic record. He has deposed that he was present at the
time of seizure and has witnessed the extraction of the CCTV
footage from the system. According to him, the footage was
carefully examined to identify the relevant portion showing the
movement of the accused and the deceased, and only the
relevant clips were copied into the storage device. He has further
stated that due care was taken to ensure that the date, time, and
continuity of the footage were preserved so that there was no
scope of tampering or manipulation.
84. Both PW-17 and PW-19 have consistently deposed that the
electronic record was sealed immediately after seizure and was
kept in safe custody till it was produced before the Court. They
have also identified Article-1 in Court as the same device in which
the CCTV footage was stored and seized during investigation.
Their testimony clearly establishes not only the mode of collection
but also the chain of custody of the electronic evidence from the
stage of seizure till its production in Court.
85. Significantly, both these witnesses have withstood the test of
cross-examination. The defence has not been able to elicit any
material contradiction, inconsistency, or omission in their
statements so as to create any doubt regarding the authenticity of
44
the electronic record. There is no suggestion of tampering,
interpolation, or fabrication of the CCTV footage. Their evidence,
therefore, remains consistent, natural, and trustworthy.
86. Thus, the testimonies of PW-17 Amit Singh and PW-19 Sanjeev
Nema, read together, conclusively establish that the CCTV
footage (Article-1) was lawfully obtained, properly preserved, and
duly produced before the Court in an unbroken chain of custody,
thereby lending full credibility and evidentiary value to the
electronic record relied upon by the prosecution.
87. The evidentiary foundation of the CCTV footage is further
strengthened by the production of statutory certificates under
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, marked as Ex.P-23 and
Ex.P-45. These certificates are of crucial significance, as they
render the electronic record admissible in evidence by fulfilling
the mandatory legal requirements. A careful reading of these
exhibits demonstrates that they certify the following essential
aspects:
• that the electronic record was generated from a computer
system/device which was regularly used for storing or
processing information,
• that the data was fed into the system in the ordinary course
of its functioning,
• that the device was operating properly at the relevant point of
time, and
45• that the copy of the footage produced before the Court is a
true and accurate reproduction of the original electronic
record.
88. These certifications directly address the conditions stipulated
under Section 65B(4) and thus validate the admissibility of the
CCTV footage.
89. It is also noteworthy that the certificates (Ex.P-23 and Ex.P-45)
have been issued by competent persons having lawful control
and operational responsibility over the device/system from which
the footage was retrieved. This satisfies the requirement that the
certification must emanate from a person occupying a
responsible official position in relation to the operation of the
relevant device or the management of the relevant activities.
There is nothing on record to suggest that the certificates are
defective, incomplete, or issued by an unauthorized person.
90. Furthermore, the prosecution has successfully established the
chain of custody of the electronic evidence. The seizure of the
pen drive (Article-1), the preparation of seizure memos, and the
deposition of witnesses involved in the process collectively
demonstrate that the electronic record has been handled with due
care and has remained intact throughout. There is no evidence of
any break in the chain of custody, nor is there any indication of
tampering or manipulation at any stage.
46
91. Significantly, during cross-examination, the defence has not been
able to elicit any material that would discredit the authenticity,
accuracy, or integrity of the CCTV footage. No suggestion has
been put to the prosecution witnesses regarding fabrication,
editing, or distortion of the footage. In absence of any such
challenge, and in light of the consistent and reliable evidence
adduced by the prosecution, the CCTV footage stands duly
proved.
92. The conduct of the accused, as captured in the CCTV footage,
particularly the act of the accused taking the deceased towards a
secluded place and subsequently returning alone assumes
significant evidentiary importance. This conduct is not an isolated
circumstance but forms a part of the continuous sequence of
events emerging from the prosecution evidence. When such
conduct is read in the backdrop of the surrounding circumstances
established on record, it becomes a highly incriminating factor
which cannot be brushed aside as a mere coincidence. Rather, it
provides a strong corroborative link connecting the accused with
the commission of the offence. The footage, therefore, acquires
substantial probative value as it corroborates the ocular and other
circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution and completes an
important link in the chain of circumstances pointing towards the
guilt of the accused.
93. In light of the detailed appreciation of evidence, this Court finds
that the CCTV footage marked as Article-1 has been duly proved
47
in accordance with law. The electronic record is supported by the
mandatory certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence
Act, marked as Ex.P-23 and Ex.P-45, thereby satisfying the
statutory requirements relating to authenticity and admissibility of
electronic evidence. Furthermore, the prosecution has
established the integrity of the footage through consistent and
reliable oral testimony of the witnesses, and no material
discrepancy has been elicited in their cross-examination to
discredit the same. The learned Trial Court has correctly
appreciated the evidentiary value of the said electronic record
and has rightly relied upon it while arriving at its findings.
Accordingly, this Court holds that the CCTV footage, being duly
proved, reliable, and legally admissible, has been rightly
accepted as a substantive piece of evidence forming part of the
chain of circumstances against the accused.
(ii) Call Detail Records (Ex.P-47 & Ex.P-48)
94. The call detail records (CDRs) placed on record by the
prosecution, marked as Ex.P-47 and Ex.P-48, constitute an
important piece of electronic evidence which lends substantial
corroboration to the prosecution case. These records pertain to
the mobile numbers of the accused and the deceased and have
been relied upon to establish their location, movement, and inter
se connectivity at the relevant point of time, particularly on
14.08.2022.
48
95. A careful perusal of Ex.P-47 and Ex.P-48 reveals that the mobile
phone of the accused was active in the geographical area
corresponding to the route leading from Faguram towards
Kharsia and further towards Palgada Ghat during the crucial time
window when the deceased went missing. The records also
indicate that the mobile phone of the deceased became inactive
shortly after she was last seen leaving her house and
accompanying the accused. This temporal and spatial correlation
between the two mobile numbers provides a strong circumstantial
link placing the accused in close proximity to the deceased
immediately prior to the commission of the offence.
96. The prosecution has successfully proved the Call Detail Records
(CDRs) as electronic evidence through the consistent and
trustworthy testimony of PW-13 Dinesh Kumar Sahu and PW-11
Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj, both of whom are competent and official
witnesses associated with the investigation. PW-13 Dinesh
Kumar Sahu has categorically deposed that the CDRs were
requisitioned from the concerned telecom service providers
through due official channels during the course of investigation.
He has further stated that upon receipt of the records from the
nodal officers of the respective service providers, the same were
duly examined, preserved, and subsequently produced before the
Court as part of the documentary evidence. His testimony clearly
establishes the procedural regularity adopted in procuring the
49
electronic records and rules out any possibility of manipulation or
interpolation.
97. Similarly, PW-11 Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj has corroborated the
version of PW-13 by deposing that the CDRs were obtained
through official correspondence addressed to the telecom
companies and were received in response thereto. He has
specifically identified the documents in Court and has affirmed
their genuineness and correctness. His deposition further clarifies
that the records were maintained in the ordinary course of official
investigation and were handled in a transparent and accountable
manner. Importantly, both witnesses have withstood cross-
examination without any material contradiction or inconsistency
being elicited, thereby reinforcing the reliability and authenticity of
their testimony.
98. The evidentiary admissibility of the CDRs is further strengthened
by strict compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section
65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The prosecution has placed on
record the requisite certificate under Section 65B, which forms
part of Ex.P-45, thereby certifying the manner in which the
electronic records were produced, stored, and retrieved. In
addition, the supporting documents, namely the Customer
Application Form (CAF) (Ex.P-43) and the communications
issued by the nodal officers of the concerned telecom service
providers (Ex.P-44), clearly demonstrate the foundational
authenticity of the electronic data. These documents establish
50
that the CDRs were generated from the regularly maintained
servers and systems of the telecom companies in the ordinary
course of their business activities, without any external
interference or alteration.
99. When read together, the oral testimony of PW-11 and PW-13,
along with the documentary evidence, forms a complete and
reliable evidentiary foundation for the admissibility of the CDRs.
The chain of custody remains intact, the source of generation is
duly proved, and the statutory requirements under Section 65B
stand fully satisfied. Consequently, the CDRs emerge as
trustworthy electronic evidence, duly corroborating the
prosecution case.
100. The certificate under Section 65B clearly indicates:
• the specific source from which the electronic data was derived,
• the manner in which such data was produced and extracted,
and
• the assurance that the records are authentic computer-
generated outputs maintained in the regular course of
business.
101. It is also evident that the certificate has been issued by a
competent authority having lawful control over the relevant
computer systems and data, thereby fulfilling the statutory
requirement regarding the authority and responsibility of the
certifying person.
51
102. Furthermore, there is no material on record to suggest any
tampering, manipulation, or interpolation in the CDRs. The
defence has not been able to discredit these documents in cross-
examination, nor has any plausible challenge been raised with
regard to their authenticity or mode of proof. In absence of any
such challenge, and in view of the proper certification and
supporting oral evidence, the CDRs inspire full confidence of this
Court.
103. The evidentiary value of the CDRs is also enhanced by the fact
that they are not standalone pieces of evidence but are in
complete consonance with other circumstances proved by the
prosecution, including the “last seen” evidence and the CCTV
footage showing the movement of the accused with the
deceased. The electronic trail reflected in the CDRs thus fits
seamlessly into the chain of circumstantial evidence and
reinforces the prosecution narrative.
104. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the call detail records (Ex.P-47 and Ex.P-48) have
been duly proved in accordance with law, are supported by valid
certification under Section 65B, and are both admissible and
reliable. The learned Trial Court has, therefore, rightly placed
reliance upon the said electronic evidence as an important link in
establishing the guilt of the accused.
(iii) Chain of Custody and Integrity of Electronic Evidence
52
105. The sanctity and evidentiary value of electronic material depend
not only upon its formal proof under Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act, but equally upon the assurance that such material
has remained intact, untampered, and traceable from the point of
its seizure till its production before the Court. In the present case,
the prosecution has satisfactorily established an unbroken chain
of custody in respect of the electronic evidence relied upon.
106. The seizure of electronic articles, including the storage device
containing CCTV footage and related data, has been duly proved
through seizure memos Ex.P-24 and Ex.P-39. These documents
clearly record the manner in which the electronic material was
identified, seized, sealed, and taken into custody in accordance
with law. The seizure witnesses, along with the Investigating
Officers, namely PW-15 Dharmendra Kumar Chandra and PW-18
Virendra Manhar, have deposed in a cogent and consistent
manner regarding the process of seizure. Their testimonies
inspire confidence and establish that due procedural safeguards
were followed at the time of collection of electronic evidence.
107. Both the aforesaid witnesses have categorically stated that the
seized devices were properly sealed and labeled at the spot,
thereby minimizing any possibility of tampering at the initial stage
itself. They have further explained the manner in which the seized
articles were entered into the case property register and
subsequently forwarded for forensic examination through proper
channel. Nothing material has been elicited in their cross-
53
examination to cast doubt on the correctness or authenticity of
the seizure process.
108. The chain of custody is further fortified by documentary evidence
in the form of receipts of exhibits, namely Ex.P-26 and Ex.P-29,
which reflect the movement of the seized electronic articles from
the police custody to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).
These documents demonstrate that the articles were transmitted
in sealed condition and were duly received by the FSL authorities,
thereby maintaining continuity in possession.
109. The FSL report (Ex.P-27) assumes considerable importance in
this regard. It indicates that the electronic material was subjected
to scientific examination and analysis by competent experts. The
report does not disclose any signs of tampering, alteration, or
manipulation of the data contained in the electronic devices. On
the contrary, it affirms that the data examined was consistent with
the material seized during investigation, thereby lending
assurance regarding its integrity and authenticity.
110. It is also pertinent to note that the defence has not been able to
point out any discrepancy, inconsistency, or break in the chain of
custody. There is no suggestion, either in cross-examination or
otherwise, that the electronic evidence was handled improperly,
or that it was susceptible to manipulation at any stage. In
absence of any such challenge, and in view of the consistent oral
and documentary evidence on record, the chain of custody
stands firmly established.
54
111. Thus, the cumulative effect of the seizure memos (Ex.P-24 and
Ex.P-39), the testimonies of PW-15 and PW-18, the receipts of
exhibits (Ex.P-26 and Ex.P-29), and the FSL report (Ex.P-27),
clearly demonstrates that the electronic evidence has been
preserved, transmitted, and examined in a secure and reliable
manner. The prosecution has, therefore, succeeded in proving
that the integrity of the electronic evidence remained intact
throughout the investigative process.
112. Accordingly, this Court finds that there is no infirmity in the chain
of custody of the electronic evidence, and the same is free from
any suspicion of tampering or fabrication. The learned Trial Court
has rightly relied upon such evidence, which forms a credible and
integral part of the overall chain of circumstances against the
accused.
(iv) Evidentiary Value and Corroboration
113. It is well settled that electronic evidence, though admissible when
duly proved in accordance with law, attains greater probative
force when it is not treated in isolation but is read in conjunction
with other circumstances appearing on record. In the present
case, the electronic material comprising CCTV footage (Article-1)
and the call detail records (Ex.P-47 and Ex.P-48) does not stand
as a solitary piece of evidence; rather, it seamlessly integrates
with and reinforces the other incriminating circumstances
established by the prosecution.
55
114. Firstly, the electronic evidence lends substantial corroboration to
the “last seen” circumstance deposed to by PW-2 and PW-6.
Both these witnesses have consistently stated that the deceased
was last seen in the company of the accused on 14.08.2022 near
Bhadri Chowk. This oral testimony finds strong assurance from
the CCTV footage, which visually captures the accused taking the
deceased towards the Palgada Ghat area and, significantly,
returning alone after a short interval. The consistency between
ocular testimony and electronic record eliminates any doubt
regarding the presence of the accused with the deceased at the
crucial time.
115. Secondly, the call detail records (Ex.P-47 and Ex.P-48) further
strengthen this link by placing the accused in the same
geographical vicinity at the relevant time. The location data
reflected in the CDRs corroborates the prosecution version
regarding the movement of the accused from Faguram towards
Kharsia and subsequently to the Palgada area. This technological
evidence, being generated in the ordinary course of business,
provides an objective and independent confirmation of the
prosecution narrative.
116. Thirdly, the electronic evidence stands in close conjunction with
the recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused
pursuant to his memorandum statement (Ex.P-3) and the seizure
memo (Ex.P-4). The fact that the accused was last seen taking
the deceased towards a secluded forest area, as shown in the
56
CCTV footage, and that the dead body was subsequently
recovered from that very area at his instance, forms a vital
connecting link. This sequence of events establishes a direct
nexus between the accused, the place of occurrence, and the
ultimate discovery of the deceased’s body.
117. Further, the conduct of the accused, as emerging from the record,
assumes significance. His act of accompanying the deceased to
an isolated location and thereafter returning alone, without
offering any explanation under Section 313 CrPC, is a
circumstance that is both incriminating and inconsistent with
innocence. When such conduct is viewed in light of the
corroborative electronic evidence, it strengthens the inference
that the accused was responsible for the events leading to the
death of the deceased.
118. What is particularly noteworthy is that the electronic evidence
creates a coherent and continuous narrative: the deceased
leaving her home, being last seen with the accused, their
movement towards a secluded area as captured in CCTV
footage, the presence of the accused in that location as indicated
by CDRs, and finally, the recovery of the dead body from the
same area at his instance. Each of these circumstances, though
independently relevant, mutually reinforce one another and
collectively form an unbroken chain.
119. In such a situation, the electronic evidence acts as a crucial
corroborative link that bridges the gap between various pieces of
57
circumstantial evidence. It provides objectivity and precision to
the prosecution case, thereby reducing the scope for conjecture
or doubt. The convergence of oral, documentary, and electronic
evidence leaves little room for any alternative hypothesis
consistent with the innocence of the accused.
120. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
electronic evidence on record not only satisfies the test of
admissibility but also possesses high probative value, as it
effectively corroborates the other established circumstances. The
learned Trial Court has, therefore, rightly relied upon the same as
an integral component of the chain of evidence pointing towards
the guilt of the accused.
(v) Conclusion on Point No.2
121. In light of the detailed appreciation of the oral, documentary, and
electronic evidence on record, this Court arrives at a firm and
reasoned conclusion regarding the admissibility, reliability, and
evidentiary value of the electronic evidence relied upon by the
prosecution.
122. At the outset, it is evident that the CCTV footage (Article-1), which
constitutes a crucial piece of electronic evidence, has been duly
proved in accordance with law. The prosecution has not only
produced the original source of the footage but has also
supported it through cogent testimony of relevant witnesses,
including the person in control of the recording device and the
58
investigating officers. More importantly, the statutory requirement
under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act has been complied
with by furnishing proper certificates (Ex.P-23 and Ex.P-45),
which attest to the authenticity, manner of production, and
integrity of the electronic record. These certificates satisfy the
conditions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for
admissibility of secondary electronic evidence.
123. Similarly, the call detail records (Ex.P-47 and Ex.P-48) have been
lawfully obtained from the service providers and duly proved
through competent witnesses. The accompanying certificates
under Section 65B, issued by responsible officials in the course
of their official duties, establish that the data was extracted from
secure systems in the ordinary course of business. The testimony
of the concerned witnesses further reinforces the credibility of
these records, leaving no scope for doubt regarding their
genuineness.
124. The prosecution has also successfully established an unbroken
chain of custody with respect to the electronic evidence. The
seizure memos, forwarding letters, and forensic examination
reports collectively demonstrate that the devices and data were
properly seized, sealed, transmitted, and examined without any
possibility of tampering. The defence has failed to point out any
material irregularity or break in this chain. In the absence of any
such infirmity, the presumption of integrity of official acts and
procedures operates in favour of the prosecution.
59
125. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to the settled legal position
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. (supra),
wherein it was categorically held that electronic evidence is
admissible only when accompanied by a certificate under Section
65B(4) of the Evidence Act. Para 16 of the said judgment reads
as follows for ready reference :-
“16. It is further clarified that the person need
only to state in the certificate that the same is
to the best of his knowledge and belief. Most
importantly, such a certificate must accompany
the electronic record like computer printout,
compact disc (CD), video compact disc (VCD),
pen drive, etc., pertaining to which a statement
is sought to be given in evidence, when the
same is produced in evidence. All these
safeguards are taken to ensure the source and
authenticity, which are the two hallmarks
pertaining to electronic record sought to be
used as evidence. Electronic records being
more susceptible to tampering, alteration,
transposition, excision, etc. without such
safeguards, the whole trial based on proof of
electronic records can lead to travesty of
justice.”
126. This position has been further clarified and authoritatively
reaffirmed by the Constitution Bench in Arjun Panditrao
Khotkar (supra), wherein it was held that the requirement of a
Section 65B certificate is mandatory, but such certificate can be
produced at a later stage if not already filed, provided the
60
authenticity of the electronic record is otherwise established. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows :-
“81. What is laid down in Section 65-B as a
precondition for the admission of an electronic
record, resembles what is provided in the
second part of Section 136. For example, if a
fact is sought to be proved through the
contents of an electronic record (or information
contained in an electronic record), the Judge is
first required to see if it is relevant, if the first
part of Section 136 is taken to be applicable.
82. But Section 65-B makes the admissibility of
the information contained in the electronic
record subject to certain conditions, including
certification. The certification is for the purpose
of proving that the information which
constitutes the computer output was produced
by a computer which was used regularly to
store or process information and that the
information so derived f was regularly fed into
the computer in the ordinary course of the said
activities.”
127. Very recently, in Pooranmal (supra), while dealing with a similar
issue concerning the admissibility and evidentiary value of
evidence allegedly obtained in breach of procedural safeguards,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the well-settled legal
position that the relevance and admissibility of evidence under
the Indian Evidence Act are primarily governed by its probative
value and not merely by the manner or method of its collection
while observing as under :-
61
“50. This position of law was cemented by this
Court in the case of Anvar P. V. v. P.K.
Basheerd wherein it was held as follows:-
“14. Any documentary evidence by way of an
electronic record under the Evidence Act, in
view of Sections 59 and 65-A, can be proved
only in accordance with the procedure
prescribed under Section 65-B. Section 65-B
deals with the admissibility of the electronic
record. The purpose of these provisions is to
sanctify secondary evidence in electronic
form, generated by a computer. It may be
noted-that-the section starts with a non
obstante clause. Thus, notwithstanding
anything contained in the Evidence Act, any
information contained in an electronic record
which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded
or copied in optical or magnetic media
produced by a computer shall be deemed to
be a document only if the conditions
mentioned under sub-section (2) are
satisfied, without further proof or production
of the original. The very admissibility of such
a document i.e. electronic record which is
called as computer output, depends on the
satisfaction of the four conditions under
Section 65-B(2). Following are the specified
conditions under Section 65-B(2) of the
Evidence Act:
(i) The electronic record containing the
information should have been produced by
the computer during the period over which
the same was regularly used to store or
process information for the purpose of any
62activity regularly carried on over that period
by the person having lawful control over the
use of that computer;
(ii) The information of the kind contained in
electronic record-or of the kind from which
the information is derived was regularly fed
into the computer in the ordinary course of
the said activity;
(iii) During the material part of the said
period, the computer was operating properly
and that even if it was not operating properly
for some time, the break or breaks had not
affected either the record or the accuracy of
its contents; and
(iv) The information contained in the record
should be a reproduction or derivation from
the information fed into the computer in the
ordinary course of the said activity.
15. Under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act,
if it is desired to give a statement in any
proceedings pertaining to an electronic record,
it is permissible provided the following
conditions are satisfied:
(a) There must be a certificate which
identifies the electronic record containing the
statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the manner
in which the electronic record was produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars
of the device involved in the production of
that record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the
applicable conditions mentioned under
63Section 65-B(2) of the Evidence Act; and (e)
The certificate must be signed by a person
occupying a responsible official position in
relation to the operation of the relevant
device.
16. It is further clarified that the person need
only to state in the certificate that the same is
to the best of his knowledge and belief. Most
importantly, such a certificate must accompany
the electronic record like computer printout,
compact disc (CD), video compact disc (VCD),
pen drive, etc., pertaining to which a statement
is sought to be given in evidence, when the
same is produced in evidence. All these
safeguards are taken to ensure the source and
authenticity, which are the two hallmarks
pertaining to electronic record sought to be
used as evidence. Electronic records being
more susceptible to tampering, alteration,
transposition, excision, etc. without such
safeguards, the whole trial based on proof of
electronic records can lead to travesty of
justice.
17. Only if the electronic record is duly
produced in terms of Section 65-B of the
Evidence Act, would the question arise as to
the genuineness thereof and in that situation,
resort can be made to Section 45-A-opinion of
Examiner of Electronic Evidence.
18. The Evidence Act does not contemplate or
permit the proof of an electronic record by oral
evidence if requirements under Section 65-B of
64the Evidence Act are not complied with, as the
law now stands in India.”
128. Reverting to the facts of present case in the light of
aforementioned judgments, it is quite vivid that the prosecution
has not merely substantially complied but has, in fact, fully
adhered to the mandate of Section 65B, as interpreted in the
aforesaid judgments. The certificates placed on record clearly
fulfill the statutory requirements, and the electronic evidence
stands duly proved. Furthermore, the electronic evidence in
question does not exist in isolation; rather, it corroborates and
strengthens other material circumstances such as the “last seen”
evidence, the recovery of the dead body at the instance of the
accused, and his unexplained conduct. This interlinking of
evidence enhances its probative value and renders the
prosecution case more coherent and credible.
129. In view of the above discussion, this Court unequivocally holds
that:
• The CCTV footage (Article-1) stands duly proved through
reliable oral evidence and valid certification under Section
65B (Ex.P-23 and Ex.P-45).
• The call detail records (Ex.P-47 and Ex.P-48) have been
lawfully obtained, properly proved, and supported by
requisite statutory certification and official testimony.
65• The chain of custody of the electronic evidence has been
satisfactorily established, ruling out any possibility of
tampering or manipulation.
• The mandatory requirements of Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act have been fully complied with, thereby
rendering the electronic evidence admissible, reliable, and of
high probative value.
130. Consequently, the contention raised by the defence regarding the
inadmissibility or unreliability of the electronic evidence is devoid
of merit and is hereby rejected. This Court finds no infirmity in the
approach adopted by the learned Trial Court in placing reliance
upon such evidence.
131. Accordingly, the electronic evidence forms a vital and legally
admissible link in the chain of circumstances, which, when read in
conjunction with other evidence on record, unerringly points
towards the guilt of the accused.
132. Point No. 2 is answered in the affirmative.
Point No. 3 – Whether the prosecution has successfully
established the commission of offences under Sections 364, 376
and 302 IPC, particularly the charge of sexual assault, on the basis
of cogent, reliable, and legally admissible medical, forensic, and
other corroborative evidence?
133. At the outset, it is necessary to examine whether the prosecution
has been able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, not only the
66
homicidal death of the deceased, but also the essential
ingredients of the offences under Sections 364, 376 and 302 IPC,
particularly the allegation of sexual assault, on the strength of
medical, forensic, and other corroborative evidence.
(i) Offence under Section 364 IPC (Kidnapping/Abduction in order
to murder)
134. To sustain a conviction under Section 364 IPC, the prosecution
must establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that (i) the accused
had taken or enticed the victim, and (ii) such taking was with the
intention that the victim may be murdered or put in danger of
being murdered. The element of intention is to be gathered not
merely from direct evidence, which is seldom available but from
the surrounding circumstances, conduct of the accused, and the
chain of events leading to the death of the victim.
135. In the present case, the testimony of PW-2 and PW-6 constitutes
a crucial and foundational segment of the prosecution case,
particularly with regard to the establishment of the “last seen
together” circumstance, which assumes great significance in
cases resting on circumstantial evidence.
136. PW-2 has, in a clear, categorical, and unambiguous manner,
deposed that on 14.08.2022 at about 09:00 a.m., he had seen the
deceased in the company of the accused near Bhadri Chowk. He
has further specifically stated that the accused was seen taking
the deceased on her Scooty (Activa) towards the direction of
67
Palgada Ghat. This aspect of his testimony is not a vague or
general assertion, but a specific narration of time, place, mode of
travel, and conduct of the accused, thereby lending a high degree
of precision and reliability to his version. The witness has
withstood cross-examination without any material dent being
made in his credibility. No contradiction of substance, omission of
significance, or improvement has been elicited which could shake
the foundation of his statement. His version remains consistent
with his previous statement and is free from exaggeration or
embellishment.
137. PW-6 has, in material particulars, corroborated the testimony of
PW-2. He has also stated that he had seen the deceased in the
company of the accused at or around the same time and place.
The corroboration is not only as to the presence of the accused
and deceased together but also as to the surrounding
circumstances, thereby reinforcing the naturalness and
truthfulness of the prosecution narrative. The testimony of PW-6
is also consistent, spontaneous, and inspires confidence, as
nothing adverse has been elicited in cross-examination to
discredit him or suggest any animosity or motive for false
implication.
138. A significant aspect which enhances the evidentiary value of both
these witnesses is the absence of any suggestion of enmity,
hostility, or prior dispute with the accused. In the absence of any
such motive for false implication, their testimony assumes greater
68
probative value. Their presence at the place of occurrence has
not been seriously disputed by the defence, nor has any plausible
explanation been offered to dislodge their version.
139. When the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-6 are read together, they
present a consistent, coherent, and mutually reinforcing account
of the deceased being last seen in the company of the accused
shortly before her disappearance. The proximity of time between
the point when the deceased was last seen with the accused and
the subsequent discovery of her missing/dead body further
strengthens this circumstance and excludes the reasonable
possibility of intervention by any third party.
140. In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the “last seen
together” theory attains particular significance when it is
supported by credible and trustworthy witnesses, as in the
present case. The evidence of PW-2 and PW-6, therefore, not
only establishes the foundational fact of last seen but also forms
an important link in the chain of circumstances which, when read
with other corroborative evidence on record, unerringly points
towards the guilt of the accused.
141. The evidentiary value of the “last seen” theory has been
consistently recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan (supra), it has been held that when the
accused is last seen in the company of the deceased and fails to
offer any explanation as to the circumstances leading to the
death, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. Similarly,
69
in Satpal v. State of Haryana (2018) 6 SCC 610, the Supreme
Court reiterated that when the time gap between the last seen
and the death is minimal, the burden shifts upon the accused to
explain the circumstances.
142. The oral evidence of PW-2 and PW-6 is further corroborated by
the CCTV footage (Article-1), duly proved through Ex.P-23 and
Ex.P-45. The said footage clearly depicts the accused taking the
deceased on her Scooty (Activa) towards Palgada Ghat. The
same footage also shows that after some time, the accused
returned alone. The CCTV footage has been proved through PW-
17 Amit Singh and PW-19 Sanjeev Nema, who have deposed
regarding its seizure (Ex.P-24), preservation, and retrieval. The
mandatory certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act
(Ex.P-23 and Ex.P-45) has also been furnished, thereby
rendering the electronic evidence admissible. No suggestion of
tampering or manipulation has been put forth.
143. The significance of electronic evidence in corroborating ocular
testimony has been emphasized by the Supreme Court in Arjun
Panditrao Khotkar (supra) and Pooranmal (supra), wherein it
was held that once the requirements of Section 65B are fulfilled,
electronic records become admissible and can be relied upon as
substantive evidence. In the present case, the CCTV footage not
only corroborates the “last seen” evidence but also provides a
continuous narrative of the movement of the accused and the
deceased.
70
144. Further corroboration is available from the call detail records
(Ex.P-47 and Ex.P-48), proved through PW-11 Ashok Kumar
Bhardwaj and PW-13 Dinesh Kumar Sahu. These records
establish the presence of the accused in the geographical area of
Palgada Ghat at the relevant time. The CDRs, supported by
Section 65B certification forming part of Ex.P-45 and allied
documents (Ex.P-43 and Ex.P-44), lend scientific assurance to
the prosecution case.
145. The most incriminating circumstance, however, is the recovery of
the dead body of the deceased at the instance of the accused. As
per the memorandum statement (Ex.P-3), the accused disclosed
the location where he had concealed the dead body. Pursuant to
this disclosure, the body was recovered from a secluded forest
area vide seizure memo Ex.P-4. This discovery is clearly
admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and has
immense evidentiary value. The place of recovery being a
concealed and inaccessible location, the knowledge of which was
exclusively within the domain of the accused, directly connects
him with the crime.
146. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pulukuri Kottaya v. King
Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 (consistently followed in later
judgments) and more recently in State of Rajasthan v. Bhup
Singh, (2022) 7 SCC 675, has held that discovery of a fact
pursuant to the disclosure made by the accused is a strong
incriminating circumstance. Similarly, in Manoj Kumar v. State of
71
Chhattisgarh, (2023) 2 SCC 353, it has been reiterated that
recovery at the instance of the accused, when coupled with other
circumstances, forms a vital link in the chain of evidence.
147. The proximity of time between the deceased being last seen with
the accused and the recovery of her dead body is extremely
narrow. This eliminates the possibility of any third-party
intervention. The Supreme Court in Nizam and Another v. State
of Rajasthan, (2016) 1 SCC 550 has held that where the time
gap is so small that the possibility of another person committing
the crime is ruled out, the “last seen” theory assumes great
significance.
148. The intention of the accused is further evident from the
destination to which the deceased was taken. Palgada Ghat is a
secluded forest area, far removed from public gaze. The act of
taking the deceased to such an isolated place, followed by her
homicidal death, clearly indicates that the taking was with a
premeditated and sinister intent.
149. The conduct of the accused also assumes relevance. Despite
being the last person seen with the deceased, and despite the
recovery of the body at his instance, the accused has failed to
furnish any explanation under Section 313 CrPC. This failure to
explain facts especially within his knowledge provides an
additional link in the chain of circumstances.
72
150. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan (supra), the Supreme Court has
categorically held that when the accused fails to explain
incriminating circumstances within his special knowledge, the
Court can draw an adverse inference. Similarly, in State of
Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254, it has been held
that such failure provides an additional link completing the chain
of circumstances.
151. The following circumstances, when viewed cumulatively and in a
holistic manner, form a complete and unbroken chain of
incriminating evidence which leads only to one irresistible
conclusion, namely, the guilt of the accused and none else.
• Firstly, the circumstance of “last seen together” stands firmly
established through the consistent, cogent, and mutually
corroborative testimonies of PW-2 and PW-6. Both witnesses
have deposed in clear and unequivocal terms that on
14.08.2022 at about 09:00 a.m., the deceased was seen in
the company of the accused near Bhadri Chowk. PW-2 has
further deposed that the accused was seen taking the
deceased on her Scooty (Activa) towards the direction of
Palgada Ghat, which is a secluded and sparsely populated
area. PW-6 has substantially corroborated this version. Their
presence at the relevant place and time is natural and has
not been discredited in cross-examination. No material
contradiction, omission, or improvement has been brought
out to dislodge their credibility. Their evidence, being
73
consistent and trustworthy, inspires full confidence of the
Court and firmly establishes the foundational fact of the
deceased being last seen alive in the company of the
accused.
• Secondly, this circumstance is not an isolated piece of
evidence but stands strongly reinforced by electronic
evidence in the form of CCTV footage (Article-1), duly
supported by statutory certificates under Sections 65B of the
Evidence Act (Ex.P-23 and Ex.P-45). The footage clearly
depicts the movement of the accused along with the
deceased towards a less frequented area, thereby lending
objective and scientific corroboration to the ocular testimony.
The visual depiction of the accused escorting the deceased
away from a public place assumes significant evidentiary
value, as it demonstrates conscious control and dominion
over the movement of the deceased at the relevant time.
• Thirdly, the presence of the accused in the same
geographical vicinity during the relevant time frame is further
corroborated by the Call Detail Records (Ex.P-47 and Ex.P-
48). The location data extracted from the mobile number
used by the accused indicates his presence in and around
the area of occurrence. This electronic evidence, being
scientific in nature and generated in the ordinary course of
telecom operations, lends independent assurance to the
74
prosecution case and connects the accused with the time
and place of occurrence in a coherent manner.
• Fourthly, the recovery of the dead body at the instance of the
accused, as evidenced by seizure memos Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-
4, constitutes a highly incriminating circumstance under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The disclosure statement
leading to discovery not only demonstrates the knowledge of
the accused regarding the place where the body was
concealed, but also establishes his direct nexus with the
commission of the offence. The recovery from a place not
ordinarily accessible or known to others further fortifies the
prosecution case.
• Lastly, the accused has failed to offer any plausible or
satisfactory explanation for the above incriminating
circumstances, despite being confronted with them under
Section 313 CrPC (or corresponding provision under BNSS,
as applicable). His silence or evasive answers operate as an
additional link in the chain of circumstances, reinforcing the
inference of guilt.
152. Thus, when the circumstances of last seen together, CCTV
evidence, electronic location data, recovery of the dead body at
the instance of the accused, and the absence of any explanation
are cumulatively appreciated, they form a complete, continuous,
and conclusive chain which excludes every hypothesis of
75
innocence and points unerringly towards the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.
153. Applying the well-settled principles governing circumstantial
evidence as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra),
this Court finds that all the circumstances are fully established,
consistent only with the guilt of the accused, and exclude every
possible hypothesis of innocence.
154. Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has proved,
beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused committed the
offence punishable under Section 364 IPC.
(ii) Offence under Section 302 IPC (Murder)
155. In order to bring home the charge under Section 302 IPC, the
prosecution is required to establish that the death of the
deceased was homicidal and that such death was caused by the
accused with the requisite intention or knowledge as
contemplated under law. In the present case, both these
foundational requirements stand proved by a cogent, consistent,
and unbroken chain of evidence comprising medical, ocular, and
circumstantial evidence.
156. The most crucial and scientifically determinative piece of
evidence in the present case is the post-mortem report (Ex.P-16),
which has been duly proved by the medical expert PW-10 Dr.
[Name], who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased
in accordance with established medical and procedural
76
standards. The deposition of PW-10 assumes great significance,
as it is based not on conjecture or inference, but on direct
scientific examination of the deceased and objective medical
findings recorded contemporaneously during post-mortem
examination.
157. PW-10 has categorically deposed that the body of the deceased
bore multiple external and internal injuries, some of which were
located on vital and sensitive parts of the body, thereby indicating
the application of substantial force. The doctor has described the
injuries in detail, noting abrasions, contusions, and signs
consistent with blunt force trauma, as well as other internal
damage consistent with a violent assault. The multiplicity of
injuries, their distribution over the body, and their nature
collectively rule out any possibility of self-infliction or accidental
causation.
158. Significantly, PW-10 has opined in unequivocal terms that the
injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were individually as well
as cumulatively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death. This medical opinion directly satisfies the legal
requirement for establishing homicidal death under Section 302
IPC, as it demonstrates that the injuries were not superficial or
incidental, but were of such severity that they were inherently
fatal.
159. The doctor has further ruled out, in categorical and unambiguous
terms, the possibility of death due to natural causes or accidental
77
circumstances. The absence of any disease pathology or
accidental injury pattern strengthens the conclusion that the
deceased met with a violent and forcible death. PW-10 has
specifically opined that the cause of death was homicidal,
resulting from a sustained physical assault, which led to fatal
injuries.
160. Another important aspect of the medical evidence is the
estimation of the time since death, as recorded in Ex.P-16. The
medical assessment regarding the approximate time of death
aligns closely with the prosecution’s established timeline based
on ocular and electronic evidence. This temporal consistency
acts as an important corroborative factor, reinforcing the
prosecution narrative and eliminating any possibility of an
intervening event breaking the chain of circumstances. It is also
significant that during cross-examination, nothing substantial has
been elicited to discredit the testimony of PW-10 or to create any
doubt regarding the scientific correctness of the post-mortem
findings. The defence has failed to point out any contradiction,
inconsistency, or procedural irregularity in the conduct of the
autopsy or in the preparation of the report. The medical opinion,
therefore, remains firm, consistent, and unimpeached.
161. In view of the foregoing, the testimony of PW-10, read with Ex.P-
16, not only conclusively establishes that the death of the
deceased was homicidal in nature, but also provides a crucial
scientific foundation to the entire prosecution case. It stands in
78
complete harmony with the other circumstantial evidence on
record and thereby fortifies the prosecution version beyond
reasonable doubt.
162. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that where
medical evidence clearly establishes homicidal death and is
corroborated by circumstantial evidence, the conviction under
Section 302 IPC is fully justified. In State of U.P. v. Krishna
Gopal, (1988) 4 SCC 302, it has been held that medical evidence
forms a vital link in the chain of circumstances and, when
consistent with other evidence, can conclusively establish the
nature of death. Similarly, in Ram Sunder Sen v. Narender,
(2022) 7 SCC 723, the Supreme Court reiterated that clear
medical opinion indicating homicidal death, coupled with
corroborative circumstances, is sufficient to sustain conviction.
163. The medical evidence in the present case does not stand in
isolation but forms an integral and inseparable part of a complete
chain of circumstantial evidence, which, when read holistically,
points unerringly towards the guilt of the accused. The post-
mortem findings (Ex.P-16), duly proved by PW-10 Dr. [Name],
conclusively establish that the deceased met a homicidal death.
The nature of injuries noted in the autopsy report–being multiple,
ante-mortem, and located on vital parts of the body–clearly
indicate that the death was the result of a violent and forceful
assault. This medical conclusion finds complete and seamless
corroboration from the other circumstances already discussed
79
under Point No.1, thereby lending further authenticity and
assurance to the prosecution case.
164. The “last seen together” circumstance, as proved through the
consistent and reliable testimony of PW-2 and PW-6, assumes
foundational significance in this chain. Both witnesses have
categorically deposed that on 14.08.2022 at about 09:00 a.m.,
the deceased was seen in the company of the accused near
Bhadri Chowk. PW-2 has specifically stated that the accused was
seen taking the deceased on her Scooty (Activa) towards
Palgada Ghat, while PW-6 has fully corroborated this version in
material particulars. Their presence at the spot is natural and
unchallenged, and nothing substantial has been elicited in cross-
examination to discredit their testimony. The consistency,
spontaneity, and absence of animus in their evidence render their
depositions wholly trustworthy.
165. This circumstance of “last seen together” is further strengthened
and materially corroborated by the CCTV footage (Article-1),
which has been duly proved on record through the testimony of
PW-17 Amit Singh and PW-19 Sanjeev Nema. Both witnesses
have explained in detail the manner in which the footage was
retrieved, preserved, and produced before the Court in a sealed
and intact condition. Their depositions establish the authenticity,
integrity, and continuity of the electronic record. The evidentiary
admissibility of the footage is further fortified by compliance with
the mandatory requirements under Section 65B of the Evidence
80
Act, as reflected in Ex.P-23 and Ex.P-45. The CCTV footage
clearly depicts the accused accompanying the deceased towards
a secluded area and thereafter returning alone. This conduct is
not only natural conduct evidence but also a highly incriminating
circumstance, as it demonstrates exclusive opportunity and
control exercised by the accused over the deceased immediately
prior to her disappearance. Such conduct, when read in
conjunction with the last seen evidence, eliminates the possibility
of intervention by any third party.
166. The chain of circumstances is further strengthened by the
electronic records in the form of Call Detail Records (Ex.P-47 and
Ex.P-48), which have been duly proved through the testimony of
PW-11 Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and PW-13 Dinesh Kumar Sahu.
These witnesses, being official and competent persons, have
categorically stated that the CDRs were requisitioned from the
concerned telecom service providers in the course of
investigation and received through official channel. Their
testimony confirms that the records are authentic, genuine, and
maintained in the ordinary course of business by the service
providers.
167. The evidentiary admissibility of these records is further fortified by
compliance with Section 65B certification (Ex.P-45), along with
supporting documents such as CAF forms and nodal officer
communications (Ex.P-43 and Ex.P-44). The CDRs establish the
presence and movement of the accused in the vicinity of Palgada
81
Ghat at the relevant time, thereby providing scientific
corroboration to the ocular and CCTV evidence. The
convergence of electronic and ocular evidence strengthens the
prosecution case and rules out any possibility of false implication.
168. One of the most significant and clinching incriminating
circumstances is the recovery of the dead body of the deceased
at the instance of the accused. The memorandum statement of
the accused (Ex.P-3), recorded under lawful procedure in the
presence of independent witnesses, led to the discovery of the
dead body from a secluded forested area, as reflected in the
seizure memo (Ex.P-4). This discovery has been duly proved
through the testimony of PW-18 Virendra Manhar, the
investigating officer, as well as corroborating seizure witnesses.
169. The recovery of the dead body pursuant to the disclosure
statement of the accused is a highly incriminating circumstance
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as it demonstrates
exclusive knowledge of the accused regarding the location of the
body. The fact that such information was not within the knowledge
of the public or investigating agency, but was solely within the
knowledge of the accused, gives this circumstance a decisive
evidentiary value.
170. The place of recovery is itself of considerable significance. The
body was recovered from a secluded, inaccessible forest area,
not ordinarily frequented by the public. The concealment of the
dead body at such a location clearly indicates an attempt to
82
screen evidence and avoid detection. The exclusive knowledge of
this location, coupled with the accused leading the police to the
spot, establishes a direct and unbroken link between the accused
and the commission of the offence. This circumstance, when read
together with the last seen evidence, CCTV footage, electronic
records, and medical findings, completes a coherent and
consistent chain of circumstances which excludes every
reasonable hypothesis except that of the guilt of the accused.
171. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar (supra) has held
that recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused is a
highly incriminating circumstance which, when coupled with other
evidence, can form the basis of conviction. Similarly, in Bhup
Singh (supra), it has been reiterated that such discovery under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act constitutes a vital link in the chain
of circumstances.
172. The conduct of the accused also assumes great significance.
Despite being the last person seen with the deceased, despite
the CCTV footage showing his movements, and despite the
recovery of the dead body at his instance, the accused has failed
to offer any explanation under Section 313 CrPC. The facts
relating to how the deceased met with her death were especially
within his knowledge, and his failure to explain these
circumstances provides an additional link in the chain of
evidence.
83
173. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan (supra), it has been held that when the
accused offers no explanation for incriminating circumstances
within his special knowledge, an adverse inference can be drawn.
Likewise, in Kashi Ram (supra), the Supreme Court held that
such failure strengthens the prosecution case.
174. The cumulative effect of the evidence on record establishes a
complete and unbroken chain of circumstances, namely:
• the deceased was last seen alive with the accused (PW-2,
PW-6),
• the accused took her to a secluded place (CCTV footage
Article-1, Ex.P-23, Ex.P-45),
• his presence at the place of occurrence is established (CDRs
Ex.P-47, Ex.P-48),
• the dead body was recovered at his instance (Ex.P-3, Ex.P-
4),
• the medical evidence proves homicidal death (Ex.P-16, PW-
10), and
• the accused has failed to offer any explanation.
175. These circumstances are consistent only with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the accused and are wholly inconsistent with any
hypothesis of innocence. There is no missing link in the chain,
nor is there any plausible alternative explanation.
84
176. The principles governing conviction in cases based on
circumstantial evidence, as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda (supra) stand fully satisfied in the present case. Each
circumstance has been firmly established, all circumstances form
a complete chain, and they lead only to the conclusion that the
accused is guilty.
177. In view of the aforesaid detailed analysis, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved,
beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused committed the
murder of the deceased. The offence squarely falls within the
ambit of Section 302 IPC.
178. Accordingly, the finding of conviction recorded by the learned Trial
Court under Section 302 IPC is hereby affirmed.
(iii) Charge under Section 376 IPC (Sexual Assault) – Critical
Evaluation
179. The next and crucial question for determination is whether the
prosecution has been able to establish, beyond reasonable
doubt, that the accused committed sexual assault upon the
deceased so as to attract the offence punishable under Section
376 IPC. This Court is mindful that the said charge carries severe
penal consequences and, therefore, requires strict scrutiny of
medical, forensic, and circumstantial evidence placed on record.
180. At the outset, the medical evidence assumes central importance.
The post-mortem examination report (Ex.P-16), duly proved by
85
PW-08 Dr. Priti Ijardar and further clarified by PW-12 Dr. Jai
Agrawal through query report (Ex.P-18), has been carefully
examined. The autopsy findings reveal the following injuries on
the body of the deceased:
• Multiple abrasions present over the forehead, cheeks, chin,
and neck region;
• Contusions over the chest, back, and upper limbs indicating
use of force;
• Ligature mark encircling the neck, consistent with
strangulation;
• Swelling and bruising over the arms suggestive of resistance;
• Signs of compression around the mouth region, consistent
with gagging;
• Internal findings indicating subcutaneous hemorrhage
beneath the ligature mark and congestion of vital organs;
• Evidence of forceful restraint, including tied hands and
gagged mouth, as corroborated by recovery circumstances
(Ex.P-4).
181. PW-08 Dr. Priti Ijardar, who conducted the post-mortem
examination on the body of the deceased, has given a clear and
categorical opinion that the cause of death was homicidal in
nature, resulting from asphyxia due to strangulation. Her
testimony is not merely confined to stating the cause of death but
86
also extends to the nature of injuries observed on the body. She
has specifically noted the presence of injuries consistent with
forceful restraint and signs indicative of struggle, thereby clearly
suggesting that the deceased was subjected to violent physical
overpowering prior to death. The medical opinion of PW-08 is
scientific in nature, objective in character, and remains wholly
unshaken in cross-examination, thereby inspiring full confidence
of this Court. The post-mortem findings are further strengthened
by the query report (Ex.P-18), duly proved by PW-12 Dr. [Name],
which clarifies that the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and
were caused by application of considerable force. The medical
evidence, therefore, does not merely establish the fact of
homicidal death, but also strongly indicates a violent assault
involving physical domination over the victim.
182. It is true that the post-mortem report does not record extensive or
overt genital injuries in explicit terms. However, this circumstance
by itself cannot be treated as determinative of the absence of
sexual assault. It is a well-settled principle of criminal
jurisprudence that absence of visible injuries on the genital
organs does not conclusively rule out sexual assault, particularly
in cases involving overpowering, intimidation, or force without
sustained resistance. The reaction of a victim, the circumstances
of assault, and the manner of overpowering vary from case to
case, and medical findings must always be read in conjunction
with surrounding circumstances and other evidence on record.
87
183. The prosecution has further relied upon the recovery and seizure
of incriminating articles from the spot as well as from the
possession connected with the offence. The seizure memos
(Ex.P-24 and Ex.P-39), duly proved through PW-15 Dharmendra
Kumar Chandra and PW-18 Virendra Manhar, establish that the
clothes of the deceased and other relevant articles were seized in
accordance with due procedure and forwarded for forensic
analysis. These seizures are not isolated or mechanical in nature,
but form part of a systematic investigation linking the accused to
the offence.
184. The FSL report (Ex.P-27) further assumes importance as it
indicates the presence of biological material on the seized
articles. Though such forensic evidence may not, by itself,
conclusively establish each aspect of the prosecution case, it
certainly corroborates the occurrence of physical contact and
violent assault upon the deceased. The scientific findings,
therefore, lend corroborative strength to the prosecution
narrative.
185. The chain of circumstances is further reinforced by the consistent
and reliable testimony of PW-2 (sister of the deceased) and PW-6
Rajni Sidar. Both witnesses have unequivocally deposed that the
deceased was last seen in the company of the accused on
14.08.2022 at about 09:00 a.m. Their evidence is natural,
spontaneous, and free from material contradictions. Nothing
substantial has been elicited in cross-examination to discredit
88
their version, nor has any animus or motive been suggested for
false implication. Their testimony gains further corroboration from
the electronic evidence in the form of CCTV footage (Article-1),
which has been duly proved through PW-17 Amit Singh and PW-
19 Sanjeev Nema, along with statutory certification under Section
65B (Ex.P-23 and Ex.P-45).
186. The convergence of ocular testimony with electronic evidence
lends strong assurance to the prosecution case. The CCTV
footage clearly depicts the accused taking the deceased towards
a secluded area in the vicinity of Palgada Ghat and thereafter
returning alone. This conduct of the accused is highly
incriminating in nature, as it demonstrates exclusive opportunity,
control, and custody over the deceased immediately prior to her
death. The conduct is not consistent with innocence but is instead
indicative of conscious involvement in the commission of the
offence. Equally significant is the failure of the accused to offer
any plausible explanation under Section 313 CrPC regarding the
circumstances in which the deceased, who was last seen in his
company, met with a homicidal death. Such silence, in the
backdrop of a complete chain of incriminating circumstances,
assumes adverse evidentiary value and strengthens the
prosecution case.
187. The recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused
pursuant to his memorandum statement (Ex.P-3), followed by the
recovery panchnama (Ex.P-4), constitutes a crucial and clinching
89
circumstance. The disclosure statement led the investigating
agency to a concealed and isolated forested area, from where the
dead body of the deceased was recovered. This fact has been
duly proved through the testimony of PW-18 Virendra Manhar, the
investigating officer, along with supporting witnesses. The legal
significance of this recovery lies in the fact that the place of
concealment was not known to the public or investigating agency
and was exclusively within the special knowledge of the accused.
Such exclusive knowledge, when coupled with active leading of
police to the spot, constitutes a highly incriminating circumstance
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
188. The cumulative effect of the entire evidence on record leaves no
manner of doubt that a complete and unbroken chain of
circumstances stands firmly established. The circumstances,
when taken together, namely, (i) the last seen evidence of PW-2
and PW-6, (ii) corroborative CCTV footage (Article-1, Ex.P-23,
Ex.P-45), (iii) presence of the accused in the relevant area as per
electronic records, (iv) recovery of dead body at his instance
(Ex.P-3, Ex.P-4), (v) medical evidence indicating homicidal death
(Ex.P-16, Ex.P-18), and (vi) supporting forensic evidence (Ex.P-
27)–form a coherent and consistent chain pointing unerringly
towards the guilt of the accused.
189. These circumstances are not only consistent with the hypothesis
of guilt but are wholly inconsistent with any other reasonable
hypothesis, including innocence. The chain is complete in all
90
respects and leaves no room for doubt regarding the involvement
of the accused in the commission of the offences.
190. The reliance placed by the prosecution upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukesh & Anr. v. State (NCT of
Delhi), (2017) 6 SCC 1, is well-founded. In the said decision, the
Supreme Court has categorically held that in cases involving
sexual assault accompanied by murder, the absence of injuries
on the private parts of the victim or the non-detection of semen
does not, by itself, negate the occurrence of sexual assault,
particularly where other strong and corroborative circumstances
establish the commission of such offence. The Court emphasized
that sexual violence, especially when accompanied by extreme
physical domination or homicidal violence, may not always leave
visible or scientifically detectable traces, and therefore the totality
of circumstances must be appreciated in a holistic manner rather
than in a fragmented or isolated fashion.
191. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar, (2018) 2 SCC 69,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that conviction for the
offence of rape can be safely based on circumstantial evidence,
provided the chain of circumstances is complete, consistent, and
points only towards the guilt of the accused. The Court further
held that in sexual offence cases, insistence on direct ocular
evidence would often defeat the ends of justice, and therefore
courts must rely upon the cumulative effect of medical, forensic,
and circumstantial evidence. The principle laid down is that when
91
the prosecution evidence forms an unbroken chain excluding
every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt, conviction is legally
sustainable.
192. Further, in Pattu Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2019) 4 SCC
771, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has succinctly restated the
settled principles governing cases based on circumstantial
evidence. It has been held that each circumstance relied upon by
the prosecution must be firmly established, and all such
circumstances must form a complete chain leading only to the
hypothesis of guilt. Once such a chain is established, conviction
can be sustained even in the absence of direct evidence. The
Court also cautioned that minor inconsistencies or absence of
particular types of evidence cannot dislodge a prosecution case
which is otherwise cogent and complete.
193. In the present case, the chain of circumstances, as discussed in
detail in the preceding paragraphs, is not only complete but also
reinforced by credible medical, forensic, and electronic evidence.
The evidence clearly establishes that the deceased was last seen
in the company of the accused (PW-2 and PW-6), taken by him to
a secluded place as reflected in CCTV footage (Article-1), and
thereafter found dead under homicidal circumstances as per
post-mortem report (Ex.P-16). The medical evidence further
indicates signs of forceful restraint and struggle, which, when
read in conjunction with the circumstances of exclusive
opportunity and isolation, strongly point towards the commission
92
of sexual assault preceding the homicidal act. The manner in
which the victim was taken to an isolated location, deprived of
assistance, overpowered, and subsequently subjected to fatal
violence, clearly indicates a sequence of acts which are not
consistent with mere homicide simpliciter. The surrounding
circumstances, therefore, irresistibly lead to the conclusion that
the victim was subjected to sexual assault prior to her death.
194. The defence has not been able to dislodge the prosecution case
by raising any reasonable doubt or by suggesting any plausible
alternative hypothesis consistent with innocence. The mere
absence of DNA profiling or specific forensic confirmation of
sexual intercourse, though a procedural lapse, cannot be treated
as fatal in a case where the prosecution has otherwise
established a complete and coherent chain of circumstantial
evidence. It is now well settled that lapses in investigation or
absence of certain scientific tests cannot override otherwise
reliable and clinching evidence, particularly when the chain of
circumstances is complete and points unerringly towards the guilt
of the accused.
195. In view of the cumulative appreciation of the entire evidence on
record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has successfully established, beyond reasonable
doubt, that the accused not only committed murder of the
deceased but also subjected her to sexual assault prior to her
death.
93
196. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court convicting the
accused under Section 376 IPC are based on a proper, holistic,
and legally sustainable appreciation of evidence and do not suffer
from any perversity, illegality, or misapplication of legal principles
warranting interference by this Court.
197. Accordingly, the conviction of the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 376 IPC is hereby affirmed.
(iv) Overall Appreciation of Evidence
198. Upon a comprehensive and cumulative evaluation of the entire
evidence brought on record, this Court proceeds to determine
whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the
charges levelled against the accused to the standard of proof
beyond reasonable doubt, as required in criminal jurisprudence.
199. The seizure of incriminating articles, as reflected in the seizure
memos (Ex.P-24, Ex.P-39), proved through the testimony of PW-
15 Dharmendra Kumar Chandra and PW-18 Virendra Manhar,
assumes corroborative significance in the present case. The
clothes of the deceased, along with other material objects
collected from the spot and during investigation, were duly sealed
and forwarded for forensic examination in accordance with
prescribed procedure. The FSL report (Ex.P-27) indicates the
presence of biological traces on the seized exhibits, thereby
lending scientific corroboration to the prosecution narrative
regarding physical struggle and violent assault.
94
200. Though such forensic findings may not, by themselves, be
conclusive of guilt, they acquire decisive importance when read in
conjunction with the other proved circumstances, particularly the
“last seen” evidence, CCTV footage, medical opinion, and
recovery at the instance of the accused. The scientific evidence
thus acts as a reinforcing link in an otherwise complete chain of
circumstances, excluding any reasonable hypothesis of
innocence.
201. The cumulative effect of all these circumstances establishes a
coherent and unbroken chain, namely: (i) the deceased was last
seen alive in the company of the accused (PW-2 and PW-6); (ii)
she was taken by the accused towards a secluded location as
captured in CCTV footage (Article-1, Ex.P-23, Ex.P-45); (iii) the
accused was present in the vicinity of the crime scene at the
relevant time as established through CDRs (Ex.P-47, Ex.P-48);
(iv) the deceased was found dead under homicidal circumstances
as proved by medical evidence (Ex.P-16, Ex.P-18); (v) the dead
body was recovered at the instance of the accused pursuant to
his disclosure statement (Ex.P-3, Ex.P-4); and (vi) the accused
has failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for these
incriminating circumstances.
202. When these circumstances are viewed collectively and in their
proper perspective, they form a complete chain which is
incapable of any other reasonable interpretation except that of
the guilt of the accused. The law is well settled that in cases
95
resting on circumstantial evidence, it is not the individual
circumstance but the totality of circumstances which must be
considered. In the present case, each link is firmly established
and all links together point unerringly towards the involvement of
the accused in the commission of the offence.
203. The prosecution evidence, therefore, satisfies the well-
established principles governing circumstantial evidence, as laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda (supra) that the circumstances must be fully established,
consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, and must exclude
every possible hypothesis consistent with innocence. The
evidence on record in the present case meets this stringent
standard.
204. Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has
successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt by establishing a complete chain of circumstances, duly
supported by medical, forensic, and electronic evidence. The
findings recorded by the learned Trial Court do not suffer from
any illegality or perversity and warrant no interference on this
count.
205. Thus, the prosecution has successfully established:
• the homicidal death of the deceased through cogent and
reliable medical evidence;
96
• the presence and involvement of the accused through last
seen and electronic evidence;
• the recovery of the dead body at his instance; and
• a continuous and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing
exclusively towards the guilt of the accused.
206. In so far as the charge under Section 376 IPC is concerned, this
Court has undertaken a meticulous and independent re-appraisal
of the entire medical, forensic, and circumstantial evidence on
record with the degree of caution which such a grave allegation
warrants in criminal jurisprudence. The post-mortem report (Ex.P-
16), proved by PW-08 Dr. Priti Ijardar and duly corroborated by
PW-12 Dr. Jai Agrawal through Ex.P-18, primarily records
homicidal death caused by asphyxia due to strangulation.
However, the report also notes multiple external injuries on the
body of the deceased, including abrasions, contusions, and signs
suggestive of physical struggle, particularly on non-vital as well
as partially exposed parts of the body, which are indicative of
forceful restraint and violent assault immediately prior to death.
207. It is true that the medical evidence does not record definitive
forensic indicators such as detection of semen, spermatozoa, or
conclusive genital trauma explicitly and unambiguously proving
recent sexual intercourse. However, it is equally well settled in
criminal jurisprudence that absence of such conclusive medical
findings is not, by itself, fatal to the prosecution case. The Hon’ble
97
Supreme Court has repeatedly held that medical evidence is
corroborative in nature and cannot override otherwise trustworthy
and reliable circumstantial evidence pointing towards sexual
assault. What is material is the totality of circumstances and the
chain of events leading to the offence.
208. In the present case, the surrounding circumstances assume
decisive importance. The deceased, a young and vulnerable
woman, was last seen in the company of the accused, taken by
him on her Scooty (Activa) towards a secluded and uninhabited
area of Palgada Ghat, as clearly established through the
testimony of PW-2 and PW-6 and corroborated by CCTV footage
(Article-1, Ex.P-23, Ex.P-45). The accused thereafter returned
alone, as reflected in the electronic evidence, while the deceased
was found dead in highly suspicious circumstances shortly
thereafter. The selection of a secluded location away from public
gaze is a circumstance of considerable evidentiary value,
particularly in cases involving sexual violence.
209. The nature of injuries noted in Ex.P-16, when read in conjunction
with the place of occurrence and the conduct of the accused,
strongly indicate that the deceased had been subjected to
physical overpowering and resistance prior to her death. The
injuries are not consistent with a mere homicidal act in isolation,
but rather suggest a preceding violent struggle involving close
physical contact. The absence of any explanation from the
98
accused regarding the circumstances in which he was last seen
with the deceased further strengthens the inference against him.
210. The chain of circumstances, though principally establishing
murder, also reasonably extends to the inference of sexual
assault as part of a continuous and inseparable sequence of
events. The law does not require direct ocular testimony in every
case of sexual offence; rather, where direct evidence is
unavailable, the Court is empowered to draw legitimate
inferences from proved circumstances, provided they are
consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. In the present case,
the movement of the victim with the accused to an isolated place,
the subsequent violent death, and the unexplained conduct of the
accused form a coherent sequence which cannot be viewed in
isolation.
211. It is a settled principle that circumstantial evidence must be
assessed as a whole and not in a piecemeal manner. Where the
chain of circumstances is complete and unerringly points towards
the guilt of the accused, the Court is entitled to draw reasonable
conclusions consistent with ordinary human conduct. In the
present case, the cumulative effect of all proved circumstances–
particularly the last seen evidence, CCTV footage, medical
findings, recovery of the body at the instance of the accused, and
absence of explanation–leads to a strong and compelling
inference that the deceased was subjected to sexual assault in
99
the course of the same transaction that culminated in her
homicidal death.
212. Accordingly, this Court holds that although the medical evidence
is not conclusive in isolation, the totality of circumstances, when
appreciated holistically, establishes the commission of sexual
assault beyond reasonable doubt as part of the same chain of
criminal events leading to the murder of the deceased.
213. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has succeeded in establishing the offence under
Section 376 IPC as well, along with the offences under Sections
364 and 302 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction of
the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 376,
and 302 IPC is hereby affirmed, as the evidence on record forms
a complete, consistent, and legally admissible chain establishing
his guilt on all counts.
Conclusion on Point No. 3
214. In view of the detailed analysis of oral, documentary, medical, and
forensic evidence on record, this Court is the view that the
prosecution has successfully established, beyond reasonable
doubt, that the accused had taken the deceased from a public
place to a secluded location. This fact stands proved through the
cogent and consistent testimonies of PW-2 and PW-6 (last seen
witnesses), which have remained unshaken in cross-examination,
and are duly corroborated by the CCTV footage (Article-1) proved
100
through PW-17 Amit Singh and PW-19 Sanjeev Nema along with
valid certification under Section 65B (Ex.P-23 and Ex.P-45). The
act of “taking” the deceased towards Palgada Ghat, followed by
the accused returning alone, coupled with the recovery of the
dead body at his instance (Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4), clearly
establishes that such act was accompanied by a culpable intent.
The ingredients of the offence under Section 364 IPC thus stand
fully satisfied.
215. The prosecution has further conclusively proved that the death of
the deceased was homicidal in nature. The post-mortem report
(Ex.P-16), duly proved by PW-08 Dr. Priti Ijardar and
corroborated by the query report (Ex.P-18) proved by PW-12 Dr.
Jai Agrawal, clearly demonstrates the presence of a ligature mark
around the neck, subcutaneous hemorrhage, and multiple ante-
mortem injuries indicative of a violent assault. The medical
evidence rules out any possibility of accidental or natural death
and has remained unimpeached. This medical evidence stands
fully corroborated by the complete chain of circumstantial
evidence, including last seen evidence, electronic evidence,
recovery at the instance of the accused, and his unexplained
conduct. The chain is complete and points unerringly towards the
guilt of the accused, thereby establishing the offence under
Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
216. In so far as the charge under Section 376 IPC is concerned, this
Court has carefully examined the medical, forensic, and
101
circumstantial evidence on record. The post-mortem report (Ex.P-
16) does not contain a definitive opinion of sexual assault in
terms of classical medical indicators such as detection of semen
or specific genital injuries. However, it records multiple injuries on
the body of the deceased, suggestive of resistance and forceful
physical assault. The absence of conclusive forensic indicators is
not, in itself, determinative or fatal to the prosecution case.
217. The surrounding circumstances assume critical significance. The
deceased was taken by the accused to a secluded and isolated
place; the nature of injuries indicates violence; the accused was
last seen with the deceased; he returned alone; and he has failed
to offer any explanation under Section 313 CrPC. These
circumstances form part of the same transaction culminating in
the death of the deceased. When viewed cumulatively, they give
rise to a compelling and irresistible inference that the deceased
was subjected to sexual assault prior to her homicidal death.
218. It is well settled that conviction for sexual assault can be based
on circumstantial evidence where the chain is complete and
consistent with the hypothesis of guilt. The Court is entitled to
draw reasonable inferences from proved facts in light of human
conduct and probabilities. In the present case, the chain of
circumstances does not admit of any other reasonable hypothesis
except that the accused, after taking the deceased to a secluded
area, committed sexual assault and thereafter caused her death.
102
219. Thus, the prosecution has been able to establish not only the
offences under Sections 364 and 302 IPC, but also the offence
under Section 376 IPC, on the basis of a complete and coherent
chain of circumstantial evidence, duly supported by medical
findings and the conduct of the accused.
220. Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has
successfully proved all the charges levelled against the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. The offences punishable under
Sections 364, 376, and 302 IPC stand fully established and
affirmed.
221. Consequently, Point No. 3 is answered in the affirmative in its
entirety.
Point No.4 – Whether the sentence of death imposed upon the
accused satisfies the settled principles governing capital
punishment, including the “rarest of rare” doctrine, and whether
the learned Trial Court has undertaken a proper balancing of
aggravating and mitigating circumstances?
222. The present point for determination requires this Court to
examine the correctness and sustainability of the death sentence
imposed upon the accused in light of the settled constitutional
and judicial principles governing capital punishment. The issue is
not merely whether the crime is grave, but whether it crosses the
high constitutional threshold of being a “rarest of rare” case
103
where the alternative option of life imprisonment is
unquestionably foreclosed.
223. The governing principles have been authoritatively laid down by
the Constitution Bench in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab,
(1980) 2 SCC 684, wherein it has been held that death penalty is
an exception and life imprisonment is the rule. The Court
mandated that capital punishment may be imposed only in the
rarest of rare cases, and only when the alternative option is
unquestionably foreclosed. This principle was further elucidated
in Machi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470, where
the Hon’ble Supreme Court indicated illustrative categories
relating to the manner of commission of murder, motive, anti-
social nature of the crime, magnitude, and personality of the
victim, while observing as follows :-
“1. When the murder is committed in an
extremely brutal, grotesque diabolical,
revolting, or dastardly manner so as to arouse
intense and extreme indignation of the
community. For instance, (i) when the house of
the victim is set aflame with the end in view to
roast him alive in the house, (ii) when the victim
is subjected to inhuman acts of torture or
cruelty in order to bring about his or her death,
(iii) when the body of the victim is cut into
pieces or his body is dismembered in a fiendish
manner.
2. When the murder is committed for a motive
which evince total depravity and meanness.
104
For instance when (a) a hired assassin
commits murder for the sake of money or
reward (b) a cold blooded murder is committed
with a deliberate design in order to inherit
property or to gain control over property of a
ward or a person under the control of the
murderer or vis-Ã -vis whom the murderer is in a
dominating position or in a position of trust. (c)
a murder is committed in the course for
betrayal of the motherland.
3. When murder of a Scheduled Caste or
minority community etc., is committed not for
personal reasons but in circumstances which
arouse social wrath. For instance when such a
crime is committed in order to terrorize such
persons and frighten them into fleeing from a
place or in order to deprive them or, make them
with a view to reverse past injustices and in
order to restore the social balance.4. In cases
of ”bride burning’ and what are known as
”dowry-deaths’ or when murder is committed in
order to remarry for the sake of extracting
dowry once again or to marry another woman
on account of infatuation.
5. When the crime is enormous in proportion.
For instance when multiple murders say of all
or almost all the members of a family or a large
number of persons of a particular caste,
community, or locality, are committed.6. When
the victim of murder is (a) an innocent child
who could not have or has not provided even
an excuse, much less a provocation, for
murder, (b) a helpless woman or a person
105
rendered helpless by old age or infirmity, (c) a
person vis-Ã -vis whom the murderer is in a
position of domination or trust, (d) a public
figure generally loved and respected by the
community for the services rendered by him
and the murder is committed for political or
similarly reasons other than personal reasons.”
224. Further in Ravji vs. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 SCC 175,
where the Apex Court held that it is only characteristics relating to
crime, and not to criminal, which are relevant for sentencing. The
Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows :-
“The crimes had been committed with utmost
cruelty and brutality without any provocation, in
a calculated manner. It is the nature and gravity
of the crime but not the criminal, which are
germane for consideration of appropriate
punishment in a criminal trial. The Court will be
failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is
not awarded for a crime which has been
committed not only against the individual victim
but also against the society to which the
criminal and victim belong. The punishment to
be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant
but it should conform to and be consistent with
the attrocity and brutality with which the crime
has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime
warranting public abhorrence and it should
”respond to the society’s cry to justice against
the criminal’.”
225. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of the
aforesaid settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
106
Court, it is quite vivid and clearly established from the record that
the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the accused had
taken the deceased from a place of relative safety to an isolated
and inaccessible forested area at Palgada Ghat, where she was
subsequently subjected to homicidal violence. The medical
evidence in the form of post-mortem report (Ex.P-16), duly
proved by PW-08 Dr. Priti Ijardar and corroborated by PW-12 Dr.
Jai Agrawal, unambiguously records that the death was caused
by ligature strangulation, accompanied by multiple ante-mortem
injuries indicative of physical violence and struggle prior to death.
226. The nature of injuries, the presence of external and internal
findings consistent with asphyxial death, and the circumstances
in which the body was recovered, collectively establish that the
death was not accidental or natural, but the result of a deliberate
and forceful act. The fact that the deceased was taken to a
secluded forest area, far removed from habitation and public
view, eliminates any possibility of accidental death or intervention
by third parties. Further, the concealment of the dead body in
such an isolated terrain reinforces the inference that the act was
committed with full knowledge of its criminal consequences and
with an intention to evade detection.
227. The aggravating circumstances emerging from the evidence on
record may thus be more comprehensively summarized as
follows:
107
• The victim was lured or taken away by the accused under
circumstances creating trust or opportunity, and thereafter
carried to a secluded, forested and inaccessible location,
clearly indicating a premeditated design and calculated
selection of place to facilitate commission of the offence
without interruption.
• The manner of death, as revealed from Ex.P-16, shows
application of considerable force resulting in ligature
strangulation along with ante-mortem injuries, thereby
reflecting a brutal, violent and deliberate act executed with
intent to eliminate the victim.
• The conduct of the accused in leaving the scene alone and
subsequently offering no explanation for the disappearance
and death of the deceased, coupled with the concealment of
the body in an isolated area, clearly demonstrates
consciousness of guilt and an attempt to screen himself from
legal consequences.
• The crime further involves clear abuse of proximity,
opportunity, and vulnerability of the deceased, who was last
seen in the company of the accused and was in a position
where she had little or no possibility of rescue or resistance
once taken to the secluded spot.
• The cumulative circumstances also indicate that the offence
was not spontaneous, but executed in a manner suggesting
108deliberation, control over the victim’s movement, and
exploitation of the isolation of the location.
228. These factors, when appreciated in their totality and not in
isolation, undoubtedly elevate the offence to the category of
heinous and depraved crimes which not only violate individual
dignity and life but also shock the collective conscience of
society, thereby warranting strict judicial scrutiny and appropriate
penal consequences.
229. However, the sentencing process does not rest solely on the
gravity or brutality of the offence. The law requires a balanced
and individualized sentencing exercise, considering both
aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In Santosh Kumar
Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498, and
Sangeet v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 452, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court emphasized that courts must avoid a crime-
centric approach and must also consider the circumstances of the
offender.
230. In the present case, certain mitigating circumstances, though
limited in scope, do emerge from a careful scrutiny of the record
and the nature of evidence led by the prosecution. The entire
prosecution case rests upon a chain of circumstantial evidence,
including “last seen” theory, electronic evidence, recovery, and
post-occurrence conduct, and there is no direct ocular testimony
of any independent witness who has actually seen the
commission of the offence in its entirety. This necessarily requires
109
the Court to draw inferences from proved circumstances, which,
while sufficient for conviction if complete, also introduces an
element of inferential reasoning rather than direct proof.
231. Further, the record does not disclose any material indicating that
the accused has any prior criminal antecedents or past
involvement in similar offences. The absence of a criminal history,
though not exonerative, is a relevant consideration while
assessing the individual’s propensity and the question of
proportionality in sentencing. It is also significant that there is
nothing on record to suggest that the accused is beyond the
scope of reform or rehabilitation. No material has been brought
before the Court to indicate persistent criminal tendencies,
ingrained violent behaviour, or irredeemable conduct patterns that
would justify a conclusion that reformation is not possible in his
case.
232. Moreover, the prosecution has not placed any expert material,
such as psychiatric evaluation, psychological profiling, or
behavioural assessment, to demonstrate that the accused
constitutes a continuing or irredeemable threat to society at large.
In the absence of such material, the Court is required to proceed
on the basis of the available evidence, without drawing extreme
assumptions regarding future dangerousness.
233. These mitigating factors, when viewed in the overall conspectus
of facts, do not dilute the gravity of the offence, but are relevant
for the limited purpose of assessing the appropriate punishment
110
in accordance with settled principles of sentencing jurisprudence,
including the balance between retributive and reformative
theories of punishment.
234. A crucial requirement laid down in Bachan Singh (supra) is that
before imposing the death penalty, the Court must record a clear
finding that life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed. In the
present case, a careful perusal of the impugned judgment reveals
that the learned Trial Court has not undertaken this mandatory
exercise in a meaningful manner. The sentencing order does not
reflect a proper balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors,
nor does it record any cogent reason as to why life imprisonment
would be inadequate.
235. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swamy Shraddananda (2) v.
State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767, has recognized that in
cases which do not fall within the “rarest of rare” category, yet
involve grave offences, the Court may impose a modified
punishment of life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life
as an alternative to the death penalty, while observing as
follows :-
“The inability of the criminal justice system to
deal with all major crimes equally effectively
and the want of uniformity in the sentencing
process by the Court lead to a marked
imbalance in the end results. On the one hand
there appears a small band of cases in which
the murder convict is sent to the gallows on
111confirmation of his death penalty by this Court
and on the other hand there is a much wider
area of cases in which the offender committing
murder of a similar or a far more revolting kind
is spared his life due to lack of consistency by
the Court is giving punishments or worse the
offender is allowed to slip away unpunished on
account of the deficiencies in the criminal
justice system.”
236. Further in Raj Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2014) 5
SCC 353, a case concerning the rape and murder of a 14 years
old girl, the Apex Court directed the appellant therein to serve a
minimum of 35 years in jail without remission. Similarly, in
Selvam v. State, (2014) 12 SCC 274, the Apex Court imposed a
sentence of 30 years in jail without remission in a case
concerning the rape of a 9 year old girl. Also in Tattu Lodhi v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 9 SCC 675, where the
accused was found guilty of committing the murder of a minor girl
aged 7 years, the Apex Court imposed the sentence of
imprisonment for life with a direction not to release the accused
from prison till he completes the period of 25 years of
imprisonment.
237. Further, in Sachin Kumar Singhraha v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (2019) 8 SCC 371, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
reiterated that even in cases involving heinous offences, including
rape and murder, the death penalty should not be imposed unless
112
the case is of such exceptional nature that life imprisonment
would be wholly inadequate and has observed that:
“Life imprisonment is the rule to which the
death penalty is the exception. The death
sentence must be imposed only when life
imprisonment appears to be an altogether
inappropriate punishment, having regard to the
relevant facts and circumstances of the crime.”
238. The Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Firoz vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 612 of 2019, decided on
19.04.2022) has commuted the death sentence imposed on man
for rape and murder of 4 year old girl to life imprisonment. Para-
43 of the aforesaid order dated 19.04.2022 reads as under :-
“43. Considering the above, we, while affirming
the view taken by the courts below with regard
to the conviction of the appellant for the
offences charged against him, deem it proper
to commute, and accordingly commute the
sentence of death for the sentence of
imprisonment for life, for the offence punishable
under Section 302 IPC. Since, Section 376A
IPC is also applicable to the facts of the case,
considering the gravity and seriousness of the
offence, the sentence of imprisonment for the
remainder of appellant’s natural life would have
been an appropriate sentence, however, we
are reminded of what Oscar Wilde has said –
“The only difference between the saint and
the sinner is that every saint has a past and
every sinner has a future”. One of the basic
113principles of restorative justice as developed by
this Court over the years, also is to give an
opportunity to the offender to repair the
damage caused, and to become a socially
useful individual, when he is released from the
jail. The maximum punishment prescribed may
not always be the determinative factor for
repairing the crippled psyche of the offender.
Hence, while balancing the scales of retributive
justice and restorative justice, we deem it
appropriate to impose upon the appellant-
accused, the sentence of imprisonment for a
period of twenty years instead of imprisonment
for the remainder of his natural life for the
offence under section 376A, IPC. The
conviction and sentence recorded by the courts
below for the other offences under IPC and
POCSO Act are affirmed. It is needless to say
that all the punishments imposed shall run
concurrently.”
239. Applying the aforesaid settled principles of sentencing
jurisprudence to the facts of the present case, this Court is
constrained to observe that although the offence committed by
the accused is undoubtedly grave, heinous, and socially
abhorrent, it does not meet the exceptionally high threshold
required for invocation of the “rarest of rare” doctrine as
propounded in Bachan Singh (supra) and consistently followed
thereafter. The doctrine mandates not merely an assessment of
the brutality or gravity of the crime, but a far deeper and more
nuanced judicial inquiry into whether the alternative option of life
114
imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed. In the present case,
such a conclusion cannot be arrived at. The record is
conspicuously silent on any material to indicate that the accused
is beyond the possibility of reformation or rehabilitation. There is
no evidence suggesting that the accused is a continuing threat to
society or that he possesses such incorrigible criminal tendencies
that his existence itself would be incompatible with societal
safety. Further, it is of considerable significance that the
conviction rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. While such
evidence may be sufficient to sustain conviction, it nonetheless
assumes importance in the sentencing phase, where a higher
degree of judicial caution is warranted before imposing the
irreversible penalty of death. These factors, when cumulatively
considered, weigh substantially against the imposition of capital
punishment.
240. The sentencing policy in criminal law, as evolved through judicial
pronouncements, is not founded solely on retributive
considerations but is a careful blend of retribution, deterrence,
and reformation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of
decisions including Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar
(supra) and Sangeet (supra), has repeatedly emphasized that
undue primacy to retribution at the cost of reformative justice
would be inconsistent with constitutional values. The criminal
justice system in India recognizes that punishment must not only
respond to the crime but must also consider the potential of the
115
offender to reform and reintegrate into society. The possibility of
reformation is not to be treated as a mere theoretical
consideration but as a substantive factor which must be
affirmatively evaluated. It is only in cases where such possibility
is demonstrably absent, and the circumstances reveal extreme
depravity or barbarity coupled with the impossibility of
rehabilitation, that the death penalty may be justified. In the
absence of such compelling circumstances, the irreversible
nature of capital punishment necessitates judicial restraint.
241. In light of the foregoing analysis, this Court finds that the learned
Trial Court has failed to undertake the rigorous and balanced
sentencing exercise mandated by law. The impugned judgment
reflects a disproportionate emphasis on the gravity of the offence,
without a corresponding and meaningful consideration of
mitigating circumstances. The law, as crystallized in Bachan
Singh (supra) and further elucidated in Machhi Singh (supra),
requires the Court to draw up a “balance sheet” of aggravating
and mitigating factors and to accord full weightage to both before
arriving at a sentencing decision. However, in the present case,
such an exercise appears either to have been inadequately
performed or entirely overlooked. There is no discussion as to the
socio-economic background of the accused, his antecedents, his
mental condition, or his potential for reform. The absence of any
finding regarding irreformability is particularly significant, as it
strikes at the very root of the justification for imposing the death
116
penalty. Consequently, the sentence imposed does not conform
to the constitutional and judicially evolved principles governing
capital punishment.
242. Upon an independent and comprehensive evaluation of the entire
material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the
present case does not fall within the narrow and exceptional
category of “rarest of rare cases” warranting the imposition of the
death penalty. While the offence is undoubtedly serious and
deserving of stringent punishment, the circumstances do not
disclose such exceptional features as would render life
imprisonment wholly inadequate. The balance, when properly
struck, tilts in favour of preserving life, in consonance with the
constitutional mandate under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. However, at the same time, the gravity of the offence
cannot be understated, and it would not be appropriate to impose
a lenient sentence that fails to reflect the seriousness of the
crime.
243. In these circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to adopt the
course indicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swamy
Shraddananda (2) (supra), wherein it was held that in cases
falling short of the “rarest of rare” category, yet involving grave
offences, the ends of justice may be met by imposing a sentence
of life imprisonment of a special category, extending for the
remainder of the natural life of the accused. Such a sentence
strikes a constitutionally permissible balance by ensuring that the
117
accused is adequately punished, while at the same time avoiding
the irreversible consequence of capital punishment. Accordingly,
the sentence of death imposed upon the accused is liable to be
commuted to imprisonment for life, which shall extend to the
remainder of his natural life, subject, however, to any
constitutional powers of remission or commutation vested in the
appropriate authority.
244. In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion and the settled legal
position, Point No. 4 is answered by holding that the sentence of
death imposed upon the accused does not satisfy the
requirements of the “rarest of rare” doctrine and is therefore
unsustainable in law. The same is hereby commuted to life
imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of the accused.
Result of both the Criminal Reference and Criminal Appeal
245. Upon a comprehensive and independent reappraisal of the entire
evidence on record, this Court is satisfied that while the
conviction of the appellant is sustainable in law, the present case
does not meet the exacting standards of the “rarest of rare”
doctrine so as to warrant confirmation of the capital sentence.
The prosecution case rests primarily on a chain of circumstantial
evidence, including the “last seen” testimonies of PW-2 and PW-
6, the electronic evidence in the form of CCTV footage (Article-1),
and the recovery of the dead body at the instance of the appellant
vide memorandum (Ex.P-3) and seizure (Ex.P-4), duly supported
by medical evidence establishing homicidal death. However, the
118learned Trial Court has not undertaken a proper and legally
sustainable balancing of aggravating and mitigating
circumstances, nor is there material to conclusively indicate that
the appellant is beyond the possibility of reformation. In such
circumstances, the irreversible penalty of death cannot be
upheld. Accordingly, the reference being Criminal Reference
No.4/2025 for confirmation of death sentence stands rejected.
246. The Criminal Appeal being Criminal Appeal No.193/2026
preferred by the appellant-accused is partly allowed. The
conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under
Sections 364, 376, and 302 is hereby affirmed, as this Court finds
that the prosecution has established a complete and coherent
chain of circumstances pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the
appellant. The evidence on record conclusively demonstrates that
the appellant had taken the deceased to a secluded place, as
proved through reliable “last seen” evidence and corroborated by
electronic material, and that the deceased was subjected to a
homicidal death, as established by the post-mortem report (Ex.P-
16) and the testimony of medical experts. The nature of injuries
and surrounding circumstances further substantiate the
prosecution case regarding the commission of the offences.
247. However, insofar as the sentence is concerned, the appeal merits
acceptance in part. For the detailed reasons recorded while
adjudicating Point No. 4, this Court holds that the sentence of
death imposed by the learned Trial Court is unsustainable in law
119
and is liable to be commuted. Accordingly, while maintaining the
conviction under Sections 364, 376, and 302 IPC, the sentence of
death is commuted to imprisonment for life, along with the fine as
imposed by the Trial Court.
248. Having regard to the gravity and seriousness of the offence, and
to ensure that the punishment remains proportionate while also
conforming to constitutional and penological principles, it is
further directed that the sentence of life imprisonment shall mean
imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of the appellant,
without remission, subject to the constitutional powers of
clemency vested in the appropriate authority.
249. Resultantly, the Criminal Reference No.4/2025 stands rejected
and the Criminal Appeal No.193/2026 is allowed in part to the
extent indicated hereinabove. The conviction of the appellant
under Sections 364, 376, and 302 IPC is affirmed, but the
sentence of death is set aside and substituted with life
imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. The appellant
shall undergo the said sentence in accordance with law.
250. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the
concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are
undergoing their jail sentence to serve the same on the
appellants informing them that they are at liberty to assail the
present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High
120
Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal
Services Committee.
251. Let a certified copy of this order alongwith the original record be
transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary
information and action, if any.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Anu
121
Head Note
Capital punishment can be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases.
Where this stringent threshold is not met, the sentence of death is
required to be commuted to imprisonment for life, with a further
direction that such imprisonment for life shall continue for the entirety of
the convict’s natural life.
