Holding

The death penalty was not justified as the case did not meet the "rarest of rare" criteria, and the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.

Summary

The State of Gujarat sought confirmation of a death sentence imposed on Guddu Kumar Madhesh Yadav for the rape and murder of a two‑and‑half‑year‑old girl. The Special POCSO Court had convicted the accused under multiple sections of the IPC and the POCSO Act, imposing death for offences under Sections 302, 376(A) and 376(AB). On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence, including CCTV footage, forensic reports, and witness testimonies, and considered the legal standards for awarding death penalty, particularly the "rarest of rare" doctrine. The Court noted the absence of any criminal antecedents, good conduct in prison, and the possibility of reformation, concluding that the death sentence was not warranted. Accordingly, the Court commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment and upheld the remaining convictions and sentences. The criminal appeal was disposed of, and the matter was sent back to the Sessions Court for implementation.

Issues considered

The appropriateness of confirming the death sentence under Sections 302, 376(A) and 376(AB) of the IPC.
Whether the case satisfies the "rarest of rare" test for capital punishment.
The impact of the accused's lack of antecedents and prison conduct on sentencing.
The applicability of Section 42 of the POCSO Act in relation to concurrent punishments.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 164, s. 433A
Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018s. 376(AB)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 26, s. 45, s. 65-B
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 342, s. 363, s. 366, s. 376(2)(j)(l), s. 376(3), s. 376(A), s. 376(AB)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012s. 10, s. 4, s. 42, s. 5(i), s. 5(k), s. 5(m), s. 6, s. 8, s. 9(m)

Subjects

death penaltyrapechild sexual offencesrarest of rarecommutationlife imprisonmentPOCSOIPCsentencingreformation

Judgment

R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL CONFIRMATION CASE NO. 2 of 2021
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1690 of 2023

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
GUDDUKUMAR MADHESH YADAV
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RONAK RAVAL APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR NEERAJ SONI NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

Date : 18/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)

Criminal Confirmation Case No.2 of 2021 is filed seeking
confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the accused by the
judgment and order dated 07/12/2021 passed in Special (POCSO) Case
No. 278 of 2021 by learned Special Judge ( POCSO), Surat. The accused
has been convicted and sentenced as under:

Page 1 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

I. For the offences punishable under Sections 302, 376(A), and
376(AB) of the Indian Penal Code, the accused is sentenced
to death by hanging till he is dead, and is also imposed a fine
of ₹500/-, and in default thereof, to undergo further
imprisonment for two years.
II. For the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian
Penal Code, the accused is sentenced to simple imprisonment
for 7 (seven) years and a fine of ₹1,000/-, and in default
thereof, to undergo further imprisonment for one year.
III.For the offence punishable under Section 366 of the Indian
Penal Code, the accused is sentenced to simple imprisonment
for 10 (ten) years and a fine of ₹1,000/-, and in default
thereof, to undergo further imprisonment for one year.
IV. For the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(j)(l)
of the Indian Penal Code, the accused is sentenced to
imprisonment for life for the remainder of his natural life and
a fine of ₹500/-, and in default thereof, to undergo further
imprisonment for two years.
V. For the offence punishable under Section 376(3) of the
Indian Penal Code, the accused is sentenced to imprisonment
for life for the remainder of his natural life and a fine of
₹500/-, and in default thereof, to undergo further
imprisonment for two years.
VI. For the offence punishable under Section 342 of the
Indian Penal Code, the accused is sentenced to simple
imprisonment for one year and a fine of ₹500/-, and in
default thereof, to undergo further imprisonment for four

Page 2 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

months.
VII. Considering the provisions of Section 42 of the
POCSO Act, for the offences under Sections 4, 5(i)(k)(m), 6,
8, 9(m) and 10 of the said Act, since the offences under the
Indian Penal Code have already been proved against the
accused in the present case and the punishment for those
offences is maximum, no separate punishment under the
POCSO Act shall be imposed.

2. The convict has also preferred Criminal Appeal No.1690 of 2023
against said judgment and order of conviction and sentence and therefore,
the Criminal Confirmation Case and the said appeal of the convict is
heard and decided together by this common judgment.

Case of the Prosecution:-
3. The complainant in the present case has been residing along with
his family for the last four years in a rented room situated on the ground
floor of a building located at Bhagwati Nagar Society, Plot Nos. 34 and
35. As the accused was also residing for the last one year in a rented room
situated on the third floor of the same building along with his friend/co-
accused Pankaj Pitambar Yadav, he was acquainted with the victim -
deceased child and was aware that she was a minor and the daughter of
the complainant. On 04.11.2021, at around 8:30 p.m., when the victim
was playing near her house in front of Bhagwati Nagar Society, Plot No.
63, the accused, with the intention of committing a wrongful act and
having sexual intercourse, enticed and allured the victim on the pretext of
giving her chocolate, abducted her, and took her to an open place with

Page 3 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

bushes situated behind Pandesara GIDC, Armo (Synthetics) Dyeing Mill,
where he removed the jeans pant and underwear worn by her and
committed rape upon her. As the victim could not bear the pain and
started crying, the accused pressed her mouth and nose with his hands,
and despite having knowledge that by doing so the victim would die, with
the intention of causing her death, he continued to press her mouth and
nose, thereby strangulating her and caused her death. Further, despite
knowing that the victim was a minor, he committed penetrative sexual
assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon her, causing her
death. During investigation, on the basis of video footage of the CCTV
camera installed outside a shop named Patel Repairing and Electronics, in
which the accused is seen taking the victim child, investigation was
carried out, and on the basis of eye-witnesses, electronic evidence, and
the articles recovered from the accused, the involvement of the accused
was established, whereupon the accused was arrested.

4. Thus, the accused is alleged to have committed offences
punishable under Sections 363, 302, 376(2)(j)(l), 376(3), 376(A),
376(AB), 342 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 5(i)(k)(m), 6, 8,
9(m) and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012, and on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, the
Investigating Officer recorded statements of relevant witnesses, and
finding sufficient evidence against the present accused, filed a charge-
sheet on 15.11.2021 before this Hon’ble Court. The same was registered
as a Special Case (POCSO) No. 278/2021, and was committed to this
Special Court for further judicial proceedings.

Page 4 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

5. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge transferred the case against
the accused to the Special POCSO Court for the purpose of conducting
the judicial proceedings having jurisdiction to try the case. After ensuring
that the accused was provided with copies of the police investigation
papers, the charge was framed against him at Exhibit 6 for offences under
Sections 363, 302, 376(2)(j)(l), 376(3), 376(A), 376(AB), 342 of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 5(i)(k)(m), 6, 8, 9(m) and 10 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Upon taking the
statement of the accused, the accused denied the offence and
consequently, the prosecution's evidence was taken.

6. The prosecution has produced the following oral and documentary
evidence:
-::Oral Evidence ::-

Sr.
Name of Witness Particulars Exhibit
No.

Dr. Nishaben Vinodbhai Evidence of the Medical
1. 08
Chandra Officer

Evidence of the Medical
Dr. Rinkal Chandreshbhai
2. Officer who performed the 13
Paghdar
Post-mortem

Maheshbhai Chhaganbhai
3. Evidence of Panch Witness 20
Rabari

Vikramkumar Sanjivbhai
4. Evidence of Panch Witness 27
Patel

Page 5 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

Sr.
Name of Witness Particulars Exhibit
No.

Sangeetadevi
5. Evidence of Panch Witness 31
Vijayrambaran Shahu

Vinodkumar
6. Evidence of Panch Witness 33
Kamalaprasad Yadav

7. Yogesh Bholenath Mishra Evidence of Panch Witness 41

Hareshkumar Meghraj
8. Evidence of Panch Witness 45
Chaudhary

Kaushikkumar
9. Evidence of Panch Witness 47
Dilipkumar Asari

Vimalkumar Mithalal
10. Evidence of Panch Witness 51
Shah

Evidence of Independent
11. Pankaj Lalluram Shahu 55
Witness

Devprakash Ganori Evidence of the
12. 93
Mistry Complainant

Babubhai Govanbhai
13. Evidence of Panch Witness —
Patel

Tejaskumar Rajnikant
14. Evidence of Panch Witness 65
Patel

Gitadevi Rakeshkumar Evidence of Independent
15. 58
Kushwah Witness

16. Pushkarlal Bhagulal Evidence of Independent SE

Page 6 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

Sr.
Name of Witness Particulars Exhibit
No.

Mewada Witness

Bimlesh Muneshwar Evidence of Independent
17. 71
Yadav Witness

Evidence of Independent
18. Santosh Arvind Patel 73
Witness

Evidence of Independent
19. Lucky Vijay Shahu 75
Witness

Evidence of Independent
20. Hitesh Hasmukhbhai Patel 77
Witness

Evidence of Independent
21. Bharat Devidas Patel 80
Witness

Pankaj Lalataprasad Evidence of Independent
22. 81
Mishra Witness

Evidence of Independent
23. Ashok Mithalesh Yadav 82
Witness

Dr. Umesh Baldevbhai Evidence of Medical
24. 84
Chaudhary Officer

Evidence of Independent
25. Pankaj Pitambar Yadav 95
Witness

Bhagwandas Ramlal Evidence of Independent
26. ES
Vishwakarma Witness

27. Uditnarayan Maiyyaji Evidence of Independent 87

Page 7 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

Sr.
Name of Witness Particulars Exhibit
No.

Sharma Witness

Evidence of Independent
28. Dipak Anil Sharma E8
Witness

Harpalsinh Dipsinh
29. Evidence of Police Witness GE
Sindhav

Digvijaysinh Ajitsinh
30. Evidence of Police Witness 102
Gohil

Harishchandra Vanabhai
31. Evidence of Police Witness 104
Pawar

Ashishkumar Ghemarbhai
32. Evidence of Police Officer 105
Rabari

Shivlubhai Somalbhai Evidence of Additional
33. 110
Gavit Executive Magistrate

Ajay Govindbhai
34. Evidence of PSO 113
Kulkarni

Vijaykumar Nathabhai Evidence of Investigating
35. 115
Singarkhiya Officer (IO)

Jignesh Lalitchandra
36. Evidence of Circle Officer 124
Kamdar

37. Anurag Bavbhai Kalsariya Evidence of Police Officer 128

Hardipsinh Pradyuman
38. Evidence of Police Witness 131
Jhala

Page 8 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

Sr.
Name of Witness Particulars Exhibit
No.

Evidence of Woman Police
39. Pritiben Vishnubhai Patel 132
Witness

Vijaybhai Kantilal
40. Evidence of Police Witness 133
Shrimali

41. Somnath Gamjibhai Naik Evidence of Police Witness 134

Alpeshkumar Pethubhai Evidence of Investigating
42. 135
Chaudhary Officer (IO)

–:: Documentary Evidence ::–

Sr.
Particulars of Document Exhibit
No.

1. Medical treatment certificate of the accused —

Memo regarding medical examination of the accused
2. and collection of necessary samples and issuance of 10
medical certificate

3. Original MLC case papers of the accused —

4. Form No. 2B with samples of the accused 12

Memo regarding conducting post-mortem of the dead
5. body and issuing cause of death certificate and PM 14
note

6. Post-mortem report of the deceased/victim minor girl 15

Page 9 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

Sr.
Particulars of Document Exhibit
No.

7. Carbon copy of inquest panchnama 15

8. Form with samples of the victim/deceased 17

9. Cause of Death Certificate 18

Police report (Form-2B) sent to the Medical Officer
10. 19
along with the dead body for post-mortem

11. Panchnama of bodily condition of the accused 21

Panchnama of seizure of pen-drive of reconstruction
12. 28
panchnama

13. Inquest panchnama 32

14. Panchnama of the scene of offence 34

Panchnama of clothes seized after post-mortem of the
15. 42
deceased

16. Reconstruction panchnama 45

17. Panchnama of gait analysis of the accused 48

Panchnama of CCTV footage of Bapunagar Society
18. —
and Krishnanagar Society

Certificate under Section 65-B regarding CCTV
19. 56
footage produced by witness Pankajbhai

Certificate under Section 65-B regarding gait analysis
20. 57
produced by witness Pankajbhai

21. Complaint —

Page 10 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

Sr.
Particulars of Document Exhibit
No.

22. Xerox copy of Aadhaar Card of the complainant 51

Panchnama regarding tallying of accounts written in
23. 64
diary found from the accused at the scene of offence

Panchnama of diary recovered from the scene of
24. 99
offence

Original statement of witness Pushkarlal Bhagulal
25. 70
Mewada under Section 164 of CrPC

Original statement of witness Bimlesh Muneshwar
26. 72
Yadav under Section 164 of CrPC

Certificate under Section 65-B regarding CCTV
27. 74
footage produced by witness Santoshbhai

Certificate under Section 65-B produced by witness
28. 78
Hiteshbhai (videographer)

29. Bill produced by witness Hiteshbhai (videographer) 78

Memo addressed to Medical Officer for collection of
30. 85
DNA samples of the accused

31. MLC case papers of the accused 85

32. Form with DNA samples of the accused 87

Memo addressed to the Medical Officer for collection
33. 88
of DNA samples of the victim/deceased minor girl

34. Original MLC case papers of the complainant 86

35. Original MLC case papers of the complainant’s wife —

Page 11 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

Sr.
Particulars of Document Exhibit
No.

36. Form with DNA samples of the complainant’s wife —

37. Form with DNA samples of the complainant E2

Original MLC case papers regarding DNA of the
38. E3
complainant

Original MLC case papers regarding DNA of the
39. 94
complainant’s wife

Certificate under Section 65-B issued by U.H.Co.
40. 100
Harpalsinh

Report submitted by U.H.Co. to PSI regarding custody
41. 101
of pen-drive containing CCTV footage

Certificate under Section 65-B issued by U.H.Co.
42. 103
Mr.Digvijaysinh

Report submitted by U.H.Co. to PI regarding custody
of the clothes, articles and cause of death certificate
43. 105
handed over by the doctor who performed the post-
mortem

Report submitted by PSI Rabari to PI regarding action
44. 107
taken

45. Panchnama of Identification parade —

Extract of station diary regarding registration of
46. 114
offence

Page 12 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

Sr.
Particulars of Document Exhibit
No.

47. Extract of page No. 1 of the station diary 115

Memo sent to DCB Branch (Missing Squad), Surat, for
48. keeping record and investigation regarding the victim 117
minor girl

Memo sent to DCB Branch, Surat City, for keeping
49. record and investigation regarding the victim minor 118
girl

Memo sent to all Police Stations of Surat City for
50. keeping record and investigation regarding the victim 119
minor girl

Memo for publication in daily newspapers/TV
51. 120
regarding missing victim minor girl along with details

Memo sent to Chairperson, Nari Sanrakshan Gruh, for
52. keeping record and investigation regarding the victim 121
minor girl

Memo for entry in station diary and for wireless
53. message through police control room to all police 122
stations regarding missing victim minor girl

54. Dog Squad report 123

Letter addressed to Mamlatdar, Majura for preparation
55. 125
of the map of scene of offence

56. Memo sent by PI to City Mamlatdar for preparation of 126

Page 13 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

Sr.
Particulars of Document Exhibit
No.

the map of scene of offence

Map of scene of offence forwarded with covering
57. 127
letter

Report regarding birth certificate of the victim minor
58. 129
girl

Statement of Dr. Kudan Kumar Balmansingh
59. 130
Kushwah

60. Extract of Muddamal Register of Police Station 135

Examination report issued by FSL Officer after on-site
61. 137
examination

Dispatch note sent to FSL Officer with the forwarding
62. 138
letter

Dispatch note sent to FSL Officer with the forwarding
63. 139
letter (Gait Analysis)

64. Result received from Biology Division of FSL 140

Receipt issued by FSL for muddamal received (total
65. 141
20 articles)

66. Receipt issued by Toxicology Division of FSL 142

67. Receipt issued by DNA Division of FSL 143

68. Receipt issued by Computer Division of FSL 144

69. Receipt of muddamal received for gait analysis by 145

Page 14 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

Sr.
Particulars of Document Exhibit
No.

Computer Science Division of FSL

70. Serology report of FSL 147

71. Opinion received from Toxicology Division of FSL 148

72. Opinion received from DNA Division of FSL 149

Opinion regarding porn clip found from mobile phone
73. 150
of the accused

74. Opinion of gait analysis issued by FSL 151

Copies of statements under Section 164 CrPC of
75. witnesses Pushkarlal and Bimlesh along with consent 152
forms

76. Call details of the accused 153

FIR registered against the shopkeeper from whom the
77. accused purchased memory card containing porn 154
videos

Report regarding addition of sections of the Indian
78. 155
Penal Code

Certificate of photographer under Section 65-B of the
79. 156
Evidence Act

7. Other than the above, the prosecution has neither produced any
documentary evidence nor examined any further oral evidence. The
prosecution has submitted a pursis confirming that their evidence has

Page 15 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

been completed. Upon the completion of the prosecution's evidence, the
further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal
Procedure Code was recorded. In the said statement, the accused
primarily stated that the prosecution's evidence was false, that a false case
had been filed against him and that he is innocent. Upon completion of
the arguments from each side, the learned Special Court has recorded the
conviction and sentence of the convict-accused as stated in paragraph 1 of
this judgment.

8. Heard the learned APP Mr.Ronak Raval appearing for the
respondent – State and learned Advocate Mr. Neeraj Soni appearing for
the convict – accused in the captioned matter.

9. Before examining the case on hand considering the evidence
adduced before the learned Special Court and dealing with the rival
submissions made by the respective parties, it would be apt to refer the
provisions of Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance,2018 by which
Section 376-AB was inserted after Section 376-A, which reads as under :

“376AB. Whoever, commits rape on a woman under twelve years
of age shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to
imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the
remainder of that person’s natural life, and with fine or with death:

Provided further that any fine imposed under this section
shall be paid to the victim.”

Page 16 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

With the aforementioned insertion of new Section 376-AB, the
provision has been made to an effect that whoever commits rape on a
woman under twelve years of age shall be punished with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but
which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean
imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, and with fine
or with death. The proviso reads that such fine shall be just and
reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim.
Thus, by the aforesaid new provision in a case of rape on a woman under
twelve years of age, minimum sentence of rigorous imprisonment is not
less than twenty years, but the same may extend to imprisonment for life
would mean natural life of the accused. Thus, in such cases the rigorous
imprisonment would not be less than twenty years and the same would be
coupled with fine or the court may award death sentence.

10. Learned APP Mr.Ronak Raval appearing for the State would
submit that in light of aforementioned amendment, the accused has
rightly been convicted and sentence of death penalty for committing rape
on a minor girl aged two and half years and committed her murder. He
has further submitted that evidence so adduced before the learned Special
Court is proved and on the basis thereof, the convict has rightly been
imposed a death penalty and hence this Court may confirm the said death
penalty and dismissed the appeal preferred by the convict.

11. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for the convict has argued that

Page 17 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

in the facts of the present case, the conviction of death sentence awarded
to the accused is not sustainable. It is submitted that the manner in which
the alleged offence is committed is not barbaric and brutal and hence
present case does not fall within ‘rarest of rare case’ to award death
sentence. In support of his contentions, learned Advocate for the convict
has relied upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
cases of Bachan Singh Versus State of Punjab reported in AIR 1980 SC
898 and Machhi Singh & Others Versus State of Punjab reported in
AIR 1983 SC 957.

12. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble the
Supreme Court in the case of Amit Versus State of Uttar Pradesh
reported in AIR 2012 SC 1433 to contend that in absence of having any
evidence that the accused may repeat a similar crime in future, the
possibility of his reform cannot be ruled out in the coming years looking
to the age and under such circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the said case relying upon the judgment of Rameshbhai Chandubhai
Rathod Versus State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2011 SC 803 converted
the death penalty into the imprisonment for life for the remaining term.
Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in
the case of Panchhi & Another Versus State of U.P reported in (1998) 7
SCC 177 to explain the circumstance as to when the death penalty is not
justified.

13. By making the above submissions, learned advocate for the convict
would submit to allow this appeal.

Page 18 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

14. At the outset, if the newly inserted Section 376-AB of the IPC is
seen, it provides that in a case of rape where the age of woman is under
12 years of age, minimum rigorous imprisonment is provided not less
than twenty years which may extend to imprisonment for life which shall
mean natural life and with fine. Therefore, the ratio and the test to award
the death penalty in the case of committing rape on a woman below 12
years of age shall be the same as has been laid down in the plethora of
decisions prior to the amendment i.e. ‘rarest of rare case.’

15. It would be relevant to note that the learned Special Judge has
recorded the evidence of the witnesses produced by the prosecution
before the Court and after evaluating the same, including the scientific
and medical evidence has convicted and imposed the death penalty.
Therefore, evidence of the complainant and other relevant witnesses is
required to have a glance through.

Evidence of Date of Birth of the Victim – Minor:-

16. It would be apt to note the complainant is father of the
victim/deceased. The complaint has been lodged on 05.11.2021. In the
complaint, the complainant has stated that he has two daughters, out of
whom the elder daughter is the victim and the younger daughter is one
year old. In the said complaint, the height of the victim is stated to be
approximately two and a half feet, and a passport size photograph of the
victim has also been produced. However, during his deposition at
Exhibit-59, the complainant has not produced any document to prove the

Page 19 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

age of the victim. Further, he has stated that the birth of his victim
daughter had taken place at their native place in Bihar at home and that
no registration of her birth was done at any place. Thereafter, during
further investigation, it is stated that birth of his victim daughter had
taken place on 11.04.2019 at Supriya Children Hospital in Bihar, but no
proof thereof is available with them. In the cross-examination conducted
by the defence, it is stated that his marriage had taken place in the year
2017 and the said marriage had taken place in Bihar. Except this, no
cross-examination has been conducted by the defence with regard to the
age of the victim.

On behalf of the prosecution, as Witness No.37, PSI of Pandesara
Police Station, viz., Mr.Anurag Bavbhai Kalsariya, has been examined at
Exhibit-128. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that on
10.11.2021, upon being instructed by the PI to go to the native place of
the complainant and conduct inquiry regarding the date of birth of the
deceased child in the rape case, he departed from Surat by train on
11.11.2021 and on 12.11.2021 reached Bandupur Village, Post-
Terakhana Karpi, District Arwal, Bihar, and there he recorded the
statement of the Manager, Kundan Kumar, son of Rajya Balam Singh
Kushwaha, with regard to the birth of the victim child having taken place
at Supriya Children Hospital, Motha, Arwal, and submitted the same to
the PI along with his report. His report has been produced at Exhibit-129
and the statement of Kundan Kumar Kushwaha has been produced at
Exhibit-130. During cross-examination, he has denied suggestion that he
had not gone anywhere and that he had remained in Surat and falsely
prepared and produced the certificate. Upon perusal of the deposition of

Page 20 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

this witness and the documents produced by him, it is proved that the date
of birth of the victim was 11.04.2019. No other fact contrary thereto is
proved.

17. Prosecution Witness No.2- Dr.Rinkal Chandreshbhai Paghdal is
examined at Exhibit-13 who is one of the panel doctors conducted the
post-mortem of the dead body of the victim. In her examination-in-chief,
during investigation, she has stated that upon conducting external
examination of the dead body, the dead body was of a female child aged
2 years and 9 months. During cross-examination conducted by the
defence, no question has been put with regard to the age. In the present
case, considering the CCTV footage produced by the Prosecution,
wherein the child is seen in the camera installed outside Patel Repairing
and Electronics Shop as well as in the CCTV camera installed outside the
house of Witness No.11, Shri Pankaj Lalluram Shahu, situated at Plot No.
351 of Bapunagar Society, and further considering the inquest panchnama
and post-mortem form, it is clearly proved beyond reasonable doubt by
the Prosecution that at the time of the incident, i.e., on 05.11.2021, the
age of the deceased victim child was 2 years and 6 months.

Medical Evidence:-

18. Prosecution Witness No. 2-Dr. Rinkal Chandreshbhai Paghadar,
has been examined at Exhibit-13. In her deposition, during examination-
in-chief, she has stated that on 07/11/2021, in the afternoon, when she
was on duty as a Tutor in the Department of Forensic Medicine at Surat
Government Medical College, during that time, A.S.I. Harishbhai B.

Page 21 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

Patil, B.K. No. 745, Pandesara Police Station, Surat City brought the dead
body of a female child for post-mortem examination at 2:30 p.m., along
with the police yadi of P.I. Mr. A.P. Chaudhary of Pandesara Police
Station, Marnottar report, and copy of the inquest panchnama. The post-
mortem examination of the said dead body was conducted by a panel, in
which the other doctor was Dr. P.M. Modi, with her. The examination of
the dead body commenced at 2:45 p.m. on 07/11/2021 and was
completed at 4:15 p.m. on the same date. As per the statement of this
doctor, Injury No. 1 was an abrasion with contusion, measuring 1.5 x 1
cm, red in colour, present over the nostril and on the tip of the nose.
Injury No. 2 was an abrasion with contusion around the mouth and lips,
having a maximum measurement of 1 cm, present on the left side of the
mouth, with minimum width ranging between 0.5 to 0.8 cm, and was red
in colour. Upon internal examination of the mouth, red-coloured
contusions were present on the gums on both sides. Red-coloured blood
was oozing from the tip of the tongue. Injury No. 3 was an abrasion with
contusion measuring 2 x 1 cm, red in colour, present on the left cheek,
and another abrasion measuring 1.5 cm was present extending from the
left side of the mouth. According to the opinion of both the doctors, all
the aforesaid injuries were ante-mortem in nature. On internal
examination of the body, no injury or fracture was found on the head. As
per the opinion of both the doctors, the death of the said female child had
occurred 36 to 72 hours prior to the commencement of the post-mortem
examination. According to them, the cause of death of the said deceased
child was died asphyxia due to smothering by pressing the mouth and
nose. It has been further stated that death can occur in the ordinary course
of nature due to such injuries caused by pressing the mouth and nose,

Page 22 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

resulting in asphyxia.

In the cross-examination conducted by the defence, the witness has
denied that the abrasions mentioned in Column No. 17 could have been
caused to the victim due to scratching by nails while children play with
each other. She has denied that such injuries could have been self-
inflicted by the child. She has admitted that marks of hands on the neck
have not been noted in the post-mortem note. She has denied that the
abrasions found on the body of the victim were simple injuries. She has
admitted that bleeding from the nose can occur if the nostril is ruptured.
In further cross-examination, she has stated that the cause of death was
not due to accidental blocking of the mouth and nose, but due to
deliberate pressing of the mouth and nose. She has denied that death due
to asphyxia could occur if the child fell down or collided while playing.
She has denied that the injuries found on the body of the victim could
have been caused by any animal after the child had become unconscious.

Thus, as per evidence deposition this doctor and the documents
produced by her, namely the Post-Mortem Note at Exhibit-15 and the
Cause of Death Certificate at Exhibit-18, it is clearly proved that the
death of the deceased female child was a culpable homicide.

19. Prosecution Witness No. 1, Dr. Nishaben Vinodbhai Chandra, has
been examined at Exhibit-8. In her deposition, during examination-in-
chief, she has stated that she holds an MBBS degree and has been serving
as CMO at the New Civil Hospital, Surat, since 2004. On 08/11/2021 at

Page 23 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

10:35 PM, H.C. Rajeshbhai B.No. 2393 of Pandesara Police Station,
brought the accused Guddakumar Madhesh Yadav, aged 34 years,
resident of Pandesara, for medical examination along with a police yadi
from Pandesara Police Station. Further, the doctor stated that the accused
voluntarily gave his history that, on 04/11/2021 at approximately 8:15
PM, he took the victim a short distance away from Bhagwatinagar,
Pandesara, to an open area, removed her underwear, and forcibly engaged
in sexual intercourse with her after removing his own clothes.
Subsequently, he did not return to his room and hid in a room at
Shastrinagar, Pandesara, belonging to his relatives. On 08/11/2021 in the
evening, he was arrested by the police. The accused had provided this
history in Hindi, which was recorded by her in English in the certificate.

Additionally, it has been stated that upon examining the accused,
identifiable marks on his body were noted, including old injury marks
below the abdomen and old injury mark on the back of the left arm. On
local examination, his penis was normal, and he had no hernia or other
congenital ailments. Both knees showed dark brown abrasions measuring
0.25 x 0.25 mm. Samples of blood, saliva, nails, pubic hair, and semen
were collected from the accused for FSL testing, and they were sealed
and handed over to the police personnel. Further, the said doctor opined
that the accused cannot be said to be incapable of engaging in sexual
intercourse, i.e., the accused was capable of performing sexual
intercourse. The certificate issued by this doctor in this regard is produced
at Exhibit-9, the police yadi is produced at Exhibit-10, the original case
papers of the accused are produced at Exhibit-11, and the copy of the
form sent with the samples is produced at Exhibit-12.

Page 24 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

The doctor further stated that the injuries observed on the knees of
the accused occurred 3–4 days ago, which could occur if one forcibly
engages in sexual intercourse with a girl while bending on the knees on
hard ground. The abrasions on on knees of the accused suggest that more
than one such injury was present, indicating use of considerable force
during sexual intercourse, resulting in such abrasions.

In the cross-examination conducted by the defence, the witness
admitted that she had read the police yadi. She denied that the report was
prepared solely based on the police yadi. She denied that the accused had
not given any history. She denied that the notes were recorded based on
the statements of male staff. She denied that the accused was physically
examined by the staff alone. She stated further that both male and female
staff were present during the examination of the accused. She and the
male staff jointly examined the accused. Other staff members were
present but remained outside. Further, she stated that there was no
fracture on the knees of the accused. She denied that the knee injuries
were recent. She denied that the accused was incapable of engaging in
sexual intercourse. She denied that she had prepared false document and
given false deposition at the behest of the police.

Consequently, based on the doctor’s deposition and the documents
submitted by her, it is clearly established that the accused was capable of
engaging in sexual intercourse and that there were injuries on both knees
while committing rape with the victim child.

Page 25 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

20. Prosecution Witness No.2-Dr. Rinkal Chandreshbhai Paghdar is
examined at Exhibit – 13. In her deposition, she stated during
examination-in-chief that she holds an MBBS degree and has been
performing her duties as a tutor in the Forensic Medicine Department at
Surat Government Medical College for the past one and a half months.
Her duties include handling medico-legal cases and conducting post-
mortems, and during her tenure, she has conducted approximately 10 to
15 post-mortems. Further, this doctor stated that, on 07/11/2021, in the
afternoon, when she was present on duty at Surat Government Medical
College, A.S.I. Harishbhai B. Patil, B.K. No. 745, Pandesara Police
Station, Surat City, brought the body of a female child for post-mortem at
2:30 PM along with the police yadi of P.I. Mr. A.P. Chaudhary, Pandesara
Police Station, Marnottar report, and copy of the inquest panchnama. The
postmortem of the said body was conducted by the panel, in which Dr.
P.M. Modi, holding an MD degree in Forensic Medicine and serving as
Assistant Professor, were present. The post-mortem of this body
commenced at 2:45 PM on 07/11/2021 and was completed at 4:15 PM on
the same date.

Moreover, this doctor stated that the body was identified, and
according to the police yadi, the deceased child had succumbed to death
following a sexual assault. Further, this doctor stated that upon external
examination, the body was of a female child, aged 2 years and 9 months.
The body was on a bed sheet of red color with a silver design and covered
with a white cloth. The child worn a white half-sleeve T-shirt with a
Mickey Mouse picture and writing. There was a white metal ring on the
left ankle. A black-colored plastic bangle with white beads was on both
wrists. A black thread, adorned with a white metallic ghungri, an orange

Page 26 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

bead, two black coloured beads, a black coloured metallic ring, and a
white cowrie shell wound twice around the waist, was worn. On the left
side of this thread, the above-mentioned beads and other items were
attached. A black thread wound twice contained a grey-colored talisman
and a black coloured metal pendant of Lord Hanuman was around the
neck. A red and yellow coloured beaded necklace was around the neck.
Red nail polish was applied to the fingernails of both hands and toes of
both feet, which was eroded. Dry wood pieces and tree leaves were
attached to the body, which were present on both the anterior and
posterior parts of the body. All the garments were stained with the fluid
of the decomposing body, mud, and soil. The entire body was smeared
with the fluid of the decomposed body, mud, and soil.

Further, this doctor stated that the body was cold, and it could not
be determined due to decomposition. The process of rigor mortis had
completely passed throughout the body, and the body was in a state of
decomposition emitting odour, which prevented confirmation of post-
mortem lividity. Skin slippage, decomposition-related blisters, marbling,
and red and black discoloration of the skin were present all over the body.
The abdominal region was distended due to gases produced as a result of
decomposition. Loops of intestines were protruding through the vaginal
canal. The hair of the body could be easily pulled out. White maggots
(larvae), measuring 0.5 to 0.7 cm in length, were present throughout the
body.

Further, the witness stated that the face was scratched and swollen,
making identification impossible. Both eyes had no cornea. The mouth
was half-open. The tongue was soft and decomposed. Red-colored
decomposition fluid was oozing from the nose and mouth. Cyanotic

Page 27 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

discoloration was present on the fingernails and toenails. Further, the
doctor stated that upon examination of the private parts, the examination
of the external genitals revealed that the upper part was rotted and
decomposed, with maggots emerging from the vaginal and anal canals.
Examination of the vaginal canal showed the labia minora were in the
condition corresponding to approximately 11:00 to 3:00 hours in a normal
clock, with a width of one centimeter and they were red in color.
Contusions were also observed on the clitoral frenulum. Loops of
intestines were emerging from the lower part. The posterior commissure,
fourchette and vagina were soft and in a state of decomposition.

Following external injuries were noticed by this witness on the
body:

Injury No. 1 – Abrasion with scratch measuring 1.5 x 1 cm,
red in color, on the dorsum of the nose tip.

Injury No. 2 – abrasion with scratch around the mouth and
lips, maximum 1 cm, on the left side of the
mouth, minimum width 0.5 to 0.8 cm, red in
color. Internal examination of the mouth
revealed red abrasions on gums of the both
sides. Blood oozed from the tip of the tongue.

Injury No. 3 – Abrasion with scratch measuring 2 x 1 cm, red
in color, on the left cheek, extending 1.5 cm
from the left side of the mouth to the left side of
the face.

Further, she stated that no fractures were observed on external
palpation. All these injuries were ante-mortem, and the injury mentioned

Page 28 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

in column no. 17 of the post-mortem note, were caused by pressing the
mouth and nose, and the injury mentioned in column no. 15 of the post-
mortem note were ante-mortem and occurred due to penetration in the
vaginal canal. All injuries were ante-mortem and recent.

In her further examination-in-chief, the doctor stated that no injury
or fracture was observed in the head during internal examination. The
dura mater of the brain was intact. The brain was decomposed and soft,
and was transformed into a grey and white paste-like substance. The
throat was decomposed and soft on internal examination, with no injuries
or fluid discharge. The chest was soft and decomposing, with nothing
unusual. Both lungs were soft and decomposing. The heart was soft,
flabby, and decomposed. All four chambers of the heart were empty.

Further, the doctor stated that the peritoneum, cavity, oral cavity,
teeth, tongue, pharynx, and esophagus were soft and decomposing. The
stomach was empty. The mucosa was soft, flabby, and decomposing. The
stomach emitted decomposition odour and no other abnormal odour was
there. A yellowish paste-like substance was present in the small intestine.
The mucosa of the intestines was soft and decomposed, and there was no
other abnormal odour except that of decomposition. The large intestine
contained fecal matter and gas. The gallbladder, pancreas, spleen, ureter,
and genitalia were soft and decomposed. The urinary bladder was empty.

In further examination-in-chief, the witness stated that superficial
vaginal swabs and slides, vaginal introitus swabs and slides, deep vaginal
swabs and slides, and anal swabs and slides were taken from the corpse
and handed over in a sealed condition to the police officer present for
FSL examination. From this corpse, nail clippings of the left and right

Page 29 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

hands were taken for DNA containing biological substances; molar teeth
were taken for blood group and cross-matching, and these were handed
over in a sealed condition to the police personnel for FSL examination.
For chemical analysis, a part of stomach and intestine, a piece of liver,
and both kidneys were placed in a glass jar with saline water for
preservation and handed over in a sealed condition to the arriving police
personnel. There was no injury or fracture in the spinal cord.

This medical witness further stated that, based on the post-mortem
conducted by both of the doctors, they have given an opinion that the
death of this female child had occurred 36 to 72 hours prior to the
commencement of the P.M. Upon examination of the private parts,
namely the vagina and anus of this corpse, considering the external and
internal injuries observed therein as well as the abrasion injuries found on
the body, it appeared that forcible sexual intercourse was made with the
victim child before death. According to the opinion of both of the doctors,
the cause of death of the person of this corpse was due to asphyxia
resulting from the pressing of the mouth and nose.

Further, this witness stated that if a person has forcible physical
relations with a young female child aged two to three years, such injuries
can occur which the child cannot bear, and death can occur in the
ordinary course of nature due to such injuries resulting from asphyxia by
pressing the mouth and nose. Among the injuries mentioned in columns
No. 15 and 17 of the P.M. note, the injury in column No. 15 where the
child’s intestines have come out, is an injury caused by a male adult
performing sexual intercourse by force; likewise, the injury shown on the
nose in injury No. 01 of column No. 17 is an injury that can be caused by
another person pressing the child’s mouth and nose with hands. The

Page 30 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

injury shown in injury No. 02 can also be caused by pressing the mouth.

Upon looking at both hands of the accused present in the Court,
this doctor stated that this accused, using one or both hands, can cause the
death of the victim by pressing her nose and mouth.

In the cross-examination, she stated that she had read the police
yadi. She admitted that the inquest panchnama was also provided along
with the said police yadi, and that she had read it. She denied the fact that
the post-mortem was conducted according to the police yadi. She denied
that the abrasions mentioned in column no. 17 could have been occurred
when children play and scratch each other’s nails. She denied that these
injuries could have been caused by the child herself. She admitted that
their post-mortem note does not mention any hand marks on the neck
region. She denied that the abrasions on the body of the victim were
ordinary injuries. Further, she stated that no sample of the skin from the
neck region of the victim was collected. She admitted that bleeding from
the nose can occur due to rupture of nostril. In further cross-examination,
she denied that the said post-mortem examination was conducted by the
assistant staff with them. Moreover, she stated that Wardboy Shashikant
was also present with them during the post-mortem examination. She
admitted that in the post-mortem room, no one else was present except
the three of them. She denied the fact that Dr. Modi conducted the post-
mortem alone. She admitted that prior to the post-mortem, some papers
were prepared by them. Further, she stated that the cause of death was not
due to accidental pressing of the nose and mouth but due to deliberately
pressing the nose and mouth. In cross-examination, she denied the fact
that she cannot say whether the rape on the victim was committed before
or after death. She denied the fact that injuries were noted in the post-

Page 31 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

mortem note merely on the basis of the police yadi even though the body
was decomposed and no injury could be determined. She admitted that
penetration in the vaginal region of the victim could have occurred for
reasons other than sexual intercourse. She admitted that she cannot say
with certainty that the present accused caused the death of the victim. She
denied the fact that the victim could have died due to asphyxia from
falling or colliding while playing. She denied that the injuries on the body
of the victim could have been caused by an animal after she became
unconscious. She denied that she prepared the papers merely based on
reading of the police yadi, and that she gives a false deposition today in
the Court at behest of the police.

Thus, considering the deposition of the said doctor and the
documents she has produced, it is clearly established that the deceased
victim child was forcibly and extremely brutally raped before death, and
thereafter her mouth and nose were pressed, causing asphyxia which
resulted in her death.

21. Prosecution Witness No. 24 Dr. Umesh Baldevbhai Chaudhari has
been examined at Exhibit-84. Upon considering his deposition and the
documents produced by him at Exhibits-85 to 92, it is proved that blood
samples were collected for DNA profiling of the accused of the present
case, the complainant, and the complainant’s wife. In the cross-
examination conducted by the defence, no material fact emerges. It is also
not proved that there was any tampering with the said samples.

Page 32 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

PANCH WITNESS :-

22. PW 3 - Maheshbhai Chhaganbhai Rabari is examined at Exhibit –
20. He is employed as a clerk in the Assessment Department of Surat
Municipal Corporation. He supports the panchnama of the accused’s
physical condition produced at Exhibit - 21, the panchnama of siezure of
the clothes worn at the time of the incident, and the panchnama of the
seized mobile phone. He identifies another panch, Jayeshkumar, who was
with him. He identifies his and Jayeshkumar’s signatures on the panch
slips of Muddamal Article No.10 to 13 produced at Exhibit – 22 to 24. In
his examination-in-chief, this witness stated that both legs of the accused
had abrasion marks. He identifies the accused before the Court.

During cross-examination no contradictions appear and nothing
adverse to the case of prosecution has come on record.

23. PW 6 - Vinodkumar Kamalaprasad Yadav is examined at
Exhibit-33. He identifies his and another panch, Amitbhai’s, signatures in
the panchnama of the crime scene, exhibited at serial no. 34, and in the
panch slips of the muddamal article No. 2 to 7, exhibited at Exhibit nos.
35 to 39. During examination-in-chief, the first page of the pocket diary
of Article No.5 is shown to him, he stated that the word “Guddu” is
written in Hindi, which is produced at Exhibit no. 37. Photographs of the
crime scene have been produced at Exhibit no. 40. During cross-
examination, the said witness denies that this panchnama was not
prepared in his presence. He denied that it did not happen that any article
was seized in their presence from the place of the offence after drawing
the panchnama. He denied that he did not dictate the panchnama and he

Page 33 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

signed the panchnama prepared by the police. He denies that he gave
false deposition at the behest of the police. He further stated that he was
called by PSI Singrakhiya to be a panch witness. He denies that no one
else was with him at that time. He stated that he remained at the place of
the panchnama for approximately one to one and a half hours. He denies
that he did not go anywhere, and he signed the panchnama prepared at the
police station.

Having regard to the deposition of the aforesaid panch witness, it is
proved that on 07.11.2021 the said panch witness was called to an open
bush-covered area situated behind Armor Dyeing Mill, Ambedkar Chowk
Road, Pandesara G.I.D.C., and from there muddamal Articles Nos. 2 and
3, being blood-stained soil and sample soil, Article No. 4 being a ball
pen, Article No. 5 being a pocket diary, Article No. 6 being a jeans pant,
and Article No.7 being an underwear were seized. No material
contradiction is brought on record during the cross-examination
conducted by the defence.

24. PW 7 - Yogesh Bholenath Mishra is examined at Exhibit 41. In his
deposition during examination-in-chief, he supports the seizure
panchnama of the clothes and other articles taken into possession from
the dead body of the deceased victim child at the time of post-mortem, as
produced at Exhibit 42, which were handed over to the police. Article No.
8, (01) a white-coloured, short-sleeved, round-neck T-shirt emitting foul
smell and smeared with human bodily fluids, having a Mickey Mouse
cartoon design on the front portion; (02) a black-coloured waist thread

Page 34 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

worn around the waist, fitted with a bell-like silver-coloured metal
ornament, cowrie shell and a saffron-coloured bead; (03) one anklet of
silver-like metal worn on the leg; (04) one red-coloured beads necklace;
(05) a black-coloured thread worn around the neck having a black
pendant and an amulet. He identifies them as the same which were seized
in his presence. He identifies his signature and the signature of the other
panch, Malkhan, on the panch slips at Exhibits 43 and 44.

During cross-examination by the defence, he stated that while he
was passing from near the police station, the police called him. He admits
that he does not know how to read or write Gujarati. It is not true that no
muddamal was seized in his presence. It is not true that no one else was
present when he signed. He denied that except the police, no one else was
present with him. He admits that it did not happen that he dictated and the
police wrote it down. He denied that his signature was obtained on blank
papers or slips. He denied that any panchnama was drawn in his presence.

Thus, considering the aforesaid deposition of this panch witness, it
is proved that on 07/11/2021 ASI Hareshbhai Sonvanabhai of Pandesara
Police Station was handed over the clothes and other articles of the
victim, which were removed from the dead body by the Medical Officer
at the time of post-mortem, and that the said articles were brought to the
police station and produced. No contradiction appeared in the cross-
examination conducted by the defence.

25. Prosecution Witness No.8-Hareshkumar Chaudhary has been

Page 35 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

examined at Exhibit-45. Evidence of this witness corroborates the
reconstruction panchnama at Exhibit 46 and stated that as per the
videography contained in the pen drive at Exhibit 29, a panchnama of the
videography was prepared, and he identifies the accused. However, it is
not proved that any article was recovered from the place shown by the
accused during this panchnama. Further, the panchnama records a
confession-statement made by the accused before the police when he was
in police custody, and therefore, in view of Section 26 of the Evidence
Act, such panchnama is not admissible in evidence.

26. Prosecution Witness No. 9-Kaushikkumar Dilipkumar Assari has
been examined at Exhibit 47. Evidence of this witness corroborates the
panchnama of the gait analysis of the accused produced at Exhibit 48, as
well as the fact that the CCTV camera footage was taken by the Head
Constable in a pen drive. Further, He corroborated the said fact. When
muddamal Article No. 16, the pen drive, was played on a laptop and the
footage therein was shown, he identified that the same had been seized in
his presence and identified his signature and the signature of the other
panch, Vijaybhai, on the panch slip at Exhibit 49. The said muddamal
Article No. 16 was assigned Exhibit 50. He identifies the accused before
the Court. During cross-examination by the defence, he stated that they
received a call from the police at about 6:00 p.m. The police staff
included P.I. A.P. Chaudhary and F.S.L. Officer V.K. Raval. He stated
that he was employed in the Forest Department. He admits that he acted
as panch witness at the instance of his superior officer. He admits that the
number of the vehicle in which he had travelled with the police is not
mentioned in the panchnama. He denied that except the police no other

Page 36 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

persons were present with them. He denies that consent of the house
owner was not obtained for taking the CCTV footage. He denies that the
police prepared the panchnama by intimidating the accused and making
him stand and walk accordingly. He denies that, being a government
servant, he was deposing falsely out of fear that inquiry would be
initiated against him if he does not corroborate the panchnama.

Thus, considering the entire evidence of this panch witness, it is
proved that on 11.11.2021 the accused was brought on the internal road
of Vadod Bapunagar Society, made to walk while carrying a child on his
shoulder, and that copies of footage from two CCTV cameras installed
outside the house near Plot No. 351 were taken in the pen drive at Exhibit
50. In the cross-examination conducted by the defence, it is not proved
that the accused was not brought to this place or that the gait analysis was
not conducted.

27. Prosecution Witness No. 10-Vimalkumar Mithalal Shah, was
examined at Exhibit 51. In his evidence, he supports the panchnama of
seizure of CCTV camera footage of different locations produced at
Exhibit 52, which were produced by Head Constable Harpalsinh Dipsinh
and seized for the purpose of investigation, and he identifies his signature
thereon. He also supports that another panch, Bharatkumar, was present
with him. When the pen drive is played on a laptop and shown to him, he
stated that a man is seen carrying a girl child of about two and a half
years on his shoulder. The said pen drive is marked at Exhibit 53, and the
panch slip affixed thereon is marked at Exhibit 54, on which the witness

Page 37 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

identifies his signature and that of the other panch. In his further
Examination-in-chief, the witness stated that in the CCTV footage shown
to him in the pen drive, although a man is seen carrying the victim child
on his shoulder, the face of the said person is not clearly visible. During
cross-examination by the defence, he admits that in the CCTV footage
only the backside of the person is visible and that the front portion or face
is not visible. He also admits that upon considering the CCTV footage, he
is unable to identify who the person is.

Thus, considering the evidence of this panch witness, it is proved
that the pen drive at Exhibit 53 was seized in his presence.

Evidence of the Complainant :-

28. Prosecution Witness No.12-Dev Prakash Ganori Mistry is
examined at Exhibit 59, who is the complainant and the father of the
deceased victim. In his evidence, he stated that and corroborate his
complaint at Exhibit 60 and identifies his signature thereon. He further
stated that after lodging the complaint, on 06.11.2021, he was called to
Pandesara Police Station, where the PSI showed him on a computer the
CCTV video footage of Patel Repairing and Electronics located in
Krishnanagar Society and the CCTV cameras installed outside Plot No.
351, Bapunagar Society. In the CCTV footage of the shop named Patel
Repairing and Electronics, a person was seen at night carrying a small
child on his shoulder and proceeding towards Bapunagar. As only the
back portion of the person was visible in the said footage, his identity
could not be ascertained, and as the face of the child carried on his
shoulder was also not visible, the identity of the child could not be

Page 38 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

established. However, out of the two CCTV cameras installed outside
Plot No. 351 of Bapunagar Society, in one camera, the said person was
seen approaching from the front while carrying the child on his shoulder.
The said person had worn blue-coloured pants and a white-coloured shirt.
His face was not clearly visible, and therefore his identity could not be
established. However, the child carried on his shoulder had worn blue-
coloured pants and a white T-shirt with black designs, which were the
same clothes worn by his victim daughter at the time she went missing,
and therefore he identified the child as my deceased victim daughter.

He further stated that thereafter he was called to Pandesara Police
Station by the Police Inspector, and that the police carried out
investigation at various places regarding the person seen in the CCTV
footage and his victim daughter. He further stated that on 07.11.2021,
while he was at his residence, he came to know that the dead body of a
girl child had been found from a bushy area behind Armor Dyeing Mill,
and as the dead body was in a decomposed condition, its identity could
not be established. When he was preparing to go to see the dead body,
police personnel came to his house and informed him that a dead body of
a girl child had been found and taken to the Civil Hospital, and that he
had to come to the Civil Hospital for identification. Thereafter, him and
his wife went along with police personnel to New Civil Hospital, Surat,
where the police showed them the decomposed dead body of a girl child
kept in the post-mortem room. As the dead body was highly decomposed,
identification was not possible; however, on the basis of the T-shirt worn
by the child, the necklace worn around the neck, the black-coloured
thread, and the silver anklet worn on the left leg, they identified the dead
body as their victim daughter. He further stated that the private parts of

Page 39 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

his victim daughter were swollen and intestines had come out, and that
her face was decomposed. After completion of the post-mortem, the
police handed over the custody of the dead body to them for performing
the last rites. After the post-mortem of the dead body, it came to their
knowledge, as informed by the police, that someone had committed
sexual assault upon her and caused her death by suffocating her by
pressing her mouth and nose.

Further, the complainant stated in his evidence that he does not
know the accused Guddukumar Madhesh Yadav. He came to know, after
the police arrested the accused, that the said accused Guddukumar Yadav
was residing on rent on the upper floor of our room. The police informed
that the said accused Guddukumar had kidnapped his victim daughter,
committed sexual assault upon her, and murdered her. The complainant
further stated that blood samples of himself and his wife were given for
DNA test, and he identifies his signature and thumb impression as well as
those of his wife on the MLC papers at Marks 59/1 and 59/2. He stated
that he was present at the time when the pen drive containing CCTV
footage was brought and produced and a panchnama thereof was
prepared, and that he had seen the footage. Further, upon being shown
Muddamal Article No. 6 – pant, Article No. 7 – underwear, Article No. 8
– T-shirt, Article No. 9 – black-coloured thread having silver-like
metallic ghughri, kodi and saffron-coloured bead, as well as one silver
anklet worn on the foot, one necklace of red beads, and a black-coloured
thread worn around the neck having a black pendant and tabeez, he stated
that all these articles and clothes belonged to his victim daughter. Upon
being shown photograph No. 14 kept with the inquest panchnama, the
complainant stated that the said photographs are of his victim daughter.

Page 40 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

The complainant was cross-examined by the defence, wherein he
stated that he was engaged in dyeing and printing work and he came to
Surat five to six years ago. He admits that he came to Surat for labour
work. He admits that his marriage was solemnized in the year 2017 and
that the marriage took place in Bihar. He admits that at the time when his
victim daughter went missing, he had gone to watch a DJ program. He
admits that he came to know that the accused was residing above our
room only on being told by the police. He admits that he has been
residing at his present place for the last four years. He admits that from
the time he has been residing there, he has never seen the present
accused. He denies the existence of any prior altercation with the
accused. He admits that he did not know who had abducted his victim
daughter. He stated that he came to know about his daughter got missing
at about 9:00 p.m.. He stated that the police station is situated at a
distance of about one kilometer from his house. He admits that when he
went to the police station, his room owner and friends accompanied him.
He admits that he has not named any person as a suspect in his complaint.
He admits that he does not know how to read or write Gujarati. He admits
that he was called to the police station two to three days after lodging the
complaint. He admits that he identified the child in the CCTV footage on
the basis of the clothes worn by the girl, and inferred that she was his
victim daughter. He admits that in all the CCTV footages shown to him,
the face of the accused as well as the face of the girl was not clearly
visible. He admits that he came to know about the accused on being
informed by the police. He admits that he saw the accused for the first
time when the police showed him the accused at the police station, and
that he had never seen him earlier. He admits that he has no personal

Page 41 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

knowledge regarding the sexual assault and murder of his victim
daughter. He admits that he came to know all the facts only as informed
by the police.

Considering the aforesaid evidence of complainant, it emerges that,
on the basis of the clothes worn on the body of the child visible in the
CCTV camera installed outside Plot No. 351 of Bapunagar Society, the
complainant identified the said child as his victim daughter. Thereafter,
when the complainant went to see the dead body of the child in the post-
mortem room of the New Civil Hospital, he identified the said dead body
as that of his victim daughter on the basis of the clothes and articles found
on the body. The description of the clothes worn by the victim girl as
seen in the CCTV camera, as well as the clothes recovered from the dead
body, has also been given by the complainant in the complaint. The
complaint regarding the disappearance of the victim was lodged on
05/11/2021, whereas the dead body of the victim was recovered on
07/11/2021. Therefore, the fact that the description in the complaint was
written after seeing the dead body is not proved. It is also not proved that,
prior to the incident, the complainant had any quarrel or animosity with
the accused and due to such reason, the accused has been falsely
implicated. Further, the Medical Officer collected the molar tooth from
the dead body and blood samples of the complainant and his wife were
taken for DNA testing. The FSL opinion in this regard has been produced
at Exhibit-149, wherein it is proved that the DNA profiles of the tooth
recovered from the dead body matched with the DNA profiles of the
complainant and his wife, thereby establishing that the biological parents
of the deceased child are the complainant and his wife.

Thus, it is proved beyond doubt that the dead body recovered from

Page 42 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

the place of occurrence was that of the complainant’s victim daughter.
The DNA report is admissible in evidence under Section 45 of the
Evidence Act and Section 293 of the CrPC. Though the defence had
raised no objection so as to summon the expert who prepared the DNA
profile for cross-examination. Hence, the said report is liable to be
considered in evidence. Although the accused was residing as a tenant in
the room situated on the upper portion of the complainant’s house, the
complainant had never seen him earlier. The complainant has stated that
he came to know, as told by the police, that the present accused had
kidnapped his victim daughter, committed rape upon her and murdered
her. The complainant has not mentioned the name of the accused in his
complaint or in his further statement. Thus, from the lodging of the
complaint till the recovery of the dead body of the victim child, the fact
that the present accused kidnapped the victim child, took her away,
committed rape upon her and caused her death is known only on the basis
of hearsay. It is also not proved that there was any delay on the part of the
complainant in lodging the complaint.

Evidence of Independent Witness:-

29. Prosecution Witness No. 11-Pankaj Lalluram Shahu was examined
at Exhibit 55. In his deposition, he stated that he resides with his family at
Plot No. 381, Bapunagar, behind Kailas Cinema, Vadodgam, Taluka
Choriyasi, Surat, and that he carries on the business of groceries and food
grains on the ground floor of his house. He further stated that there are
two small shops adjacent to his shop, one of which carries on gas refilling
business and the other deals in the sale of mobile accessories. He stated

Page 43 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

that two CCTV cameras facing north-south are installed outside his shop,
and that the DVR is kept in the gas refilling shop. He further stated that
he has studied up to B.Com. at G.M. Pandya College, Bhestan, and
therefore he is able to read and write Gujarati and Hindi. The witness
further stated that on 06.11.2021, late at night, when he was sleeping at
his residence, Head Constable Harpalsinh Dipsinh of Pandesara Police
Station came to his house and got opened his shop and checked the
CCTV cameras. Upon checking the footage of Camera No. 01 between
8:59:30 p.m. to 9:00:01 p.m. on 04.11.2021, a person worn a white-
coloured shirt and blue-coloured pants was seen walking while carrying a
small child on his shoulder in a sleeping condition. Further, in Camera
No. 02 between 8:59:30 p.m. to 9:00:02 p.m., the said person was seen
walking while carrying a small child on his shoulder, coming from the
side of Krishnanagar Society. In the said video footage, the child was
seen wearing a white-coloured T-shirt and blue-coloured pants. As the
witness had no knowledge regarding copying of footage, Head Constable
Harpalsinh copied the footage into his pen drive, and the witness issued a
certificate stating that no tampering had been done. Thereafter, the
accused was again brought for the purpose of observing his walk,
appearance, and gait analysis, which was also recorded in the witness’s
CCTV cameras, and the said footage was also handed over to the police.
He further issued certificates stating that no tampering was done, and he
identifies his signatures on Exhibits 56 and 57. When the pen drives at
Exhibits 50 and 53 were played on a laptop and shown to him, he
identified the footage therein as the copied footage of his CCTV cameras.

During cross-examination by the defence, he admits that his house

Page 44 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

and shop are located at different places. He further stated that the police
first came to him at around 12:00 midnight. He denies that no CCTV
footage was seized in his presence. He denies that he falsely stated about
providing footage to assist the police despite his cameras being non-
functional. He denies that he merely made sign a pre-written certificate
brought by the police and that he had no other knowledge thereof. He
admits that he had no knowledge about Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.

Thus, considering the deposition of this witness, it is proved that
the CCTV footage installed outside the witness’s shop was copied into a
pen drive by Head Constable Harpalsinh, and that the witness issued a
certificate in that regard. No sort of material is surfaced to show that the
said CCTV footage was tampered with. When the accused was again
brought for gait analysis, the CCTV footage of this witness was once
again seized in the presence of the FSL officer, and therefore no doubt
can be raised regarding the same. The defence has also failed to bring on
record or prove any contrary fact showing tampering of the CCTV
footage.

30. PW No.21 – Bharat Devidas Patel, who produced the said
notebook, has been examined at Exhibit-80. In his deposition, he has
supported the fact that the present accused, Guddu Yadav, was working
as a Marker man at Armor dyeing Mill. He has identified his own
handwriting in the notebook at Exhibit-67. He has stated that the diary at
Exhibit-37 belonged to accused Guddu and that, in his presence, accused
Guddu used to make entries regarding his work. He has also identified the

Page 45 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

accused in Court. In the cross-examination conducted by the defence, he
has admitted that the diary which he refers to as Guddu’s diary is easily
available in the market. He has further stated that, in their department,
entries regarding grey material received from outside parties are made on
computer. However, he has denied that work entries of every worker are
made on computer. He stated that it is not true that at the instance of the
police, false evidence has been created and that he is giving false
deposition at the instance of the police despite the fact that accused
Guddu Yadav was not working with them. He has admitted that no
documentary proof has been produced to show that salary was credited
every month in Guddu’s bank account. He has denied having knowledge
about the language in which Guddu used to make entries.

Thus, from the deposition of this witness, it has been identified and
shown that the accused was employed as a Marker Man in Armor Dyeing
Mill and that he used to maintain a record of the work performed by him
in his pocket diary, which pocket diary is the same diary recovered from
the scene of offence at Exhibit-37, and the same has been identified by
this witness. The entries regarding the work of the accused made in this
pocket diary, when compared with the entries of the work of accused
recorded in the notebook at Exhibit-67, were found to be corresponding,
and accordingly the witness has identified the same as relating to such
work. Hence, by the evidence of this witness, it stands proved that the
diary recovered from the scene of offence belongs to the accused.

31. Prosecution Witness No. 22-Pankaj Lalataprasad Mishra has been

Page 46 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

examined at Exhibit-81. This witness has stated that the accused Guddu
used to come to his tea and snacks stall for tea and snacks on credit and
that he used to make entries in the diary maintained by him regarding the
same. He has further stated that in the diary at Exhibit-37, the name
“Guddu Kumar” is written in Hindi and the figures written below the
same are in his own handwriting, and that the said diary was returned by
him to the accused Guddu Kumar. He has identified the accused before
the Court. In the cross-examination conducted by the defence, he has
stated that he has known Guddu Kumar for the last eight to ten years. He
admits that the diary at Exhibit-37 does not bear his signature. He denies
that there is no writing in the said diary except figures, and denies that no
entries were made in the diary as stated by him and that a false diary has
been fabricated at the instance of the police. Upon considering the
deposition of this witness, it is proved that the pocket diary recovered
from the scene of offence at Exhibit-37 belongs to the accused.

32. Prosecution Witness No. 26-Bhagwandas Ramlal Vishwakarma
has examined at Exhibits-96. In his deposition, he has stated that during
the investigation, he was working as a Marker Man in the Grey Folding
Department of Armor Dyeing Mill and that the accused Guddu Kumar
was also working along with him as a Marker Man. This witness has
further stated that he used to make entries of the work assigned to him in
his diary, and similarly other workers also used to make entries in their
respective diaries. He has stated that he had known the accused Guddu
for about one and a half months. He has further stated that from
04/11/2021 to 12/11/2021, the mill was closed due to the Diwali festival.
This witness has also identified that the diary at Exhibit-37 belongs to

Page 47 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

Guddu and has also identified the accused. In the cross-examination, he
admits that he and Guddu are good friends. He denies that he and Guddu
used to come and go together wherever they went. He admits that his
native place is different from that of Guddu. He denies that at the instance
of the police he has stated and identified that Guddu used to write in the
diary. Thus, considering the evidence of this witness also, it is proved
beyond doubt that the diary at Exhibit-37 recovered from the scene of
offence belongs to the accused. The defence has raised a contention that
the opinion of a handwriting expert had not been obtained in respect of
the handwriting in the diary. However, the aforesaid witnesses have
supported the fact that the accused used to write entries himself in the
diary at Exhibit-37 and the witnesses have identified the figures relating
to tea and snacks in the diary. Thus, it is proved beyond doubt that the
diary at Exhibit-37 belongs to the accused.

33. Prosecution Witness No. 27 - Uditnarayan Maiyaji Sharma has
been examined at Exhibits-97. He is a trader of pan, gutkha and ball pens,
and he has identified the accused Guddu Yadav of this case as a person
who used to come to his shop to purchase tobacco, gutkha, pan and ball
pens, and has identified that the ball pen at Muddamal Article No. 4 was
purchased by Guddu from his shop for rupees three.

In the cross-examination, he admits that there is no specific mark
on the ball pen at Muddamal Article No. 4. He admits that such ball pens
may also be available at other places. He stated that it not true that Guddu
did not come to him to purchase the ball pen or that he did not give it to

Page 48 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

him and that he is giving false deposition at the instance of the police. He
admits that many persons come to his shop to purchase ball pens. Thus,
considering the evidence of this witness, it is proved beyond doubt by his
evidence that the ball pen recovered from the scene of offence as
Muddamal Article No. 4 belongs to the accused Guddu Madhesh Yadav.

34. Prosecution Witness No. 15-Gitadevi Rakeshkumar Kushwaha has
been examined at Exhibits-68. In her examination-in-chief, she has stated
that she is residing on rent along with her husband and children in House
No. 352, Bapunagar Society, in the room of Lalan Shukla, and that at a
short distance from her residence, her husband runs a handcart and carries
on the business of selling vegetables, and that she also assists her husband
in the business of selling vegetables. She has further stated in her
examination-in-chief that Bhagwati Nagar Vadod, Gokuldham is situated
very close to their residence. On 04/11/2021, as it was the Diwali festival,
she had placed a cot in front of her house and was selling coconuts,
garlands and crackers for small children, etc., and at that time, at about
9:15 p.m., she saw a man carrying a small girl on his shoulder passing in
front of her and walking towards the main road. The girl had worn a
white coloured T-shirt on the upper part of her body and blue coloured
pants on the lower part. The man was of medium build and appeared
stout. He had worn a white coloured shirt and blue coloured pants. She
has further stated that if the man whom she had seen carrying the girl on
his shoulder is present in the Court today, she would be able to identify
him, and upon seeing the accused, she has identified him as the same
person whom she had seen carrying the girl on his shoulder. She has also
stated that her statement was recorded by the police on 05/11/2021. She

Page 49 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

has further supported the fact that on 09/11/2021 she had identified the
accused in the identification parade.

In the cross-examination, she admits that since they are engaged in
the business of selling vegetables, many persons known as well as
unknown come to them. She has further stated that at that time there were
customers, but fewer persons. She had denied that she was called to the
police station and shown the accused who is present in Court today. She
has denied that as stated by her, she had not actually seen any man taking
a girl, but due to many customers being present, the police showed her
photographs and, in order to collect evidence and pressurize her to give
deposition as a witness, she gave her statement accordingly. She has
denied that she was called by the police on 09.11.2021. She admits that
prior to the identification parade she had seen the accused. The witness
voluntarily stated that she had seen the man taking the victim girl. She
denies that since the police had shown her the accused at the police
station, she identified him in the identification parade. She further denied
that though she had not identified the accused and though no proceedings
were carried out in her presence, she is giving false deposition.

Considering the deposition of this witness, her statement was
recorded by the police on 05/11/2021 prior to the arrest of the accused,
and prior to the recovery of the dead body of the victim girl and therefore,
the fact that her statement was recorded as a result of any arrangement
made later on to establish the identity of the accused does not stand
proved. The fact that this witness identified the accused in the
identification parade on 09/11/2021 is also clearly proved. Thus, from the

Page 50 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

evidence of this witness, it is proved that on 04/11/2021 between 9:00
p.m. and 9:15 p.m., when the victim went missing, she was accompanied
by the accused, and thereafter she was found dead at the scene of offence,
and therefore, the theory of “last seen together” is proved by the
deposition of this witness.

35. Prosecution Witness No. 17-Bimlesh Muneshwar Yadav was
examined at Exhibits-71. In his deposition, during examination-in-chief,
he has stated that on 05/11/2021 the police came to him and, upon
showing him a photograph of the victim girl, made inquiries. He stated to
the police that on 04/11/2021, as it was a Diwali holiday, he was present
in his room, and at about 7:30 p.m. Since DJ music was being played in
the society at a short distance ahead of his building went there to watch,
and as people were dancing, he stood there to watch them. At about 8:30
p.m., while returning from there towards his room, he saw an unknown
man had lifted the complainant’s victim daughter, who was residing
below his room, and carrying her on his shoulder while walking towards
Krishna Nagar. He thought that the man might be some relative and
therefore did not make any inquiry. Thereafter, he went upstairs to the
room, had dinner, and went to sleep at about 10:00 p.m. On the next day
morning at about 9:00 a.m., when he came down from the room, upon
seeing everyone searching, he came to know that the complainant’s
victim daughter had gone missing. The man whom he had seen carrying
the victim girl on his shoulder had abducted her. That man has worn a
white coloured shirt and was stoutly built. Further, in his examination-in-
chief, the witness has stated that he identified the accused in the
identification parade and has also identified the accused before the Court,

Page 51 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

and that he had given his statement before the Court under Section-164 of
the Cr.P.C., and he has identified his signature on his statement at
Exhibit-72.

Witness has been cross-examined by the other side however no
material contradiction was found therefrom, and the fact that he identified
the accused at the instance of the police is not proved. Thus, from the
deposition of this witness also, the fact that the accused and the victim
girl were last seen together is proved.

36. Prosecution Witness No. 18-Santosh Arvind Patel has examined at
Exhibits-73. In his deposition, he has stated that he handed over the
footage of the CCTV camera installed outside his shop to Head Constable
Harpalsingh and issued a certificate in that regard, and he has identified
his signature on the same at Exhibit-74. In the cross-examination
conducted by the defence, he admits that his residence and shop are
situated at different places. He further stated that the police came to him
for the first time at about 12:00 midnight. He denied that no CCTV
footage was seized in his presence. He denied that though his camera was
not functioning, he has falsely stated that he gave footage to help the
police. It is not true that he merely signed a prepared certificate brought
by the police in writing and knowing nothing else. He admits that he has
no knowledge regarding Section-65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus,
from the deposition of this witness, it is proved that on 04/11/2021 at
about 9:13:56 p.m., the accused was walking while carrying the victim
girl on his shoulder towards Bapunagar.

Page 52 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

37. Prosecution Witness No. 19-Lucky Vijay Shah has been examined
at Exhibits-75. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that, the accused
purchased a memory card from his shop, and the said memory card has
been produced at Exhibit-76. In the cross-examination nothing contrary
has come on record. Thus, considering the deposition of this witness, it is
proved that the present accused Guddu Kumar purchased a memory card
for Rs.300/- and that the said memory card contained Bhojpuri songs and
porn video clips.

38. Prosecution Witness No. 23-Ashok Mithilesh Yadav has been
examined at Exhibits-82. In his deposition, he has stated that for the last
six years he has been residing alone on rent in the room of Omprakash
Pandey at Shastrinagar, Plot No.442, third floor, Room No.6, at
Vadodgam, Pandesara, Surat. He has further stated that the present
accused Guddu Yadav came to his room on the night of 04/11/2021 at
about 10:30 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. and told him that he had a quarrel with his
landlord and was asked to vacate the room, and therefore he requested to
stay in the witness’s room till he found another room. As the witness had
given consent, it is proved that the accused stayed there from the night of
04/11/2021 from about 10:30 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. till 06/11/2021. On
07/11/2021, Guddu Kumar Yadav telephoned and stated that he had
received a call from Pankaj, who was residing with him, and therefore he
had to go to the room, and accordingly he went to Bhagwati Nagar in the
evening. On 10/11/2021, he came to know about the incident through the
police. This witness has identified the accused before the Court. In the
cross-examination, he denies that he had any quarrel with Guddu Kumar
at his native place in past. He denies that he owns any land at native

Page 53 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

place. He denies that due to any dispute regarding ancestral property with
the accused, he is giving false deposition in order to falsely implicate
him.

39. Prosecution Witness No. 25 Pankaj Pitambar Yadav has been
examined at Exhibit-95. Considering the deposition of this witness who
has been cross-examined at length, it is proved that till about 8:30 p.m. on
04/11/2021, the accused Guddu was present in the room with this
witness, and thereafter he did not return to the room, and that he returned
to the room only on the evening of 07/11/2021 between about 4:30 p.m.
and 5:00 p.m. It is proved from the deposition of this witness that the
diary at Exhibit-37 recovered from the scene of offence belonged to the
accused. Thus, it is proved that after committing the offence, due to fear
of being apprehended, the accused did not return to the room where he
was residing with this witness. The conduct of the accused is relevant
under Section-8 of the Evidence Act. This witness is neither a relative nor
a friend of the complainant, whereas he belongs to the same village as the
accused and is his relative. Therefore, there is no reason for him to give
false evidence.

40. Prosecution Witness No. 28, Deepak Anil Sharma was examined at
Exhibit-98. Considering the evidence of this witness who has been cross-
examined at length, it is proved that the accused was residing as a tenant
along with witness Pankaj Kumar in the rented premises belonging to this
witness, and that the complainant was residing as a tenant in the premises
belonging to this witness’s brother. It is also proved that the complainant

Page 54 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

and this witness jointly searched for the complainant’s victim daughter,
and upon failing to find her, went together to the police station, where a
missing complaint was lodged.

41. Prosecution Witness No. 33-Shivlubhai Somalbhai Gavit,
Executive Magistrate is examined at Exhibit-110. From the evidence of
this witness, the panchnama of the identification parade at Exhibit-111
stands proved. The accused has been identified before the Court. No
further material contradictions have emerged in further cross-
examination. Thus, from the evidence of this witness, it is proved that the
accused was identified by witnesses Gitadevi Rakeshkumar Kushwah,
Bimlesh Muneshwar Yadav, and Pushkarlal Bhagullal Mewada.
Although the identification parade panchnama by itself is not substantive
evidence, on the basis of CCTV footage and gait analysis of the accused,
it is proved that the accused abducted the victim girl, committed rape
upon her and caused her death, and that the accused was last seen in the
company of the victim prior to the incident.

42. In light of the aforesaid re-appreciation of evidence adduced by the
prosecution and believed by the learned Special Court, the prosecution
has proved that the victim minor girl aged two and half years has been
raped by the accused and thereafter committed her murder which
constitutes an act falling under under Sections 363, 366, 302, 376(2)(j)(l),
376(3), 376(A), 376(AB), 342 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4,
5(i)(k)(m), 6, 8, 9(m), and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012.

Page 55 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

43. Now, the questions comes for consideration as to whether the case
on hand in light of the evidence produced by the prosecution and believed
by the learned Special Court falls under the category of ‘rarest of rare
case’ wherein the sentence of death penalty may be confirmed on account
of aggravating circumstances or any alternative punishment which
otherwise is of greater in degree due to having some mitigating
circumstances may be imposed?

Legal position / Case Law On the aspect of Awarding Sentence in
Rarest of Rare Case:-

44. The Supreme Court in the case of Machhi Singh (supra),
relying upon the guidelines drawn by the Apex Court in
Bachan Singh (supra) laid down the test on the individual facts
while pronouncing the sentence. In Paragraph Nos.37,38,39, the
Apex Court has observed as under:-

37. In this background the guidelines indicated in
Bachan Singh's case (supra) will have to be culled out and
applied to the facts of each individual case where the
question of imposing of death sentences arises. The following
propositions emerge from Bachan Singh's case:
(i) the extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted
except in gravest cases of extreme culpability;
(ii) Before opting for the death penalty the
circumstances of the 'offender' also require to be taken into
consideration alongwith the circumstances of the 'crime'.
(iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence
is an exception. In other words death sentence must be
imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an
altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the
relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, and
only provided the option to impose sentence of
imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised

Page 56 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime
and all the relevant circumstances.
(iv) A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating
circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the
mitigating circumstances has to be accorded full weightage
and a just balance has to be struck between the
aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the
option is exercised.

38. In order to apply these guidelines inter-alia the
following questions may be asked and answered:
(a) Is there something uncommon about the crime
which renders sentence of imprisonment for life
inadequate and calls for a death sentence?
(b) Are the circumstances of the crime such that
there is no alternative but to impose death sentence even
after according maximum weightage to the mitigating
circumstances which speak in favour of the offender?

39. If upon taking an overall global view of all the
circumstances in the light of the aforesaid proposition and
taking into account the answers to the questions posed here
in above, the circumstances of the case are such that death
sentence is warranted, the court would proceed to do so.”

45. In the case of Mofil Khan Versus State of Jharkhand
reported in (2015) 1 SCC 67, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
explained the meaning of “the rarest of rare case”. The
relevant portion of Paragraph No.64 is reproduced as under:-
“The rarest of the rare case” exits when an accused would
be a menace, threat and antithetical to harmony in the
society. Especially in cases where an accused does not act
on provocation, acting on the spur of the moment but
meticulously executes a deliberately planned crime in spite
of understanding the probable consequence of his act, the
death sentence may be the most appropriate punishment.”

Page 57 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

46. In the case of Haresh Mohandas Rajput Versus State of
Maharashtra reported in (2011) 12 SCC 56, the Apex Court
has emphasized the connotation “the rarest of the rare”. The
relevant portion of Paragraph No.56 is reproduced as under:-
“The rarest of the rare case comes when a convict
would be menace and threat to the harmonious and
peaceful coexistence of the society. The crime may be
heinous or brutal but may not be in the category of “the
rarest of the rare case.”

47. In the case of Santosh Kumar Versus State Through
C.B.I reported in (2010) 9 SCC 747, the Apex Court has
explained the philosophy behind “the rarest of the rare case”.
The relevant portion of in Paragraph No.98 is reproduced as
under:-
“Undoubtedly, the sentencing part is a difficult one and
often exercises the mind of the Court but where the
option is between a life sentence and a death sentence,
the options are indeed extremely limited and if the Court
itself feels some difficulty in awarding one or the other, it
is only appropriate that the lesser sentence should be
awarded. This is the underlying philosophy behind “the
rarest of the rare” principle.”

48. In the case of Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod
(supra), the Apex Court has held that it is now well settled that
as on today the broad principle is that the death sentence is to
be awarded only in exceptional cases. The Court deciding the
issue has accepted the view by one of the Judge whereby in a
similar case of rape and murder of a minor girl below the age
of 12 years, the Court has given weightage to the fact that the

Page 58 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

appellant was a young man only 27 years of age. It was
obligatory on the Trial Court to have given a finding as to a
possible rehabilitation and reformation and the possibility that
he could still become a useful member of the society in case
he was given a change to do so. The Apex Court while
relying upon the judgment of Ramraj Versus State of
Chhattisgarh reported in (2010) 1 SCC 573 and Mulla &
Another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2010) 3
SCC 508, has observed that the term “imprisonment for life”
which is found in Section 302 of the I.P.C, would mean
“imprisonment for the natural life” of the convict subject to
the powers of the President and the Governor under Articles
72 and 161 of the Constitution of India or of the State
Government under Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, however, converted the capital punishment into
the punishment for imprisonment of life. In Mulla's case
(supra), the Apex Court has said: “We are in complete
agreement with the above dictum of this Court. It is open to
the sentencing court to prescribe the length of incarceration.
This is especially true in cases where death sentence has
been replaced by life imprisonment. The court should be free
to determine the length of imprisonment which will suffice
the offence committed. Thus, we hold that despite the nature
of the crime, the mitigating circumstances can allow us to
substitute the death penalty with life sentence.” Therefore,
the Apex Court has given the punishment of life sentence,
which may extend to their full life subject to any remission

Page 59 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

by the Government for good reasons. Thus, relying upon the
ratio of Ramraj (supra) and Mulla (supra), the Apex Court
in the case of Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod (supra)
maintained the same sentence in the similar terms. Therefore,
by the three Judges Bench, the Apex Court recognized that it is
obligatory on the Trial Court to have given a finding as to a
possible rehabilitation and reformation and the possibility
cannot be ruled out that he may be a useful member of the
society in case he is given a chance.

49. The Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in Shankar
Kisanrao Khade vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 SCC 546,
examined the entire case law where the penalty of death sentence was
set aside in the case of an offence under Section 376 of IPC. The
Court laid down the aggravating circumstances called "crime test",
mitigating circumstances called “criminal test” and "the rarest of
rare cases test". It was held that the nature, motive, impact of
crime, culpability, quality of evidence, socioeconomic
circumstances, impossibility of rehabilitation are some of the
factors, the Court may take into consideration while commuting the
death sentence into imprisonment for life.

50. A useful reference is also made to a decision in case of
Bhaggi @ Bhagirath @ Naran vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [2024
(0) AIR (SC) 938] wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in similar such
circumstances; where the age of the victim was aged seven years and
accused was aged forty years committed rape on victim aged seven

Page 60 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

years wherein the accused was convicted for the offences punishable
under Sections 376 AB of the IPC, as also under Sections 3 and 4 and
5(m) and 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo death penalty
under Section 376 AB of the IPC by the learned Sessions Court
concerned which has been modified by the High Court to the
imprisonment for life which shall mean imprisonment for natural life
and the Apex Court has modified to a sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for a term of 30 years which also includes the period of
sentence already undergone and the period of set off if ordered by the
learned trial Court. Relevant observations made by the Hon’ble Apex
Court while discussing the case laws is quoted hereunder:
“8. Evidently, the decision in Mulla’s case (supra)
and a catena of decisions where death sentence was
commuted to the imprisonment for life including the
decisions in Bantu alias Naresh Giri v. State of M.P.2,
Amrit Singh v. State of Punjab3 and Rameshbhai
Chandubhai Rathod (2) v. State of Gujarat 4 were
considered by the High Court while commuting capital
sentence to imprisonment for life. A bare perusal of all
those decisions would reveal that those are cases
involving rape and murder of young girls aged between
4 to 12 years. It is true that after referring to those
decisions the High Court, in the instant case held in
paragraph 34 of the impugned judgment thus:-

xxx xxx xxx

11. In the circumstances obtained in this case there
can be no doubt regarding the requirement of deterrent
punishment for the conviction under Section 376 AB, IPC.
The only question is whether the commutation of capital
punishment to sentence of life imprisonment requires
further interference. There can be no doubt with respect

Page 61 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

to the position that on such commutation of sentence for
the conviction under Section 376 AB, IPC, the other
alternative available is only imprisonment for a period
not less than 20 years with fine. This position is clear
from the provision under Section 376 AB, IPC which
reads thus:-
“376AB. Punishment for rape on woman
under twelve years of age.—Whoever, commits
rape on a woman under twelve years of age
shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than twenty
years, but which may extend to imprisonment
for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the
remainder of that person's natural life, and with
fine or with death:
Provided that such fine shall be just and
reasonable to meet the medical expenses and
rehabilitation of the victim:
Provided further that any fine imposed under
this section shall be paid to the victim.”

12. Thus, a bare perusal of Section 376 AB, IPC
would reveal that imprisonment for life thereunder
means imprisonment for the remainder of the
convict’s natural life and the minimum term of
imprisonment under the Section is 20 years. Now,
while considering the question whether further
interference with the sentence handed down for the
conviction of the offence under Section 376 AB, IPC
is warranted, it is only appropriate to refer to a
decision of this Court in Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @
Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka5. In Shiva
Kumar’s case (supra) this Court referred to the
decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in
Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan and
Ors.6 and also the decision in Swamy Shraddananda
(2) alias Murali Manohar Mishra v. State of
Karnataka7. Evidently, this Court in V. Sriharan’s
case (supra), upon considering the question whether

Page 62 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

imprisonment for life in terms of Section 53 read with
Section 45 IPC means imprisonment for rest of life of
the prisoner or a convict undergoing life
imprisonment has a right to claim remission, held
after referring to the decision in Swamy
Shraddananda (2) (supra) that the power derived
from the Penal Code for any modified punishment
within the punishment provided for in the Penal Code
for any specified offence could only be exercised by
the High Court and in the event of further appeal only
by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, in paragraph
105 of the said decision it was held:- “to put it
differently, the power to impose modified punishment
providing for any specific term of incarceration or till
the end of the convict’s life as an alternate to death
penalty, can be exercised only by the High Court and
the Supreme Court and not by any other inferior
Court.” In Shiva Kumar’s case (supra) this Court
further took note of what was held by the Constitution
Bench in V. Sriharan’s case (supra) paragraph 104
as well, which reads thus: -

“104. That apart, in most of such cases where
death penalty or life imprisonment is the
punishment imposed by the trial court and
confirmed by the Division Bench of the High
Court, the convict concerned will get an
opportunity to get such verdict tested by filing
further appeal by way of special leave to this
Court. By way of abundant caution and as per the
prescribed law of the Code and the criminal
jurisprudence, we can assert after the initial
finding of guilt of such specified grave offences
and the imposition of penalty either death or life
imprisonment, when comes under the scrutiny of
the Division Bench of the High Court, it is only the
High Court which derives the power under the
Penal Code, which prescribes the capital and
alternate punishment, to alter the said punishment
with one either for the entirety of the convict's life
or for any specific period of more than 14 years,

Page 63 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

say 20, 30 or so on depending upon the gravity
of the crime committed and the exercise of
judicial conscience befitting such offence found
proved to have been committed.”

13. After referring to the relevant paragraphs from the
said decisions in Shiva Kumar this Court held as
follows: -

“13.Hence, we have no manner of doubt that even
in a case where capital punishment is not imposed
or is not proposed, the Constitutional Courts can
always exercise the power of imposing a modified
or fixed-term sentence by directing that a life
sentence, as contemplated by “secondly” in
Section 53 of the IPC, shall be of a fixed period of
more than fourteen years, for example, of twenty
years, thirty years and so on. The fixed punishment
cannot be for a period less than 14 years in view
of the mandate of Section 433A of Cr.P.C.”

14. In view of the decisions referred (supra) and
taking note of the position that when once the
conviction is sustained under Section 376 AB, IPC
the fixed term punishment could not be for a
period of less than 20 years. Evidently, the High
Court had referred, in paragraph 33 of the
impugned judgment, to decisions where minor
girls were raped and murdered, but did not
pointedly consider whether for the conviction
under Section 376 AB, IPC involving commission
of rape of victim, aged 7 years not coupled with
murder what would be the comeuppance, after
deciding to commute the capital sentence.

15. We have taken note of the hapless situation
of the victim after being taken to a temple by the
petitioner-convict. The evidence would reveal that
unmindful of the holiness of the place he disrobed
her and himself and raped her. When such an act
was done by the petitioner, who was then aged 40

Page 64 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

years and X who was then aged only 7 years and
the evidence that when PW-2 and PW- 14 reached
the place of occurrence, blood was found oozing
from the private parts of the disrobed child. The
High Court had rightly considered the
aggravating and mitigating circumstances while
commuting the capital sentence into life
imprisonment which going by the provisions
under Section 376 AB, IPC means rest of the
convict’s natural life. For effecting such
commutation, the High Court also considered the
question whether there is possibility for
reformation and rehabilitation of the petitioner
and opined that it is not a case in which the
alternative punishment would not be sufficient in
the facts of the case. But then, it is noted that if
the victim is religious every visit to any temple
may hark back to her the unfortunate, barbaric
action to which she was subjected to. So also, the
incident may haunt her and adversely impact in
her future married life.

16. Then, we are also to take into account the
present age of the petitioner and the fact that he
has already undergone the incarceration. On
consideration of all such aspects, we are of the
considered view that a fixed term of sentence of 30
years, which shall include the period already
undergone, must be the modified sentence of
imprisonment.

17. We have already taken note of the fact that
while commuting the capital sentence to life
imprisonment, the High Court had lost sight of the
fact that despite conviction under Section 376 (2)
(i) and under Sections 3/4, Sections 5(d)/6 of the
POCSO Act, no separate sentences were imposed
on the petitioner for the offence under Section 3/4
and 5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act by the Trial Court,
evidently, only on the ground that capital sentence
is imposed on the petitioner for the offence under

Page 65 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

Section 376 AB, IPC. However, it is a fact that
the said aspect escaped the attention of the High
Court. That apart, in terms of the provisions
under Section 376 AB, IPC when a sentence of
imprisonment for a term not less than 20 years
which may extend upto life imprisonment is
imposed, the convict is also liable to suffer a
sentence of fine which shall be just and
reasonable to meet the medical expenses and
rehabilitation of the victim which we quantify as
Rupees One Lakh and the same shall be paid to
the victim with respect to the conviction under
Section 363, IPC. In that regard also, there is
absolutely no consideration in the impugned
judgment.”
(emphasis supplied)

51. Yet in the recent decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case
of Baluru Thippaiah @ Byaluru Thippaiah @ Nayakara Thippaiah
vs. State of Karnatak [2025 INSC 862] after referring to Bachan
Singh (supra) on the aspect of applying the test to be applied while
sentencing the convict and considering the decision in case of Ramesh
A. Naika vs. Registrar General [2025 SCC OnLine SC 575] whereby
the factors to be elucidated that (a) lack of criminal antecedents; (b)
satisfactory conduct in prison; (c) possibility of reformation; as a
criteria, apply to the case like on hand, and partly allowed the appeal
by altering the death penalty into life imprisonment till the last breath
in prison; without remission. Relevant observations made in
paragraph No.11 to 17 are quoted hereunder:

“11. On the aspect of sentencing, the test to be applied
is as to whether the conduct of the Appellant-convict meets
the standard of ‘rarest of rare cases’. This has been the
consistent position in confirmation of sentences of death

Page 66 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

imposed by the trial courts, ever since Bachan Singh v.
State of Punjab18. Swami Shradhanand v. State of
Karnataka19, introduced a new position wherein the Courts
were able to impose sentences that fall short of death but at
the same time, keeping in mind the heinousness of the crime
by the accused persons, ensure that the society is not put in
danger with the possibility of such an accused walking free.
In para 10 thereof, it was observed: “The absolute
irrevocability of the death penalty renders it completely
incompatible to the slightest hesitation on the part of the
Court.”
With the judgment in Manoj v. State of M.P.20 came a
watershed moment in the criteria of sentencing. This
judgment ensured that if and when a person is finally sent to
the gallows he is only so sent after due consideration of the
entire background of facts and circumstances that have
landed the accused person at the precipice of death. Under
the direction issued therein, the Court is required to call for
reports that detail the social and psychological backdrop of
the Appellant-convict. It was held by the three-Judge Bench
as follows :
“249. To do this, the trial court must elicit
information from the accused and the State, both.
The State, must—for an offence carrying capital
punishment—at the appropriate stage, produce
material which is preferably collected beforehand,
before the Sessions Court disclosing psychiatric and
psychological evaluation of the accused. This will
help establish proximity (in terms of timeline), to the
accused person's frame of mind (or mental illness, if
any) at the time of committing the crime and offer
guidance on mitigating factors (1), (5), (6) and (7)
spelled out in Bachan Singh [Bachan Singh v. State
of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 580]
. Even for the other factors of (3) and (4)—an onus
placed squarely on the State—conducting this form
of psychiatric and psychological evaluation close on
the heels of commission of the offence, will provide
a baseline for the appellate courts to use for
comparison i.e. to evaluate the progress of the

Page 67 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

accused towards reformation, achieved during the
incarceration period.
250. Next, the State, must in a time-bound
manner, collect additional information pertaining to
the accused. An illustrative, but not exhaustive list is
as follows:
(a) Age
(b) Early family background (siblings, protection of parents,
any history of violence or neglect)
(c) Present family background (surviving family members,
whether married, has children, etc.)
(d) Type and level of education
(e) Socio-economic background (including conditions of
poverty or deprivation, if any)
(f) Criminal antecedents (details of offence and whether
convicted, sentence served, if any)
(g) Income and the kind of employment (whether none, or
temporary or permanent, etc.);
(h) Other factors such as history of unstable social
behaviour, or mental or psychological ailment(s), alienation
of the individual (with reasons, if any), etc.
This information should mandatorily be available to
the trial court, at the sentencing stage. The accused
too, should be given the same opportunity to
produce evidence in rebuttal, towards establishing
all mitigating circumstances.
251. Lastly, information regarding the accused's jail
conduct and behaviour, work done (if any), activities
the accused has involved themselves in, and other
related details should be called for in the form of a
report from the relevant jail authorities (i.e.
Probation and Welfare Officer, Superintendent of
Jail, etc.). If the appeal is heard after a long hiatus
from the trial court's conviction, or High Court's
confirmation, as the case may be — a fresh report
(rather than the one used by the previous court)
from the jail authorities is recommended, for a more
exact and complete understanding of the
contemporaneous progress made by the accused, in

Page 68 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

the time elapsed. The jail authorities must also
include a fresh psychiatric and psychological
report which will further evidence the
reformative progress, and reveal post-conviction
mental illness, if any.”

12. The High Court did, in accordance with Manoj
(supra), call for the reports. However, we are of the
considered view, that the said reports have not been
considered to their full extent. The Probation Report
reveals that the Appellant-convict has no antecedents;
there is mixed opinion on whether he is suitable for
reformation or not. The “Conduct and Behavioural
Report” submitted by the Government of Karnataka,
Prisons and Correctional Services records that he has
“good moral character” and “good conduct” with co-
prisoners and prison officials. He has also attempted to
mend one of the gaps in the fabric of his life i.e., literacy by
participating in the Basic Literacy Program organized by
the Zilla Lok Shiksha Samiti and passing the same with
good rank.

13. The mitigation report reveals difficulties throughout-
lack of paternal/maternal love and care which later
became extreme protectiveness after the death of his
brother, difficulties in learning in school leading to him
dropping out, making impulsive decisions in business often
leading to losses, breakdown of the marriage with his first
wife for the reason that neither quite comprehended issues
with substance dependence.

14. Once incarcerated, it appears that mental health
struggles have been a constant and unwelcome companion.
He considered making an attempt to take his own life on
two occasions, one when he found out about the deaths of
his entire family and two, when he himself was sentenced to
death.

15. The report further concludes that:

Page 69 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

(a) the Appellant-convict has the ability to adapt,
engage in constructive activities, pursue an education
despite past difficulty, continued worry about his
daughter (Rajeshwari’s) future, shows a notable
capacity for reform and personal growth;
(b) the Appellant-convict’s continued incarceration has
had a negative impact on Rajeshwari, who is really
struggling to cope with life. Interactions with her, threw
light on a gentle, loving side of the Appellant- convict.
She has also reported experiencing auditory
hallucinations which is a direct impact of loneliness she
has been enduring.”

52. In view of the proposition and law laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs on the aspect of
category of the “rarest of rare case” whereby, it has been held that if
the convict would be a menace and threat to the harmonious and
peaceful coexistence of the society, it would come under the category
of rarest of rare case; irrespective of the fact that crime may be a
heinous or brutal in nature. Thus, keeping in mind the aforesaid legal
aspect equating with the facts of the case on hand, undoubtedly the
sentencing part is a difficult one and requires to undertake such
exercise by the Court concerned having jurisdiction to award the
sentence; where the option is between a life sentence and a death
sentence and the Court concerned finds it difficulty in awarding the
sentence, then the appropriate recourse would be to impose the lesser
sentence.

53. Thus, in light of the aforementioned legal position, it is
implicit clear that the death sentence is to be awarded only in
exceptional cases as it is obligatory on the part of the learned Court

Page 70 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

concerned to give a finding on the aspect of reformation and the
possibility that the convict will become a useful member to the society
in case he will be given a chance to do so. In nutshell, as per the
guidelines indicated in Bachan Singh’s case (supra) which otherwise
applies to the facts of each individual case while imposing the death
sentence, the Court concerned has to consider the gravity of extreme
culpability, the mitigating circumstances, the social economic
condition of the offender equating the way and the circumstances in
which the crime has been committed; so also the victimisation of the
person involved in the crime and the adverse societal impact of the
crime in question. All these aspects require to be examined by calling
for appropriate report/s and after recording such subjective satisfaction
that there appears such extreme and exceptional circumstances leaving
no room for the Court except to impose the death penalty.

54. In context to the above discussion, if the facts of the present
case is examined, it would appear that with the intention of
committing a wrongful act and having sexual intercourse, enticed and
allured the victim on the pretext of giving her chocolate, abducted her,
and took her to an open place with bushes situated behind Pandesara
GIDC, Armo (Synthetics) Dyeing Mill, where he removed the jeans
pant and underwear worn by her and committed rape upon her. As the
victim could not bear the pain and started crying, the accused pressed
her mouth and nose with his hands, and despite having knowledge that
by doing so the victim would die, with the intention of causing her
death, he continued to press her mouth and nose, thereby strangulating
her and causing her death. Further, despite knowing that the victim

Page 71 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

was a minor, he committed penetrative sexual assault and aggravated
penetrative sexual assault upon her, causing her death. Thus,
considering the evidence adduced before the learned Special Court,
the learned Special Court awarded the death penalty; however while
awarding the sentence of death penalty has not taken into
consideration the several factors as deliberated in the foregoing
paragraphs with any possibility of reformative measures and therefore
in absence of any antecedents, the imposition of death penalty
deserves to be interfered with as nothing sort of any such material
emerges from the record; nor seems to have been pointed out to us
from the material which may constrain us to affirm the conclusion
arrived at by the learned Special Court.

55. Furthermore, the jail record also shows that convict is not
involved in any offence; except the present offence and therefore the
test to be applied for while awarding death penalty in such heinous
offence as discussed herein above after referring to the catena of
decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court is to observe that there is no
criminal antecedents; convict is having good behaviour in prison and
there would be chances of reformation. In view of the jail report, no
such antecedents are reported and conduct of the convict in the jail is
reported to be good; however learned Special Court has not
undertaken any such exercise to verify the aspect leading towards
reformative measures. Thus, in such circumstance, the proposition laid
down by the Apex Court does warrant to be considered while
sentencing which in case requires to be altered to the punishment of
imprisonment of life till the reminder of the life.

Page 72 of 73
R/CC/2/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

56. Accordingly, the Criminal Confirmation Case No.2 of 2021
seeking confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the convict -
accused by the judgment and order dated 07/12/2021 passed in Special
(POCSO) Case No. 278 of 2021 by learned Special Judge ( POCSO),
Surat is answered; however the death penalty / capital punishment
imposed upon the convict for the offence punishable under Sections
302, 376(A), and 376(AB) of the Indian Penal Code is commuted to
the imprisonment of life which shall mean the imprisonment for
remainder of life. Rest of the conviction and sentence as awarded by
the learned Special Court shall remain unaltered.

57. Criminal Appeal No.1690 of 2023 preferred by the convict
– accused is disposed of in above terms.

58. Office is directed to forward the copy of this Judgment to
the learned Sessions Court concerned to take appropriate steps in
accordance with the law.

(ILESH J. VORA,J)

(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
sompura

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA SOMPURA(HC00189), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 19/02/2026 12:12:04

Page 73 of 73