Supreme Court of India
ABDUL NASSARversusSTATE OF KERALA & ANR.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 35
- Decided
- 6 January 2025
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through clinching circumstantial evidence and admissible forensic reports, thereby affirming the conviction and death sentence.
Summary
The appellant, Abdul Nassar, was convicted of raping and murdering a nine‑year‑old girl, offences punishable under Sections 376 and 302 of the IPC, and was sentenced to death. The prosecution relied on a series of circumstantial facts, forensic DNA evidence linking the appellant’s semen to the victim’s clothing, and testimonies of relatives and neighbours who discovered the body in the appellant’s bathroom. The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of alleged contamination of evidence, improper chain of custody, and the adequacy of the circumstantial proof, also questioning the applicability of the "rarest of rare" doctrine for the death penalty. The Supreme Court examined the principles governing circumstantial evidence, affirmed that the prosecution satisfied the five‑golden‑principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, and held that the evidence formed an unbroken chain pointing exclusively to the appellant’s guilt. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, confirming the conviction and death sentence, though execution became moot as the appellant had died during the pendency of the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
- Whether the forensic DNA and semen evidence was admissible despite alleged lapses in chain of custody.
- Whether the death sentence was justified under the "rarest of rare" doctrine.
- Whether the appeal could be continued after the death of the appellant under Section 394(2) CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 174, s. 313, s. 366, s. 394(2)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 376
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000s. 23
- Kerala Police Act, 2011s. 57
Subjects
Child victimForcible and violent sexual assault on the child victimStrangulationEvidenceCircumstantial evidenceTestimony of witnessesReasonable inferenceHypothesis of guilt of accusedCapital punishmentDNA profileChain of incriminating circumstances
Judgment
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1 : 2025 INSC 35
Abdul Nassar
v.
State of Kerala & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 1122-1123 of 2018)
07 January 2025
[B.R. Gavai, K.V. Viswanathan and
Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the prosecution has proved by leading clinching
and convincing circumstantial evidence that the accused had
committed forcible and violent sexual assault on the child victim
and, thereafter, strangled and killed her.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302 and 376 – Prosecution case that
accused had committed forcible and violent sexual assault
on the child victim and, thereafter, strangled and killed her –
The trial Court found accused/appellant guilty of the offences
punishable u/ss.302 and 376 of IPC – Trial Court awarded
capital punishment to the accused/appellant – The High Court
confirmed the death reference – Accused filed appeal before
the Supreme Court – During pendency of the appeals, the
accused expired – However, application submitted by the
legal heirs of the appellant u/s. 394 (2) CrPC for continuation
of the instant appeals:
Held: The following circumstances stand firmly established from a
threadbare analysis of the evidence available on record, pointing
towards the guilt of the accused appellant – The child victim was
a friend of the daughter of the accused, and they used to go to
Madrassa together – On the date of incident, the child victim was
seen with the daughter of the accused – However, she never
reached Madrassa – An extensive search was conducted – The
needle of suspicion pointed towards the house of the accused –
After many search attempts, PW-12 inspected the bathroom of
the accused by lighting his torch and found a heap of clothes,
which was removed by PW-8 and the dead body of the child victim
* Author
2 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
was discovered concealed thereunder – Two stones of the septic
tank inside the house of the accused were also found moved –
Blood-stained pink colour midiskirt (MO-7), petticoat (MO-8) and
black miditop (MO-9) worn by the deceased child victim were
identified by her mother(PW-9), recovered by the police officials
from the house of the accused and were seized – As per the
postmortem report, a total of 37 ante mortem injuries were found
on the child victim’s body – The cause of death was opined to be
manual compressive and ligature constrictive strangulation – As
per the FSL report, the midiskirt worn by child victim, the dhoti of
the accused and cotton gauze collected from the scene of crime
contained human spermatozoa and semen – The hair collected
from the crime scene matched with the hair of the deceased child
victim – The DNA report clearly proved that the DNA profile of
the semen stains found on the midiskirt (MO-7) matched with that
of the accused – Further, the blood stains found on the cot and
beneath it were that of the deceased child victim – Other belongings
of deceased child victim were also recovered – Based on the
analysis of the evidence on the record, the chain of incriminating
circumstances required to bring home the guilt of the accused
is complete in all aspects – In the instant case, the prosecution
has proved by leading clinching and convincing circumstantial
evidence that the accused had committed forcible and violent
sexual assault on the child victim and, thereafter, strangled and
killed her. [Paras 25, 26, 27]
Evidence – Circumstantial Evidence – Principles that courts
must adhere to while appreciating and evaluating evidence
in cases based on circumstantial evidence:
Held: (i) The testimony of each prosecution and defence witness
must be meticulously discussed and analysed – Each witness’s
evidence should be assessed in its entirety to ensure no material
aspect is overlooked; (ii) Circumstantial evidence is evidence that
relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. Thus,
the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the testimony
of each witness must be explicitly delineated; (iii) Each of the links
of incriminating circumstantial evidence should be meticulously
examined so as to find out if each one of the circumstances is
proved individually and whether collectively taken, they forge an
unbroken chain consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 3
Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala & Anr.
of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence; (iv)
The judgment must comprehensively elucidate the rationale for
accepting or rejecting specific pieces of evidence, demonstrating
how the conclusion was logically derived from the evidence – It
should explicitly articulate how each piece of evidence contributes
to the overall narrative of guilt; (v) The judgment must reflect
that the finding of guilt, if any, has been reached after a proper
and careful evaluation of circumstances in order to determine
whether they are compatible with any other reasonable hypothesis.
[Para 30]
Case Law Cited
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [1985] 1
SCR 88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116 – relied on.
Rahul v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2022] 9 SCR 1129 : (2023) 1 SCC 83;
Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of Maharashtra
[2023] 8 SCR 152 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 666; Hanumant v.
State of Madhya Pradesh [1952] 1 SCR 1091 : (1952) 2 SCC 71;
Rameshwar Dayal and Others v. State of U.P. [1978] 3 SCR 59 :
(1978) 2 SCC 518; George and Others v. State of Kerala and
Another [1998] 2 SCR 303 : (1998) 4 SCC 605 – referred to.
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000; Kerala Police Act, 2011.
List of Keywords
Child victim; Forcible and violent sexual assault on the child victim;
Strangulation; Evidence; Circumstantial evidence; Testimony
of witnesses; Reasonable inference; Hypothesis of guilt of
accused; Capital punishment; DNA profile; Chain of incriminating
circumstances.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos.
1122-1123 of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2018 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in DSR No. 3 of 2013 and CRLA No. 1452
of 2013
4 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Trideep Pais, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sakshi Jain, Harini Raghupathy, Pallav
Mongia, Advs. for the Appellants.
R. Basant, Thomas P Joseph, Sr. Advs., Nishe Rajen Shonker,
Mrs. Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Abraham Mathew, Manu Krishnan,
Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Mehta, J.
1. These appeals assail the judgment and order dated 28th February,
2018 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at
Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No. 1452 of 2013 and Death Sentence
Reference No. 3 of 20131. The Death Sentence Reference and the
Criminal Appeal arose out of the judgment dated 31st July 2013
passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Manjeri2 in Sessions Case
No. 487 of 2012.
2. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned trial Court found the appellant
(the sole accused) guilty of the offences punishable under Sections
302 and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 and sentenced
him as follows:
(i) Under Section 302 IPC: Death sentence (subject to the
confirmation by the High Court)
(ii) Under Section 376 IPC: Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and a
fine of Rs. 1,000/- (in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment
for two months). [This imprisonment was allowed to be set off
under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19734]
3. Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence awarded by the
learned trial Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1452
1 Hereinafter, being referred to as D.S.R. No. 3 of 2013
2 Hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’
3 Hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’
4 Hereinafter being referred to as ‘CrPC’
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 5
Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala & Anr.
of 2013 before the High Court. Since the trial Court awarded capital
punishment to the accused appellant, the matter was referred to the
High Court under Section 366 CrPC for confirmation of the death
sentence vide D.S.R. No. 3 of 2013. Both D.S.R. No. 3 of 2013
and Criminal Appeal No. 1452 of 2013 were decided by the High
Court vide common impugned judgment dated 28th February 2018
whereby, the Criminal Appeal was dismissed, and the Death Sentence
Reference was allowed confirming the death sentence awarded to
the accused. Being aggrieved, the accused appellant has filed the
present appeals by way of special leave.
4. This Court vide order dated 4th September, 2018, stayed the execution
of death sentence awarded to the accused appellant.
5. During the pendency of these appeals, the appellant passed away
on 16th January 2024. An application was submitted by the legal
heirs of the appellant before this Court under Section 394(2) CrPC
for the continuation of the present appeals to wash off the stigma
attached to the accused appellant and his family which was allowed
vide order dated 1st February, 2024.
6. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of these appeals
are as follows: -
6.1 The prosecution story in brief is that on 4th April, 2012, at about
6:30 am, the child victim aged about 9 years was proceeding
from her house to the Madrassa situated at Ponnamkallu in
Amarambalam Village. On the way to the Madrassa, she went
to the house of the accused which was situated on the side of
the panchayat road at Ponnamkallu, in search of her friend who
is the daughter of the accused so as to go to the Madrassa
together.
6.2 On seeing the child victim all alone, the accused who was also
alone in the house, committed rape upon her in a room in his
house at around 6:45 am, and after that, he strangled the child
victim with a shawl and smothered her with his hands which
lead to the death of the victim.
6.3 It is the case of the prosecution that the accused, with the
intention to destroy evidence, concealed the dead body of the
victim beneath a cot inside the bedroom in the said house.
Thereafter, the accused shifted the victim’s dead body to the
6 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
bathroom attached to the said house. He also attempted to
dispose of the dead body in the septic tank situated at the
north-eastern corner of the house as the stones from under
the slab of the septic tank were found removed.
6.4 When the victim could not be found anywhere despite frantic
efforts to trace her out, a written complaint5 came to be submitted
by complainant-Salim (PW-1) at the Nilambur Police Station
on 4th April, 2012 at 7:00 pm on the basis of which an FIR
No. 308 of 20126 came to be registered at the Nilambur Police
Station under Section 57 of Kerala Police Act, 2011 and the
investigation was commenced.
6.5 The dead body of the girl was found at around 7:30 pm on
4th April, 2012, in the bathroom adjacent to the house of the
accused appellant and thereupon, the offence punishable under
Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 was altered to Section
302 IPC vide Exhibit P-9. Further, on the next day, offences
punishable under Sections 376 and 201 IPC and Section 23
of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 20007 were
also added to FIR No. 308 of 20128 vide Exhibit P-20, and the
investigation continued. The accused appellant was arrested
on 6th April, 2012.
6.6 The Investigating Officer (PW-24) forwarded a report9 regarding
the addition of the name and address of the accused in the
aforesaid FIR. Material forensic evidence was collected from
the crime scene and was subjected to scientific examination.
Incriminating recoveries were effected in furtherance of
the disclosure statements made by the appellant. After the
conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet came to be
filed against the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 376, 302, and 201 IPC and Section 23 of the JJ Act
in the Court of the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate.
6.7 The case being exclusively Sessions triable was committed to
the Court of Sessions Judge, Manjeri (‘trial Court’) where charges
5 Exhibit P-1
6 Exhibit P-11
7 Hereinafter being referred to as ‘JJ Act’
8 Supra, Note 6
9 Exhibit P-21
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 7
Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala & Anr.
were framed against the accused for the above offences. The
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. The prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses and exhibited
25 documents and 17 material objects to prove its case. For the sake
of convenience, the details of the prosecution witnesses, exhibits
and material objects are given below: -
Prosecution Witnesses:-
PW-1 Saleem
PW-2 Nazarudheen
PW-3 Abdul Azeez
PW-4 Unnikrishnan
PW-5 Vijayachandran Kutty
PW-6 Harinarayanan
PW-7 Ibrahim Kutty
PW-8 Shamsudheen
PW-9 Suhara
PW-10 Ibrahim Darimi
PW-11 Ramakrishnan
PW-12 Unnikrishnan
PW-13 Musthafa
PW-14 Subramaniam
PW-15 Sunil Pulikkal
PW-16 Nisha
PW-17 Ratheesh
PW-18 Abraham
PW-19 Dr. Sonu
PW-20 Dr. Vinod Kumar
PW-21 Dr. R. Sreekumar
PW-22 Dr. P.A. Sheeju
PW-23 Pradeep Kumar
PW-24 A.P. Chandran
8 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Exhibits:-
Ex. P-1 First Information Statement
Ex. P-2 Seizure Mahazar
Ex. P-3 Admission abstract and certificate of the deceased,
issued by the Headmaster, Government LP School,
Kavalamukkatta
Ex. P-4 Property certificate issued by Village Officer,
Amarambalam
Ex. P-5 Scene Plan
Ex. P-6 Seizure Mahazar
Ex. P-7 Seizure Mahazar
Ex. P-8 Septic Tank Report issued by Asst. Engineer, PWD
Building Section, Nilambur
Ex. P-9 Report incorporating the offence under S. 302,
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
Ex. P-10 Seizure Mahazar
Ex. P-11 First Information Report
Ex. P-12 Potency Certificate
Ex. P-13 Examination report on semen stains, blood, and hair
Ex. P-14 DNA Report
Ex. P-15 Post-Mortem report
Ex. P-16 Seizure Mahazar
Ex. P-17 Seizure Mahazar
Ex. P-18 Seizure Mahazar
Ex. P-19 Inquest Report
Ex. P-20 Report submitted in court incorporating offences
under S. 376 and 201 of the IPC, and the offence
under S. 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection) Act, 2015
Ex. P-21 Report submitted in court adding name of the
accused to the FIR.
Ex. P-22 List of property sent to Magistrate, filed by PW24.
Ex. P-23 Extract of confessional statement of the accused.
Ex. P-24 Chemical analysis certificate.
Ex. P-25 Copy of request for collection of nail clippings,
hair, and blood of the accused.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 9
Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Material Objects:-
MO1 Chapels
MO2 Chapels
MO3 Writing pad
MO4 Pen
MO5 Plastic cover
MO6 Plastic carry bag
MO7 Midi skirt
MO8 Petticoat
MO9 Midi top
MO10 Piece of shawl
MO11 Underwear
MO12 Piece of shawl
MO13 Piece of shawl
MO14 Dothi
MO15 Full sleeves shirt
MO16 Passport of the accused.
MO17 Election Identity Card of the accused
8. The accused upon being questioned under Section 313 CrPC denied
the prosecution allegations but chose not to lead any evidence in
defence. The trial Court proceeded to convict and sentence the
accused in the above terms10 vide judgment dated 31st July 2013.
9. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence awarded by the
trial Court, the accused appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.
1452 of 2013 under Section 374(2) CrPC before the High Court of
Kerala at Ernakulam. Since, the trial Court awarded death sentence
to the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC,
the matter was referred to the High Court for confirmation of the
death sentence under Section 366 CrPC vide D.S.R. No. 3 of 2013.
10. Criminal Appeal No. 1452 of 2013 and D.S.R. No. 3 of 2013 were
decided vide common judgment dated 28th February 2018, whereby
the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal
10 Refer, Para 2
10 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
and allowed the Death Sentence Reference confirming the death
sentence awarded to the accused appellant. The said judgment is
assailed in the present appeals.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant:
11. Shri Trideep Pais, learned senior counsel representing the accused
appellant advanced the following pertinent submissions to assail the
impugned judgment: -
11.1 That the prosecution has not been able to establish that the
body of the victim girl was dumped in the bathroom by the
accused. The bathroom where the body was found was located
outside the house of the accused and was open and easily
accessible to all and sundry. The accused was not in the house
at the time of the incident and thus, the possibility of someone
else having committed the crime cannot be ruled out.
11.2 That the body of the deceased was discovered at around
7:30 pm and the police officials arrived at the scene for the
first time at around 9:00 pm i.e. after a delay of 1.5 hours.
Admittedly, local people arrived at the crime scene during this
time and thus, the possibility of the public tampering with the
body of the deceased and disturbing and contaminating the
crime scene cannot be ruled out which brings the integrity of
samples collected during the investigation under a shadow
of doubt.
11.3 That the scene of occurrence and body of the deceased
remained unsealed and unguarded for around 14 hours until
9:00 am of 5th April, 2012, i.e., the time when inquest was
prepared. This renders every subsequent seizure of samples
or evidence collected from the house of the accused or the
body of the deceased unreliable with a strong possibility
of degradation and contamination of body and so also the
tampering of evidence.
11.4 That as per the statement of AP Chandran, Investigating
Officer (PW-24), the underwear was found on the body of the
deceased while as per the Inquest Report11, the underwear
11 Exhibit P-19
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 11
Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala & Anr.
(MO 11) was found in the kitchen. Further, none of the witnesses
to the inquest report were examined and also the contents of
the inquest report have not been proved by the Investigating
Officer (PW-24) in his deposition.
11.5 That the blood stains were only found in the north-west
room which is admittedly not the room where the crime was
committed and there is no tangible evidence on record to
explain how the dead body was taken unnoticed from the
crime scene to the bathroom situated outside the house of
the accused.
11.6 That no seizure memo was prepared for the collection of
the clothes of the deceased i.e. midi skirt, petticoat, top and
underwear seized by the Investigating Officer (PW-24) and
even the inquest report12 does not mention that these items
were sealed.
11.7 That the chain of custody of all articles seized by the police has
not been established and there has been a lapse in sending
the material articles for forensic examination. Also, the manner
of storage of the biological samples has been improper which
is contrary to the mandate laid down by this Court in Rahul v.
State (NCT of Delhi)13 and Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak
Nishad v. State of Maharashtra.14
11.8 That the findings of the DNA Report15 dated 11th January, 2024
and FSL Report16 of seminal stains, blood and hair dated 4th
January, 2024 cannot be relied upon due to the absence of
corroborative evidence of seizure and reasons behind the
findings of the experts. Thus, these reports do not meet the
standards of expert evidence enumerated under Section 45
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
11.9 That it is a settled position of law that the accused must be
given an opportunity to explain all evidence against him during
12 Exhibit P-19
13 [2022] 9 SCR 1129 : (2023) 1 SCC 83
14 [2023] 8 SCR 152 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 666
15 Exhibit P-14
16 Exhibit P-13
12 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the recording of his statement under Section 313 CrPC which
has not been complied with in the instant case inasmuch as
the findings of DNA examination and serological examination
were not put to the accused and thus, the same cannot be
relied upon in support of the prosecution case.
11.10 That the disclosure statement17 made by the accused cannot
be relied upon as the exclusive knowledge or access of the
accused to the terrace from which the alleged recovery was
made is not shown by the prosecution and the recovered
articles were not identified in TIP18 or adequately link with
the deceased.
11.11 That the material witness, Amina Thana who had last seen the
deceased going towards the Madrassa, and other witnesses
namely, Muhammad Shan, Kunhiappa, and Keshavan who
were part of the search party were not examined by the
prosecution.
11.12 That the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, Nazarudheen
(PW-2), Shamsudheen (PW-8) and Unnikrishnan (PW-12)
cannot be relied upon. Nazarudheen (PW-2) stated that he
went to the house of the accused on four occasions, and it
was during his fourth visit, he found the dead body of the
victim in the bathroom. It was contended that PW-2 had
even searched the bathroom on his third visit but did not find
anything and thus apparently, the recovery of the dead body
is a planted one.
11.13 That there is no eyewitness to the alleged incident and the
case of the prosecution hinges entirely on circumstantial
evidence. The prosecution has failed to prove the complete
chain of incriminating circumstances pointing towards the guilt
of the accused. In this regard, learned senior counsel relied
upon the judgments of this Court in Hanumant v. State of
Madhya Pradesh;19 Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra20 to submit that it is settled law that in a case of
17 Exhibit P-23
18 Test Identification Parade
19 [1952] 1 SCR 1091 : (1952) 2 SCC 71
20 [1985] 1 SCR 88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 13
Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala & Anr.
circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be
so complete that it is consistent only with the guilt of accused
and every other possible hypothesis is excluded.
11.14 That the instant case does not fall within the purview of
the rarest of rare cases. The High Court affirmed the death
sentence awarded to the accused without adverting to the
relevant mitigating and aggravating circumstances pertaining
to the accused.
He thus implored the Court to accept the appeals and set aside the
impugned judgments.
Submissions on behalf of Respondent-State: -
12. Per contra, Shri R. Basant, learned senior counsel representing
the State, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions
advanced by the learned senior counsel for the accused appellant
and submitted that every reasonable hypothesis points towards the
guilt of the accused. He urged that two Courts, i.e., the trial Court as
well as the High Court, have recorded concurrent findings of facts,
convicting the accused and hence, this Court in the exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India should be
slow to interfere with such concurrent findings of facts. He advanced
the following submissions while supporting the impugned judgment
and imploring the Court to dismiss the appeals: -
12.1 That the blood stains were found inside the house of the
accused, beneath the cot and on the cot, and the DNA
Report21 establishing that the blood stains found were that of
the deceased.
12.2 That the seminal stains on the vaginal swab and smear of
the deceased collected by Forensic Surgeon (PW22) also
matched with the DNA of the accused as per the DNA Report
(Exhibit P-14).
12.3 That the Inquest Report (Exhibit P-19) is an admissible piece
of evidence since the same was prepared by the Investigation
Officer (PW-24) while discharging his official duties under
21 Exhibit P-14
14 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Section 174 CrPC. In this regard, the learned counsel placed
reliance on Rameshwar Dayal and Others v. State of U.P.22
and George and Others v. State of Kerala and Another.23
12.4 That no explanation has been given by the accused for
recovery of the writing pad (MO3), pen (MO4), plastic cover
(MO5), plastic carry bag (MO6) and the underwear of the
victim (MO11) from the roof of his own house.
12.5 That the learned counsel for the appellant contended that
Nazarudheen (PW2) went to the house of the accused four
times on the date of the incident i.e. 4th April, 2012. The body
of the deceased was found by him on the fourth visit, and
PW2 had even searched the bathroom on his third visit but
did not find anything. However, he submitted that it is clear
from the evidence of Nazarudheen (PW2) that he had a grave
suspicion against the accused, and he informed this fact to
Shamsudheen (PW8) and Unnikrishnan (PW12). The accused
became apprehensive after the third visit of Nazarudheen
(PW2) and thus, he told PW2 that he did not have the key
to his house. In the meantime, he shifted the body from the
bedroom to the bathroom in an attempt to hide the dead body
in the septic tank.
12.6 That the instant case falls within the rarest of rare cases as the
accused was in a relationship of trust, belief, and confidence
with the deceased, being the father of a friend of the deceased
and there are no extenuating circumstances which can be said
to mitigate the enormity of the crime.
On these submissions, Mr. Basant implored the Court to dismiss the
appeals and affirm the impugned judgement.
Discussion and Conclusion:-
13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced at bar and have gone through the judgments of the trial
Court and High Court as well as the evidence available on record.
22 [1978] 3 SCR 59 : (1978) 2 SCC 518
23 [1998] 2 SCR 303 : (1998) 4 SCC 605
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 15
Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala & Anr.
14. Indisputably, the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence.
The law with regard to a case based purely on circumstantial evidence
has very well been crystalized in the judgment of this Court in the case
of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra), wherein this Court held thus:
“152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High
Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature,
character and essential proof required in a criminal case
which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most
fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant
v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952
SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129]. This case
has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in
a large number of later decisions up to date, for instance,
the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh
[(1969) 3 SCC 198 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 55] and Ramgopal
v. State of Maharashtra [(1972) 4 SCC 625: AIR 1972 SC
656]. It may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid
down in Hanumant case [(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC
343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129]:
“It is well to remember that in cases where
the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the
circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance
be fully established, and all the facts so
established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the
circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency, and they should be such as to
exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed
to be proved. In other words, there must be a
chain of evidence so far complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused
and it must be such as to show that within all
human probability the act must have been done
by the accused.”
153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the
following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against
an accused can be said to be fully established:
16 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may
be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a
legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be
or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji
Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC
793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where
the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC
(Cri) p. 1047]
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the
accused must be and not merely may be guilty
before a court can convict and the mental
distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is
long and divides vague conjectures from sure
conclusions.”
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say,
they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis
except that the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have been
done by the accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so,
constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based
on circumstantial evidence.”
15. In the light of these guiding principles, we will have to examine the
facts of the present case.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 17
Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala & Anr.
16. Before delving into the discussion with respect to the submission
regarding the breach in the link evidence on which the entire focus
was laid by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, we would
like to discuss the other important pieces of evidence on which the
trial Court as well as the High Court relied upon so as to record
and uphold the conviction recorded against the accused appellant.
17. The High Court primarily relied upon the deposition of maternal uncle
of the deceased child namely, Saleem(PW-1), another maternal
uncle of the deceased child namely, Nazarudheen (PW-2), mother
of the deceased, Suhara (PW-9), and the Madrassa teacher, Ibrahim
Darimi (PW-10). The summary of the evidence of these witnesses
can be extracted from paragraphs 8 to 11 of the impugned judgment
rendered by the High Court which is reproduced hereinbelow for the
sake of convenience:-
“8. PW1 is the uncle (mother’s brother) of the deceased.
He gave Fl statement regarding the fact that the girl was
missing from their house. Ext.P1 is the FI statement
given at 7.00 p.m. on 4/4/2012. In the statement, he has
stated that she had gone to the madrassa at about 7 am
on 4/4/2012. Since she did not come back by about 10
am, he had gone and enquired at the Madrassa, and he
was told that she had not reached there. When enquired
with the people in the locality, they told that she was seen
within 100 meters of the madrassa. They went and checked
up in the locality and the house of relatives where she
would normally go. Since no information was received, a
complaint was filed.
9. PW9 is the mother of the deceased child., She deposed
that the victim was studying in the 3rd standard in
Government L.P. School at Kavalamukkatta in 2012. The
birth certificate had been produced by the Headmaster
of the School PW5 and marked as Ext.P3. In Ext.P3, her
date of birth was shown as 25/8/2002.
10. PW10, the teacher in the madrassa deposed that she
was studying in the 3rd standard and normally she comes
at 7.00 a.m. and the class will be over by 9.00 a.m. On
4/4/2012, there was an examination, but she did not come.
18 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
11. PW2 is another uncle (mother’s brother), of the
deceased. He deposed that while conducting search for
the minor girl, he got information from a lady by name
Amina that she saw her granddaughter and the victim going
together in the direction of madrassa. When he enquired in
the madrassa, he was informed that she did not reach there.
The house of the accused is very near to the madrassa.
PW2 conducted a search near the house of the accused
also. The house of the accused was found locked. During
a second search, PW2 again reached near the house of
the accused by around 4.00 p.m. Even at that time, the
house was found locked. By about 6.45 p.m., he along
with certain other persons reached near the house of the
accused. The accused was found sitting on the veranda.
When they asked the accused about the girl, he told them
that he also went in search for her, and he reached the
house only at that time PW2 also searched the shed and
the bathroom of the said house. He asked the accused
to open the house in order to conduct a search. Accused
told him that the key was with his wife and that he would
go and bring it. PW2 therefore went to search in the pond
which was situated near the house of the accused. He
again went near the madrassa where he met a few other
persons including PW8. However, PW2 had some suspicion
regarding the accused which he communicated to them.
They therefore came to the house of the accused. They
found the house of the accused locked. PW12 had a torch
with him. He went to the bathroom and found a heap of
clothes. He called others. PW8 entered the bathroom and
removed the clothes and found the dead body of the girl
lying beneath the clothes. They shouted for the people in
the locality. Many people gathered and the police also had
come, PW8 and PW12 who were also along with PW2
had supported the above version.”
18. Neither there is any doubt, nor any argument was raised by the
learned counsel for the appellant that any of these witnesses bore
an animus against the accused so as to influence them for deposing
falsely against the accused. All these witnesses are either related
to the victim or were residents of the neighbourhood who could not
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 19
Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala & Anr.
have entertained any motive for falsely implicating the accused and
that too, for such a heinous offence. The evidence of these witnesses
portrays the following sequence of the events: -
18.1 The child victim had proceeded from the house for going to
the Madrassa at 6:30 am on 4th April, 2012. She did not reach
the Madrasa on which a search was started.
18.2 Since the last location of the child victim was found near the
house of the accused, Nazarudheen (PW-2) [the maternal
uncle of the deceased] conducted the search near his house
which was found locked.
18.3 The search proceedings continued and Nazarudheen (PW-2)
again reached near the house of the accused at around 4:00
pm. Even at that time, the house of the accused was locked.
18.4 At around 6:45 pm, Nazarudheen (PW-2) accompanied with
certain other persons reached near the house of the accused
and the accused was found sitting in the veranda of the house.
18.5 On inquiry being made from the accused about the girl, he
replied that he had also gone for search of the child and had
reached back to his house only at that time.
18.6 Nazarudheen (PW-2) also searched the shed and the bathroom
of the house of the accused. He asked the accused to open
the house in order to conduct a search. The accused told him
that the key was with his wife, and he would go to fetch it.
18.7 Nazarudheen (PW-2) went to search in the pond which was
situated near the house of the accused. He again went near
the Madrassa where he met few other members of the search
party including Shamsudheen (PW-8).
18.8 The conduct of the accused raised suspicion upon which
Nazarudheen (PW-2) along with the other members of the
search party [Shamsudheen(PW-8) and Unnikrishnan(PW-12)]
came back to the house of the accused which was still locked.
18.9 Unnikrishnan (PW-12) had a torch with him. He lighted the
torch and went to the bathroom and in illumination thereof,
he found a heap of clothes. He called the other members of
the search party. Shamsudheen (PW-8) entered the bathroom
20 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
and removed the clothes and found the dead body of the child
victim lying beneath the clothes.
18.10 A hue and cry was raised, and many people gathered there.
The parents of the deceased child were also called.
18.11 The people of the locality caught hold of the accused and he
was taken to the hospital where certain injuries were noted
on his body. Shamsudheen (PW-8) and Unnikrishnan (PW-
12) also fully supported the version of Nazarudheen (PW-2)
in their depositions.
18.12 The dead body of the deceased child was subjected to
postmortem at the hands of Dr. P.A. Sheeju (PW-22) who took
note of a total of 37 ante-mortem injuries in the postmortem
report24. The doctor opined that the victim died due to manual
compressive and ligature constrictive strangulation. The injuries
on the body and external genitalia were suggestive of forcible
vaginal penetrative sex.
19. A holistic view of the evidence of Nazarudheen (PW-2), Shamsudheen
(PW-8) and Unnikrishnan (PW-12) would show that their initial
attempts to search the house of the accused did not succeed because
the same was found to be locked. At that time, these witnesses had
also checked inside the bathroom which is just adjacent to the house
of the accused. The accused has not denied that this bathroom was
a part and parcel of his property.
20. When the initial search of the bathroom was taken, nothing was seen
therein. Immediately thereafter, the accused posed to the search
party that the key to the lock of his house was with his wife. There
was an intervening gap in these two events. After some interregnum,
when the witnesses Nazarudheen (PW-2), Shamsudheen (PW-8) and
Unnikrishnan (PW-12) went into the bathroom of the accused, they
found the dead body of the child lying there. It shows that when the
witnesses kept on persevering to search the house of the accused,
he tried to parry their attempts. Taking advantage of the gap wherein
the witnesses had gone to the Madrassa, he shifted the dead body
from inside of the house to the bathroom and that is why the dead
body was found lying in the bathroom on second search being made.
24 Exhibit P-15
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 21
Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala & Anr.
21. The Investigating Officer (PW-24) apprehended the accused and
arrested him. At the time of arrest, the accused was found having
injuries which appear to have been caused by the local people
before his arrest.
22. The Investigating Officer (PW-24) interrogated the accused and
recorded his disclosure statement25 and acting in furtherance
thereof, the school bag containing the writing pad and footwear
etc. of the victim were recovered. These articles were identified by
Suhara(PW-9), the mother of deceased.
23. The summary of the scientific evidence and the carrying of the
samples by the police officials for forensic examination are contained
in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment rendered by the High
Court and the same is being reproduced hereinbelow for the sake
of ready reference:-
“13. The investigating officer had also taken steps for
conducting scientific evidence by sending about 16 sealed
packets to the Forensic Science Laboratory, PW20 had
conducted the examination of seminal stain on item Nos.1
to 5, 12 and 13(a) and the same was detected in all those
items. The items were a midi skirt M07, a dhoti MO14, a
towel and vaginal swab. Blood was also detected on the
midi skirt, petticoat, dhoti, a full sleeve shirt, cotton gauze
etc. The blood was found to be of human origin. Further,
nail cuttings were also examined by PW20. But no foreign
tissues were detected. Various other items were sent by
PW20 for DNA analysis. Pw21 has conducted a DNA
analysis. DNA typing showed that the seminal stains in
item Nos. l and 13(a) belonged to the accused. Item No.1
is the midi skirt and item No. 13(a) is the vaginal swab.
Item No.16 was the blood sample taken from the accused.
It is further reported that the DNA typing showed that the
blood stains in items Nos, 5 and 6 and the cells on the
nail cuttings in item Nos.17(a) and 17(b) belonged to the
accused. Item No.5 is the reddish brown coloured torn
single dhoti and item No.6 is the green coloured torn and
soiled full sleeve shirt with self-lines. Further DNA typing
25 Exhibit P-23
22 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
shows that item Nos.1, 7, 8 and 12 and vaginal cells in
item No:13(a) belonged to the deceased. Item No.7 is
the blood stain collected in cotton gauze from the floor
beneath the cot and item No.8 is the blood stain collected
in the cotton gauze from the cot. Ext.P14 is the report
prepared by PW21.”
24. Though learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently and
fervently criticised the link evidence, but after going through the
testimony of the Investigating Officer (PW-24), DNA expert (PW 4)
Constable Nisha (PW-16) and on an overall appreciation of the
evidence of the witnesses mentioned above, we find that the
prosecution has given convincing link evidence to establish the safe
keeping of the samples right from the time of the seizure till receipt
at the forensic laboratory. The accused himself has not claimed that
after his arrest, the Investigating Officer (PW-24) tried to collect his
sample of the semen. Thus, there was no possibility that the semen
containing the DNA of the accused could have been planted on the
body of the deceased.
25. The following circumstances stand firmly established from a
threadbare analysis of the evidence available on record, pointing
towards the guilt of the accused appellant: -
(i) The child victim was a friend of the daughter of the accused,
and they used to go to Madrassa together.
(ii) On the date of incident, the child victim was seen with the
daughter of the accused. However, she never reached Madrassa.
(iii) When the child victim did not return home, an extensive search
was conducted and since, the child victim was last seen with
the daughter of the accused, the needle of suspicion pointed
towards the house of the accused, more particularly because
his house was situated close by the Madrassa.
(iv) Nazarudheen (PW-2) tried to repeatedly search the house of
the accused along with neighbours and in the efforts to trace
out the child victim, the witness found the house of the accused
locked in his first and second attempts.
(v) During the third search attempt, the witness(PW-2) found the
accused sitting in verandah of his house. Upon being asked
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 23
Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala & Anr.
for the permission to search his house, the accused stated
that the keys of the house were with his wife, and he would
bring it himself.
(vi) The witness Nazarudheen (PW-2) during the third attempt,
searched the slopping shed and the bathroom adjacent to the
house but to no avail whereafter, he went to search the pond
near the house of the accused.
(vii) After searching the pond, the witness(PW-2) fixed the battery
of the torch which he had called from his father, since it was
dark and reached near the Madrassa.
(viii) In the fourth attempt, witnesses namely, Nazarudheen (PW-2),
Shamsudheen (PW-8) and Unnikrishnan (PW-12) got suspicious
of the accused’s conduct and resumed the search of the house
of the accused and even this time, the house of the accused
was locked, and the accused was not present there. PW-12
inspected the bathroom by lighting his torch and found a heap
of clothes, which was removed by PW-8 and the dead body of
the child victim was discovered concealed thereunder.
(viii) Two stones of the septic tank inside the house of the accused
were also found moved.
(ix) Blood-stained pink colour midiskirt (MO-7), petticoat (MO-8)
and black miditop (MO-9) worn by the deceased child victim
were identified by her mother(PW-9), recovered by the police
officials from the house of the accused and were seized. An
underwear(MO11) of the deceased was also found in the kitchen
of the house of the accused.
(x) Blood stains were found on the cot and floor beneath it.
(xi) As per the postmortem report26, a total of 37 ante mortem injuries
were found on the child victim’s body along with injuries on the
genitalia, suggestive of forcible penetrative sexual assault. The
cause of death was opined to be manual compressive and
ligature constrictive strangulation.
26 Exhibit P-15
24 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(xii) As per the FSL report27, the midiskirt worn by child victim, the
dhoti of the accused and cotton gauze collected from the scene
of crime contained human spermatozoa and semen. The hair
collected from the crime scene matched with the hair of the
deceased child victim.
(xiii) The DNA report28 clearly proved that the DNA profile of the
semen stains found on the midiskirt (MO-7) matched with that
of the accused. Further, the blood stains found on the cot and
beneath it were that of the deceased child victim.
(xiv) The slippers, hard-board writing pad, plastic cover of the writing
pad, grey coloured pen and light rose small plastic carry bag
belonging to the deceased child victim, as identified by her
mother (PW-9), were recovered in furtherance of the voluntary
disclosure statement29 of the accused.
26. Based on the analysis of the evidence on the record, we are of
the view that the chain of incriminating circumstances required to
bring home the guilt of the accused is complete in all aspects. In
the present case, we affirm that the prosecution has been able to
prove the guilt of the accused appellant by fulfilling the five golden
principles (Panchsheel) laid down by this Court in the case of Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda (supra) and that the circumstances present
before us, taken together establish conclusively only one hypothesis
that being the guilt of the accused appellant.
27. In the wake of the discussion made hereinabove, there is no doubt
in the mind of the Court that the prosecution has proved by leading
clinching and convincing circumstantial evidence that the accused
had committed forcible and violent sexual assault on the child victim
and, thereafter, strangled and killed her.
28. While we concur with the ultimate conclusions reached by the learned
trial Court and the High Court, we cannot overlook the deficiencies
in the methodology adopted by both the Courts in the appraisal and
analysis of the circumstantial evidence. The manner in which the
evidence has been scrutinized lacks the depth and rigor expected,
27 Exhibit P-13
28 Exhibit P-14
29 Exhibit P-23
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 25
Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala & Anr.
raising concerns about the adequacy of the evaluative process
undertaken to arrive at the said decisions.
29. The Courts have undertaken an examination of the testimonies of
the witnesses but has omitted to delineate the inferences derivable
therefrom. Moreover, they failed to expound upon how the prosecution
has succeeded in constructing an unbroken chain of circumstances
that irrefutably establishes the culpability of the accused to the
exclusion of any other hypothesis.
30. We deem it essential to enunciate the principles that courts must
adhere to while appreciating and evaluating evidence in cases based
on circumstantial evidence, as follows:
(i). The testimony of each prosecution and defence witness must be
meticulously discussed and analysed. Each witness’s evidence
should be assessed in its entirety to ensure no material aspect
is overlooked.
(ii). Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference
to connect it to a conclusion of fact. Thus, the reasonable
inferences that can be drawn from the testimony of each witness
must be explicitly delineated.
(iii). Each of the links of incriminating circumstantial evidence should
be meticulously examined so as to find out if each one of the
circumstances is proved individually and whether collectively
taken, they forge an unbroken chain consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent
with his innocence.
(iv). The judgment must comprehensively elucidate the rationale for
accepting or rejecting specific pieces of evidence, demonstrating
how the conclusion was logically derived from the evidence.
It should explicitly articulate how each piece of evidence
contributes to the overall narrative of guilt.
(v). The judgment must reflect that the finding of guilt, if any, has been
reached after a proper and careful evaluation of circumstances
in order to determine whether they are compatible with any
other reasonable hypothesis.
31. Consequently, the appeals lack merit and are hereby dismissed.
However, the question of execution of death sentence awarded to
26 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the appellant has been rendered otiose, considering the fact that he
has passed away. Thus, there remains no question of dealing with
the aspect of capital punishment awarded to the appellant(since
deceased).
32. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Child victim"Sign in to search