Background:

In the present case, On September 2013 in Thane, Maharashtra, a 3-year-9-month-old girl playing alone with the family dog went missing from her home. Two days later, her body was found in a nearby pond. The investigation led to the arrest of Ramkirat Munilal Goud, a watchman, based on circumstantial evidence: witnesses initially said they saw him with the girl, an alleged extra‑judicial confession, and forensic items- blood‑stained clothes and muddy shoes- found at his residence. Goud was convicted in March 2019 by the Thane Special POCSO Court for multiple offences, including murder, rape, abduction, and destruction of evidence, and sentenced to death. The Bombay High Court upheld this conviction in November 2021.

Issues

• Can a conviction based solely on “last‑seen” testimony stand, when those witnesses gave delayed, contradictory accounts and their evidence was found to be “vacillating, shaky and tainted with wholesale improvements”?

• Does forensic evidence- specifically the alleged soil-match from the accused’s shoes constitute reliable scientific proof, when the DNA and FSL reports were inconclusive and the court found the soil linkage speculative, lacking independent verification of other possible sources?

Observations:

The Supreme Court observed that:

• • The Court emphasized that the prosecution’s case depended on three strands- last-seen evidence, extra‑judicial confession, and soil-match from shoes but none formed a cohesive or compelling chain; each link was disjointed and fell short of the “complete chain” test from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda.
• • Witnesses delayed informing the police, offered inconsistent timelines, and contradicted each other- rendering their evidence “vacillating, shaky and tainted with wholesale improvements.”
• • The Court emphasized that the alleged confession was vague, emerged only during cross-examination, and was absent from the formal Section 164 statement- making it unworthy of conviction.
• • The Court held that the FSL report simply noted similarities between mud on the shoes and the pond soil, but no independent verification was provided; DNA/blood tests also failed to yield conclusive results.
• • The Court sharply criticized delayed witness recording- only after the arrest and superficial handling of forensic evidence, undermining the integrity of the prosecution’s case.

Decision:

The Supreme Court laid down the decision as mentioned below:

• o The Court quashed the convictions under IPC Section 302, 363, 376(2)(i), 201 (Now under Section 103(1)(2), 139, 64 & 238 of BNS respectively) & POCSO Section 4, 8, and set aside the death sentence, resulting in the accused's release after nearly 12 years in jail (six of them on death row).
• o Described as a “shabby and perfunctory investigation”, characterized by delayed witness statements, inadequate forensic analysis, and over-reliance on weak circumstantial links.
• o The Court found:
• • Last-seen evidence to be shaky and inconsistent
• • The extra-judicial confession unreliable and uncorroborated
• • The so-called soil-match evidence speculative with flawed FSL findings
• o The judgment underscored the principle that when the prosecution relies solely on circumstantial evidence, courts must ensure it forms a complete, unbroken chain pointing only to guilt- a standard unmet in this case.

Why this case matters?

o Underscores Rigorous Scrutiny Required in Death Penalty Cases.

o Reinforces the Dangers of Circumstantial Evidence Without a Complete Chain.

o Highlights Judicial Concern Over "Shabby and Perfunctory" Investigations.

Laws related therewith:

Under BNS:

• Section 103– Murder (Death or life imprisonment): Central to the conviction, as the accused was found guilty of the victim’s death.

• Section 139 – Kidnapping from India: Applied due to the alleged abduction of the minor.

• Section 64– Aggravated rape of a minor: The accused was charged under this heavier classification due to the victim's age.

• Section 238 – Causing disappearance of evidence: For destroying or concealing evidence related to the offence.

Under POCSO, 2012:

• Section 4 – Penetrative sexual assault: Covers acts like rape against a child.

• Section 8 – Penetrative sexual assault aggravated by death of the child: Applies when the assault results in the victim’s death, carrying stricter penalties, including death or life imprisonment.

• Importantly, Section 30 of POCSO imposes a reverse onus- once the prosecution establishes commission of the act, the accused must prove lack of mens rea by preponderance of probabilities.

Judicial Precedents:

• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984): Laid the foundational “Panchsheel” test for circumstantial evidence, requiring a complete, unbroken chain that excludes all other reasonable explanations.

• Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. (1989): Reiterated that circumstantial evidence must be consistent only with guilt and exclude every hypothesis of innocence.

• Vasanta Sampat Dhupare v. State of Maharashtra (2017) & Ram Naresh v. State of Chhattisgarh: Clarified sentencing principles in child rape–murder cases: the court must evaluate social impact, victim’s vulnerability, offender’s profile, and procedural propriety.