Tanisha Rana
Published on: October 8, 2022 at 15:27 IST
A man who had been given the death penalty by the Sessions Court and Allahabad High Court for the rape and murder of a six-year-old girl was recently acquitted by the Supreme Court.
A three-judge bench led by Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, AS Bopanna, and V. Ramasubramanian ruled that the prosecution had wronged the accused by impugning his guilt without any supporting evidence.
“By fixing culpability upon the appellant without any shred of evidence which will stand the scrutiny, the prosecution has done injustice to the appellant. Court cannot make someone, a victim of injustice, to compensate for the injustice to the victim of a crime,” the apex court held.
The court went on to say that medical evidence is extremely important in cases like these because the prosecution’s case against the accused was built on circumstantial evidence.
However, no medical evidence was presented in the current case, which the court noted raised major questions about the prosecution’s case.
“Court cannot make someone, a victim of injustice to compensate for the injustice to the victim of a crime,” the judgment said.
The Allahabad High Court upheld Chotkau’s death sentence after he was found guilty of crimes punishable by Sections 302 (murder) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Sessions Court in Uttar Pradesh sentenced him to death.
The appeal was being heard by the court.
According to the prosecution’s case, the appellant brought his six-year-old niece along in 2012 under the pretence of performing dance and song at the Holi celebration.
The young girl did not go back home, and it was discovered that the appellant had not, too.
Later, the minor’s deceased body was found in sugarcane fields. The appellant was allegedly observed leaving the same fields by a peasant who was a member of the search party that discovered the deceased.
The appellant was therefore accused of raping the little girl and murdering her on the basis of circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory, which holds that when two individuals are last seen together, one of them is later discovered to be alive and the other to be dead.
The Sessions Court concluded that circumstantial evidence proved the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
It was decided that the case, in which a six-year-old child was raped and killed, belonged in the category of “rarest of rare.”
Therefore, it found the appellant guilty of the crimes covered by Sections 302 and 376 of the IPC and awarded the death sentence.
The High Court was then consulted to confirm the procedures.
Additionally, the appellant appealed to the High Court. A division bench of the High Court took up the appeal by the appellant and the capital punishment reference at the same time, upholding the conviction and death sentence.
The Supreme Court heard the appeal as a result of this.
The appellant’s attorney argued that the First Information Report (FIR) was sent to the jurisdictional court with an unjustified delay of five days.
He said that there were also significant discrepancies between where the victim’s remains was kept and where the inquiry was held.
It was contended that the prosecution’s utter failure to cross-examine key witnesses and the lack of adequate evidence to support the last seen theory rendered the appellant not guilty.
The prosecutor further stated that there was no forensic or medical evidence presented by the investigating officer.
The apex court stated that the failure of one of the external checks to ascertain whether the FIR was altered afterwards or whether it was lodged to either fix someone other than the true perpetrator or to let the real culprit escape may have resulted from the delay in submitting the FIR.
“While every delay in forwarding the FIR may not necessarily be fatal to the case of the prosecution, Courts may be duty bound to see the effect of such delay on the investigation and even the creditworthiness of the investigation,” the Court added.
Regarding medical evidence, the Court stated that it may be feasible for the prosecution to take a chance by not having the accused subjected to a medical examination in situations when the rape victim is still alive and able to testify in court.
However, medical evidence has considerable importance when the victim is deceased and the crime is trying to be established exclusively by circumstantial evidence, stated the court.
“The failure of the prosecution to produce such evidence, despite there being no obstacle from the accused or anyone, will certainly create a gaping hole in the case of the prosecution and give rise to a serious doubt on the case of the prosecution,” the bench said.
In light of this, the Court noted that neither of the courts had properly noted the grave inherent discrepancies in the testimony given by prosecution witnesses.
“When the offence is heinous, the Court is required to put the material evidence under a higher scrutiny,” the Court added.
We cannot deny that the case involves the horrifying rape and death of a 6-year-old kid, and that by improperly handling the investigation, the prosecution caused injustice to the victim’s family, the court ruled.
Furthermore, it said that the appellant in this case was so impoverished that he couldn’t afford to hire a lawyer even for the Sessions Court.
“After his repeated requests to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, the service of an advocate was provided as amicus. In cases of such nature, the responsibility of the Court becomes more onerous.”
The bench concluded that the appellant’s guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
As a result, the appeals were accepted, and the conviction and punishment were overturned.
“The appellant shall be released forthwith if not wanted in connection with any other case,” ordered the bench.
While State of UP was represented by Additional Advocate General Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu appeared on behalf of the appellant.
Case Title: Chotkau vs. State of UP
