Holding

The Supreme Court held that the investigation was flawed and the prosecution failed to prove a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, leading to the quashing of the conviction and death sentence.

Summary

The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a 3‑year‑9‑month‑old child based on three strands of circumstantial evidence: a disputed 'last seen together' testimony, an alleged extra‑judicial confession, and a forensic soil match. The Supreme Court examined whether the investigation was conducted properly and whether the prosecution had proved an unbroken chain of incriminating facts beyond reasonable doubt. It found that the key witnesses were unreliable, their statements were recorded late, and the investigating officers failed to record crucial statements at the earliest opportunity, indicating a tainted investigation. The forensic soil report was deemed inconclusive and the alleged confession was unsupported by reliable evidence. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the requisite chain of circumstantial evidence. The convictions and death sentence were therefore quashed, the appeals were allowed, and the appellant was acquitted and ordered to be released.

Issues considered

The adequacy of the investigation and whether it was tainted or flawed
Whether the prosecution established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence sufficient for conviction
Reliability of the 'last seen together' witness testimonies and the alleged extra‑judicial confession
Admissibility and probative value of the forensic soil (FSL) report
Whether the death penalty was justified in the absence of conclusive evidence

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s. 329
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 161, s. 164, s. 293
Evidence Act, 1872s. 27
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302, s. 363, s. 376(2)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2013

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for causing rape and murder of a child aged 3 years and 9 months. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 363, 376(2), 201 of a child – Prosecution case that gruesome rape and murder of a child at the tender age of 3 years and 9 months – Dead body of child recovered from pond located at a distance of one kilometer from appellant’s house – Prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence-last

Subjects

MurderRapeChild victimShabby and perfunctory investigationInherent improbability in prosecution caseTest identificationDamocles sword of impending death penaltyAnte mortem injuriesDNA profilingLinks of circumstantial evidenceDeath sentenceUnimpeachable evidenceCircumstantial evidenceForcible sexual assaultBlind murderReliable witnessLast seen togetherIntensive combing operationsSignificant loophole and grave shortcoming of prosecution caseFlawed and tainted investigationExtra‑judicial confessionBlood stained soilFoundation of arrest lackingInconsequential recoveriesFSL reportPhysio‑chemical characteristicsSpectro‑chemical compositionRape and murder of a child aged 3 years 9 monthsEvidence of the witnesses of last seen circumstanceConduct of the witnessesInvestigating OfficerDeath penalty

Judgment

[2025] 6 S.C.R. 513 : 2025 INSC 702

Ramkirat Munilal Goud
v.
State of Maharashtra Etc.
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 1954-1955 of 2022)
07 May 2025
[Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High
Court upholding the conviction and death sentence of the appellant
for causing rape and murder of a child aged 3 years and 9 months.

Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 363, 376(2), 201 – Rape and murder
of a child – Prosecution case that gruesome rape and murder
of a child at the tender age of 3 years and 9 months – Dead
body of child recovered from pond located at a distance of one
kilometer from appellant’s house – Prosecution case based
on circumstantial evidence-last seen together circumstance,
extra-judicial confession, and FSL report regarding the soil
found stuck in the shoes of the appellant, matching with the
soil of the pond where the child’s dead body found – Trial
court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death –
High Court upheld the order – Correctness:
Held: Flawed and tainted investigation eventually led to the
failure of the prosecution case – Evidence of the witnesses of last
seen circumstance vacillating, shaky and tainted with wholesale
improvements, and thus, unworthy of credence – Conduct of the
witnesses of the last seen circumstance in failing to timely step
forward to make a disclosure to the Investigating Officer that they
had seen the appellant and the child victim together on the date
of the incident in spite of the fact that the police officers were
regularly visiting the area, clearly indicates that the witnesses
were untrustworthy and were created by the investigation agency
for ulterior motive – Investigating Officer made no effort to record
the statements of the witnesses of last seen circumstance in the
spot panchnama, at the earliest available opportunity, rather did not

* Author
514 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

record their statements at all, and the witnesses were examined for
the first time three days later by the second Investigating Officer,
which omission is vital and indicative of gross negligence on the part
of the Investigation Officer – Evidence of extra-judicial confession
as deposed by one prosecution witness also unacceptable because
the said witness too did not step forward to inform the police
regarding the fact of the so called extrajudicial confession made
by the appellant before him, in spite of being aware that the police
was searching for the child – FSL report regarding the similarity
of soil samples also inconsequential – Prosecution did not to
place on record the reports pertaining to the comparison of the
samples taken from the other watchmen – Thus, the prosecution
withheld important evidence thereby, compelling the court to draw
adverse inference against the prosecution – Despite there being
any reliable evidence, the appellant was convicted and sentenced
by the courts below and has suffered incarceration for 12 years of
which 6 years were under the threat of death penalty – Findings
recorded in the impugned judgments holding the appellant guilty,
based on conjectures and surmises and thus, both the judgments
and the order of sentence unsustainable and quashed and set
aside. [Paras 75-79].

Case Law Cited
Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra [1985] 1 SCR
88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116 – referred to.

List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2013.

List of Keywords
Murder; Rape; Child victim; Shabby and perfunctory investigation;
Inherent improbability in prosecution case; Test identification;
Damocles sword of impending death penalty; Ante mortem injuries;
DNA profiling; Links of circumstantial evidence; Death sentence;
Unimpeachable evidence; Circumstantial evidence; Forcible
sexual assault; Blind murder; Reliable witness; Last seen together;
Intensive combing operations; Significant loophole and grave
shortcoming of prosecution case; Flawed and tainted investigation;
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 515

Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State of Maharashtra Etc.

Extra-judicial confession; Blood stained soil; Foundation of arrest
lacking; Inconsequential recoveries; FSL report; Physio-chemical
characteristics; Spectro-chemical composition; Rape and murder
of a child aged 3 years and 9 months; Evidence of the witnesses
of last seen circumstance; Conduct of the witnesses; Investigating
Officer; Death penalty.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
1954-1955 of 2022
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.2021 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in CC No. 1 and CRA No. 661 of 2019

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
A Raghenth Basant, Sr. Adv., Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Ms. Aathma
Sudhir Kumar, Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Ms. Pratiksha Basarkar,
Ms. Kaushitaki Sharma, Ms. Hima Bhardwaj.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha
Pande, Ms. Soumya Priyadarshinee, Vinayak Aren, Amlaan Kumar,
Jatin Dhamija, Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.
2. The instant case is yet another classic example of shabby and
perfunctory investigation leading to failure of the prosecution case
involving a gruesome incident of rape and murder of the budding life
of a tender young girl1 aged about 3 years and 9 months.
3. Despite the shabby investigation, the overzealous approach of the
Courts below, to impart justice, in a sense that someone must be held

1 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘child’ or ‘child victim’.
516 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

responsible for the crime, has led to the conviction of the appellant
herein2, who was a young man aged about 25 years at the time of
the incident and has remained incarcerated for more than 12 years
with the Damocles sword of impending death penalty hanging over
his head for more than 6 years.
4. Succinctly stated, the facts relevant and essential for disposal of the
appeals may be noted hereinbelow.
5. The complainant, Manoj Bhaskar Sadavarte (PW-1)3 a painter by
profession, used to reside at Old Waghbil Gaon, Banjari Chawl,
Laxminagar, Thane(W) along with his mother and daughter, i.e.,
the deceased child victim. On 30th September, 2013, at about 10:00
A.M., the complainant’s mother had gone out of the house to fetch
water. At about 10:30 A.M., the complainant left his house to attend
to some work. The child victim was alone in the house when the
complainant went out. She came out of the house to play with the
family pet dog. The complainant returned home at about 10:45 A.M.
and noticed that his daughter and the pet dog were nowhere to be
seen. Initially, he assumed that his child might have gone out in the
vicinity to play with the dog and, thus, he set out to look for her in
areas near his house. However, he could neither locate the child
victim nor the pet dog. When the complainant’s mother came back
to the house, he inquired about the whereabouts of the child from
her, but she too was unaware about the same. Concerned about the
child’s well-being, he and his mother commenced a frantic search
for his daughter.
6. The complainant inquired from two persons living in the neighbourhood,
who told him that they had seen the child playing with the dog.
Thereafter, he went to the watchmen chawl located near his room,
where several watchmen used to reside. The pet dog was found in
the chawl, but his child was nowhere to be seen. The complainant
got suspicious that some unknown person/s might have kidnapped
his child. Accordingly, he proceeded to Police Station Kasarvadavali,
Thane and lodged a complaint regarding his child, having gone
missing. The police registered an FIR, bearing Crime No. I-306 of

2 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘accused appellant’.
3 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘complainant’.
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 517

Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State of Maharashtra Etc.

2013, for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.4 Investigation was assigned to the Assistant Police
Inspector (API) Vikas Sarjerao Lokre (PW-16)5 who prepared the
spot panchnama6 of the place of the incident on 1st October, 2013.
The panchnama records the place where the child victim was last
seen and the place from where she was purportedly kidnapped. The
panchnama also gives out the names of the persons who had seen
the child and the dog on 30th September, 2013, in the sequence
enumerated below:-

Time Person
Around 10:45 A.M. Premshankar Jayshankar Gupta
Around 11:00 A.M. Raju Pukraj Choudhari (Owner of Ashapura
Grocery Shop)
Around 11:15 A.M. Jaybhim Channappa Kamble and some
other people.
Around 12:00 P.M. Dipendrakumar Dhirendranath Shukla
(PW-9)
Around 12:15 P.M. Pradipkumar Ganesh Rawat (PW-14)

The aforesaid panchnama was drawn up on 1 st October, 2013
between 07:30 A.M. to 08:45 A.M.
7. Vikas Sarjerao Lokre (PW-16), the 1st Investigating Officer rounded
up some 15 to 20 watchmen from the chawl and collected their
forensic/blood samples.
8. The dead body of the child victim was recovered on 2nd October
2013, lying in a muddy water pond at a distance of about one
kilometer from the watchmen chawl and the same was forwarded
to Civil Hospital, Thane, where the Medical Officer, Dr. Mahendra
Vithalrao Kendre (PW-10), examined the same and found it to be
in a highly decomposed condition. Thus, the body was forwarded to
the J.J. Hospital for an autopsy as no forensic expert was available

4 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘IPC’.
5 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘1st Investigating Officer (PW-16)’.
6 Exhibit No. 30.
518 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

at the Civil Hospital, Thane. At the J.J. Hospital, the dead body of
the child victim was subjected to post mortem by a medical board,
comprising of Dr. Sadanand Sangram Bhise (PW-11), along with Dr.
N.S. Jagtap and Dr. G.D. Niturkar and the post mortem report7 was
issued. The post mortem report refers to numerous injuries on the
external and internal genitalia as well as the anus of the child victim.
Few contusions were also found over the skull of the child victim. The
brain had liquified and was in an advanced stage of decomposition.
The medical board opined that the injuries, mentioned in Column
No. 17 to 19 of the post mortem report, were ante mortem in nature
and the head injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature.
9. On 3rd October, 2013, the investigation was handed over to Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Mandar Vasant Dharmadhikari (PW-18).8
10. The accused appellant was arrested on 3rd October 2013, vide
arrest panchnama9 and he was subjected to medical examination.
The Medical Officer (PW-10) of the Civil Hospital, Thane, found an
abrasion on the foreskin of the penis of the accused appellant. The
prosecution has tried to link the said injury with the crime, claiming
that the injury may have been received when the accused appellant
had sexually assaulted the child victim.
11. On the pointing out of the accused appellant, the Investigating Officer,
Mandar Vasant Dharmadhikari (PW-18) claims to have visited room
No. 2 (place of incident) and room No. 4 of the watchmen chawl,
in which the accused appellant used to reside. A few articles were
recovered and seized from room No. 4, to be specific, the lungi,
baniyan, the watchman’s dress and the shoes of the accused
appellant. Blood stained soil and blood stained stone slabs were
recovered from room No. 2.
12. As per the prosecution case, the accused appellant confessed
before the Investigating Officer (PW-18) that he had committed the
crime with the child victim in the said room. The lungi of the accused
appellant was allegedly blood-stained, and the shoes had some soil/

7 Exhibit No. 58.
8 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘2nd Investigating Officer (PW-18)’.
9 Exh. 82.
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 519

Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State of Maharashtra Etc.

mud stuck in their sole. The Investigating Officer (PW-18) also claims
to have collected blood samples of the accused appellant for DNA
profiling. The forensic science laboratory (FSL) report10 concludes
that the source of blood on the lungi could not be identified. The DNA
profiling tests, conducted using the blood of the accused appellant
and the DNA samples collected from the child’s body, did not lead
to any conclusive opinion.
13. The prosecution’s case was entirely based on three links of
circumstantial evidence:
(i) Last seen together circumstance;
(ii) Extra-judicial confession; and
(iii) FSL report regarding the mud/soil found stuck in the shoes of
the accused appellant, matching with the soil of the pond where
the child victim’s dead body was found.
14. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of Dipendrakumar
Dhirendranath Shukla (PW-9), Pradipkumar Ganesh Rawat (PW-14)
and Sanjay Ganesh Rawat (PW-15) for proving the purported theory of
‘last seen together’ and Anil Mahatam Singh (PW-17), the Supervisor,
under whom the accused appellant was working, for proving the so
called extra-judicial confession made by the accused appellant. The
prosecution also relied upon the FSL report11 as per which the soil/
mud stuck in the sole of the accused appellant’s shoes was opined
to be having characteristics as similar to the soil found near the pond
from where the child victim’s body was recovered.
15. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane12 found the prosecution
evidence on the aforementioned links of circumstantial evidence to
be reliable and credible and by placing reliance thereupon, the trial
Court convicted the accused appellant for the offences punishable
under Sections 302, 363, 376(2)(i) and 201 of the IPC and Sections 4
and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2013,
vide judgment dated 5th March, 2019 and sentenced him vide sentence
order dated 8th March, 2019 in the terms indicated below: -

10 Exh. 99.
11 Exh. 105
12 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘trial Court’.
520 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

S. No. Section Sentence Awarded
1. 302 of the Sentenced to be Hanged by Neck till Death.
IPC
2. 376(2)(i) Sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment
of the IPC for Life which shall mean imprisonment for the
remainder of his natural life and to pay a fine
of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only).
In case of default in payment of fine, he shall
suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year.
3. 363 of the Sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment
IPC of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-
(Rupees Five Thousand Only). In case of
default in payment of fine, he shall suffer
Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.
4. 201 of the Rigorous Imprisonment of 3 years and to pay
IPC a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand
Only). In case of default in payment of fine,
he shall suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for
six months
All the substantive sentences of imprisonment of the accused shall
run concurrently. After realization of the fine amount, it shall be given
to the parents of the deceased girl.

16. The appeal13 preferred by the accused appellant and the reference14
forwarded by the trial Court, were decided by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay15 vide judgment dated 25th November, 2021,
whereby the conviction of the accused appellant and the death
sentence awarded to him have been confirmed and the appeal
preferred by the accused appellant has been dismissed. The said
judgment dated 25th November, 2021, rendered by the High Court
and along with the judgment dated 5th March, 2019, and the order
of sentence dated 8th March, 2019, rendered by the trial Court, are
subject matter of challenge in these appeals by special leave.

13 Criminal Appeal No. 661 of 2019
14 Confirmation Case No. 1 of 2019
15 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘High Court’.
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 521

Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State of Maharashtra Etc.

Submissions on behalf of accused appellant:
17. Mr. Raghenth Basant, learned senior counsel representing the
accused appellant, vehemently and fervently contended that the
prosecution has failed to prove even one of the three projected
incriminating circumstances relied upon by it so as to bring home
the guilt of the accused appellant. The evidence of the witnesses of
the last seen circumstance is highly vacillating and self-contradicting
and perfunctory and hence, the same deserves to be discarded in
toto. All these witnesses were fully aware about the disappearance of
the child victim on 30th September, 2013, itself when the police came
to the area and started making enquiries. However, none of them
stepped forward to inform the 1st Investigating Officer (PW-16) that
they had seen the child victim and the accused appellant together.
The statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
197316 of these witnesses were recorded by the 2nd Investigating
Officer (PW-18) as late as on 3rd October, 2013. As per learned senior
counsel, the conduct of the witnesses, in keeping silent and their
failure in making a timely disclosure to the 1st Investigating Officer
(PW-16) about having seen the child victim in the company of the
accused appellant on the fateful day, i.e., 30th September, 2013, and
even after the dead body was recovered, i.e., on 2nd October, 2013,
makes their entire testimony doubtful and unworthy of credence.
18. Learned senior counsel further submitted that, if at all, the witnesses
had seen the child victim in the company of the accused appellant on
the alleged day, their natural reaction would have been to disclose
the said fact, that they had seen the accused appellant along with
the child victim, to the father of the girl child who had initiated the
search operations in the afternoon of 30th September, 2013 itself
and made enquiries at the watchman chawl as well. He submitted
that investigation agency has resorted to padding by creating the
evidence of the witnesses of last seen together theory.
19. Shri Basant, further, submitted that the evidence of extra-judicial
confession, sought to be proved through Anil Mahatam Singh
(PW-17), is also unreliable and unworthy of credence. While deposing
on oath, the witness in his examination-in-chief, did not pertinently
state that the accused appellant had made any extra-judicial

16 Hereinafter being referred to as the ‘CrPC’.
522 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

confession in his presence. It is only on the leading questions put by
the Public Prosecutor, during cross-examination, that the witness tried
to impute that the accused appellant had admitted, in his presence,
that he had made a mistake.
20. As per Shri Basant, the evidence of extra-judicial confession is even
otherwise of very weak nature and thus, the conviction cannot be
solely based on such evidence. In addition thereto, his contention
was that the version of the witness (PW-17) regarding the so-called
extra-judicial confession made by the accused appellant, is very
vague and vacillating and hence, no reliance can be placed on his
testimony.
21. Learned senior counsel further submitted that, admittedly, the 1st
Investigating Officer (PW-16) collected the forensic samples from
numerous watchmen living in the same chawl, where the accused
appellant was residing, however, the FSL report pertaining to these
samples never saw light of the day. Hence, an adverse inference has
to be drawn that these reports were not favouring the prosecution’s
story, which is why the same was held back from the Court.
22. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the FSL report17
indicating a match between the mud/soil found on the shoes of the
accused appellant, and the mud/soil found near the pond, from where
the dead body of the child victim was recovered, is also vague and
inconsequential. Firstly, the very factum of recovery of the soiled shoes
at the instance of the accused appellant is dubitable. It is impossible
to believe that the accused appellant, who was a free bird till 3rd
October 2013, would meticulously preserve the worthless incriminating
articles i.e., his shoes, lungi and the watchman uniform, for the police
to recover the same and thereby, face the risk of being incriminated.
23. Secondly, Shri Basant submitted that the FSL report depicting that
the soil on the shoes was similar to the mud/soil of the location from
where the victim child’s body was recovered is merely suggestive in
nature and not conclusive. He urged that, if at all, the prosecution
wanted to establish that the soil was from the same source, then
a more exhaustive exercise was required to be conducted by
collecting soil samples from different surrounding locations thereby,

17 Supra note 11.
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 523

Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State of Maharashtra Etc.

excluding the possibility of mud/soil found on the shoes being from
the locality where the accused appellant resided. He submitted that
the prosecution was under a burden to establish that the mud/soil of
this kind was not to be found anywhere else except in and around
the pond, from where the dead body of child victim was recovered.
He thus urged that unless the prosecution excluded this possibility
by adducing proper evidence, the FSL report would remain vague
and inconclusive.
24. Shri Basant concluded his submissions by urging that the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove a complete and unbreached chain of
incriminating circumstances, by leading reliable evidence, and hence,
the accused appellant is entitled to be acquitted by giving him the
benefit of doubt.

Submissions on behalf of the respondent State:
25. Per contra, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, learned standing counsel for the State
of Maharashtra, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions
advanced by Shri Basant. She urged that the prosecution has
established the guilt of the accused appellant by leading unimpeachable
and complete chain of circumstantial evidence in the form of motive,
last seen together circumstance, extra- judicial confession and the
scientific evidence in the form of FSL report, which establishes that the
shoes of accused appellant recovered by the 2nd Investigating Officer
(PW-18) in furtherance of the information provided by him under Section
27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, bore soil matching with that of
the pond where the dead body of the child victim had been disposed
of by the accused appellant after committing the crime.
26. She urged that neither the witnesses of the circumstance of last seen
together and extra-judicial confession had any animosity against
the accused appellant, nor the Investigating Officers bore any ill will
against the accused appellant so as to falsely implicate him for the
crime without any justification.
27. She further urged that the investigation was conducted in a fair,
transparent and unbiased manner and without being influenced
by any extraneous consideration, the Investigating Officers, being
Vikas Sarjerao Lokre (PW-16) and Mandar Vasant Dharmadhikari
(PW-18), faithfully collected unimpeachable incriminating evidence
against the accused appellant.
524 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

28. She concluded her submissions urging that the finding of guilt of
the accused appellant, as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed
by the High Court, are based on unimpeachable and reliable
circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution which irrefutably
points to the guilt of the accused appellant and is inconsistent with
his innocence or the guilt of any other person. Thus, this Court
should be loath to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts
while exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution
of India. She also urged that looking to the heinous nature of the
crime, the death sentence awarded to the accused appellant is
fit to be confirmed.
29. She implored the Court to dismiss the appeals and confirm the
conviction and sentence awarded to the accused appellant.

Discussion and Conclusion: -
30. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced at the bar and have meticulously perused the impugned
judgments. We have also carefully scanned and analysed the
evidence led by the prosecution in its endeavour to bring home the
charges against the accused appellant.
31. Admittedly, the case of the prosecution is based entirely on
circumstantial evidence. The position of law in a case based
entirely on circumstantial evidence, is well-settled by a catena of
decisions of this Court, wherein this Court has categorically held
that the prosecution has to prove the entire chain of incriminating
circumstances by adducing unimpeachable evidence, which leads to
only one hypothesis that is consistent with the guilt of the accused,
inconsistent with his innocence or the guilt of anyone else. The chain
of circumstances sought to be relied upon by the prosecution must
be complete in all aspects and must unerringly link the accused
with the crime. In case of any breach in the chain of incriminating
circumstances, the Court would be left with no option but to acquit
the accused by giving him the benefit of doubt. The law with regard
to conviction based on circumstantial evidence has been crystalized
by this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State
of Maharashtra18, wherein it was held:

18 (1984) 4 SCC 116.
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 525

Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State of Maharashtra Etc.

“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that
the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case
against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that
the circumstances concerned “must or should”
and not “may be” established. There is not only a
grammatical but a legal distinction between “may
be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as
was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade
v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793] where
the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807]
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that
the accused must be and not merely may
be guilty before a court can convict and
the mental distance between ‘may be’
and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague
conjectures from sure conclusions.”
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that
is to say, they should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused.
(Emphasis Supplied)

32. Having noted the principles governing a case based purely on
circumstantial evidence, we now proceed to discuss the evidence
526 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

led by the prosecution in the present case in its endeavour, to bring
home the charges against the accused appellant.
33. The theory set out by the prosecution in its case is that the accused
appellant had seen the child victim alone, playing with her dog on
the morning of 30th September, 2013. As there was no one else in
the vicinity, the accused appellant, driven by lust, took advantage
of the situation, kidnapped the child and thereafter took her to room
No. 2 of the watchmen chawl where he subjected the child victim
to forcible sexual assault. In this process, the child tried to resist
and cried out for help, upon which the accused appellant smashed
the head of the child victim on the floor tiles, leading to fractures
on the skull of the child and ultimately resulting in her death. For
establishing the guilt of the accused appellant, the prosecution relied
on three circumstances: -
i. Last seen together circumstance;
ii. Extra-judicial confession; and
iii. FSL report indicating presence of soil on the shoes of the
accused appellant which tallied with the soil of the pond from
where the dead body of the child victim was found.
34. As has been noted above, the case was of a blind murder. The
allegations as set out in the complaint19 filed by the complainant
(PW-1) indicate that the complainant and his mother had gone out
of the house at 10:30 A.M. in relation to some work, leaving the
child victim alone in the house. The complainant returned at about
10:45 A.M. and at that time, neither the child nor the pet dog of the
complainant was present in the house. The complainant immediately
launched a search for the child, making inquiries from his mother
and the people in the vicinity but to no avail.
35. Hence, what can be deduced from the version set out in the complaint
is that the child victim went out of the house between 10:30 A.M. to
10:45 A.M. and was not seen by the complainant thereafter. As per
the complaint, the complainant came back to the house around 10:45
A.M., and could not find the child, on which he started searching
for her.

19 Exh. 61.
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 527

Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State of Maharashtra Etc.

36. In this process, the complainant (PW-1) visited the watchmen chawl,
which is situated in close vicinity to his house. He found his dog in
the said chawl, however, the child was nowhere to be seen. Thus,
presumably the child victim must have gone missing within the small
window of 10:30 A.M. and 10:45 A.M. It is undisputed that the child
victim’s body was recovered from a pond, which is around one
kilometer away from the purported place of the incident, i.e., room
No. 2 of the watchmen chawl, on 2nd October, 2013. We are of the
prima facie opinion that the case of the prosecution, particularly on
the aspect of time, manner and place of the incident is doubtful.
37. It is admitted that the complainant had started the search operations
around 10:45 A.M. and had also searched in and around the watchmen
chawl. As is borne out from the evidence available on record, the area
where the complainant resided is thickly populated and inhabited by
a large number of persons who work as watchmen. The prosecution
claims that the incident took place in broad daylight sometime after
10:30 A.M. Mainfestly thus, there was hardly any possibility that the
accused appellant could have carried the child victim’s dead body
to the pond, which was located one kilometer away, without being
noticed. Hence, two possible scenarios arise: -
(i) That the incident did not take place in the chawl as claimed by
the prosecution; and/or
(ii) The incident did not take place at the time or in the manner
alleged by the prosecution.
38. Having noted this inherent improbability in the prosecution case, we
now proceed to discuss the evidence of the material prosecution
witnesses.
39. For the purpose of appreciating the circumstance of last seen together,
the relevant witnesses are the complainant, i.e., Manoj Bhaskar
Sadavarte [(PW-1), father of the deceased child], Dipendrakumar
Dhirendranath Shukla (PW-9), Pradipkumar Ganesh Rawat (PW-14)
and Sanjay Ganesh Rawat (PW-15).
40. The complainant, Manoj Bhaskar Sadavarte (PW-1) virtually repeated
the story as set out in the complaint20. He tried to introduce an

20 Supra note 19.
528 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

improvement that on the same day, i.e., the day of the incident,
at about 2:00 P.M., he went to the watchmen chawl while he was
searching for his daughter and saw the accused appellant standing
behind his house and his legs were soiled with mud. He was wearing
lungi and banyan. The witness enquired from the accused appellant
regarding his daughter (child victim), but the accused appellant did
not tell him anything.
41. In examination-in-chief, the witness stated that on seeing the accused
appellant with his legs soiled with mud/soil, he started suspecting
him. He admitted having made inquiries from his neighbour, Devidas
Kale, shop owner Raju Pukraj Choudhari and rickshaw driver Jaybhim
Channappa Kamble and other female members in the crowd. All
these witnesses stated that they had seen the little girl playing with
the dog. He proved the spot panchnama. In the cross-examination,
he admitted that the name of the accused appellant as a suspect
was not mentioned in the complaint. He had gone to the chawl
three times on 30th September, 2013, and his suspicion was on the
accused appellant. He made the following important admission in
his cross-examination: -
“On 03.10.2013 police recorded my supplementary
statement in between 11.30 a.m. to 12.00 noon. Till that
time nobody has stated that they had seen any person
who took my daughter.”
42. Dipendrakumar Dhirendranath Shukla (PW-9) deposed in his evidence
that he was working as a watchman and used to reside in a transit
camp which was in front of Unnati Woods. At a distance of about 2
to 3 lines from his house, some 15 to 20 watchmen used to reside.
The witness admitted that he did not know the accused appellant
by name but recognized him by his face as he used to regularly
pass through the road in front of the witness’s house. The accused
appellant was also residing in the same chawl. The witness stated
that on 30th September, 2013, at around 11:30 A.M. to 12:00 P.M.,
he was taking lunch when he saw a small girl, aged about 2 ½ to
3 years, heading down the road with a dog. He could see the child
from the open gate of his house. At about 01:00 P.M., the witness
and his father came back to the house for some work, and, at
that time, he noticed that the dog he had seen with the child was
wandering around on the road, but the child was nowhere to be
seen. The witness claims to have seen the accused appellant coming
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 529

Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State of Maharashtra Etc.

from behind the bushes at around the same point of time. He was
wearing a watchman’s uniform. The witness thereafter went back
to work. At about 04:00 P.M., when he came back to his house, he
noticed that people were searching for a small girl. He was shown
the photograph of the missing girl (child victim), which he identified
to be the same child whom he had seen earlier in the afternoon. He
further stated that the body of the child victim was found in the pond
on 2nd October, 2013, after which he narrated the entire incident,
witnessed by him, to the police.
43. In his cross-examination, the witness (PW-9) admitted that on 30th
September, 2013, the police made inquiries from him in relation to the
case, but his statement was not recorded on that date. On 2nd October
2013, the police again visited the crime scene, but his statement
was still not recorded. He further stated that some 25 to 30 north
Indian people were residing in the transit camp and were working as
watchmen. The police summoned all these people for the purposes
of inquiry. The witness was confronted with certain improvements
vis-à-vis his previous statement recorded under Section 161 of the
CrPC. However, these improvements are trivial and inconsequential
for our purpose. The witness denied the suggestion given by the
defence that he was making a false deposition regarding having seen
the accused appellant coming from behind the bushes. However,
he admitted that the police did not call him for the test identification
of the accused appellant.
44. What is pertinent to note from the statement of this witness is that
he was aware on 30th September, 2013, itself that the child victim
had gone missing and people were searching for her. The police
visited the vicinity on 30th September, 2013; 1st October, 2013 and
2nd October, 2013 as well, but the witness (PW-9) did not divulge the
vital information to the police that he had seen the child with the dog
in the vicinity of watchmen chawl and the accused appellant coming
out of the bushes. Apparently, thus, the conduct of the witness in
maintaining stoic silence and not divulging to the police at the first
available opportunity that he had seen the child victim in the afternoon
of 30th September, 2013, or that he had seen the accused appellant
coming out from the bushes makes his entire testimony doubtful.
45. As is borne out from the record, the statement of this witness
(PW-9) was recorded by the Mandar Vasant Dharmadhikari
530 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(PW-18), the Investigating Officer, under Section 161 of the CrPC
on 3rd October, 2013. Hence, the conduct of the witness (PW-9), in
remaining indifferent and failing to disclose the vital fact of having
seen the accused appellant and the child victim on 30th September,
2013, despite the search operations being undertaken and the police
having visited the crime scene twice within his knowledge. This vital
omission on part of the witness (PW-9) completely discredits his
version and thus, we conclude that Dipendrakumar Dhirendranath
Shukla (PW-9) is not a reliable witness.
46. Pradipkumar Ganesh Rawat (PW-14) stated, in his evidence, that he
was residing near the Unnati Woods and used to work as a watchman.
His duty hours were between 08:00 A.M. to 08:00 P.M. He used to go
home to have lunch usually around 12.00 P.M. The witness (PW-14)
claimed that he knew the accused appellant from before because
he too was engaged as a watchman and was residing at a gap of 4
to 5 rooms from the room in which the witness resided. He stated
that the accused appellant went to take lunch at about 12:00 P.M. on
30th September, 2013. The witness (PW-14) proceeded towards his
house for lunch at 12:10 P.M. He claims to have seen the accused
appellant standing with a small girl and an English dog on the road,
which was besides the forest. At that time, the accused appellant was
wearing his watchman uniform. The witness did not pay much heed
to this event and proceeded to his house for lunch. When he was
returning at about 12:50 P.M., he noticed that the dog was tied to
the window of the room where Sanjay Ganesh Rawat (PW-15) used
to reside. On 2nd October, 2013, when the witness was called to the
police station, he came to know that the dead body of the child victim
had been found in the pond. The police showed him the photograph,
and the witness identified it to be of the same child who was with
the accused appellant. The witness claimed that he divulged to the
police that he had seen the child victim with the accused appellant
at about 12:40 P.M. on 30th September, 2013, upon which the police
recorded his statement. However, no such statement of the witness
is available on record and rather, the evidence of 2nd Investigating
Officer (PW-18) is to the contrary.
47. In his cross-examination, the witness (PW-14) stated that the pond
from where the body of the child victim was found is at a distance of
about one kilometer from his house. He came to know on 1st October,
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 531

Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State of Maharashtra Etc.

2013, that a girl was missing from the area. The police called about
30 watchmen to the police station for the purpose of inquiry, as
suspects and he was also one amongst them. The witness denied
the suggestion that his statement was not recorded on 2nd October,
2013. Immediately thereafter, he stated that the police recorded
his statement on the next morning. A suggestion was given to the
witness that he was speaking a falsehood when he stated that he
had seen the dog tied to Sanjay Ganesh Rawat’s (PW-15) room or
that he had seen the accused appellant along with the child victim
and an English dog. He denied the suggestion given by the defence,
that the police had threatened him and thus, he gave a statement,
incriminating the accused appellant.
48. At this stage, we may note that the statement of this witness
(PW-14) was recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC and was
exhibited by the prosecution as Ext. 94. It was inter alia noted in
the said statement that the accused appellant and his father left for
lunch at about 12:00 P.M., whereas he (the witness) left for lunch at
12:10 P.M. While he was proceeding, he saw the accused appellant
standing on the road. He had lunch at his room and left to report
for duty at about 12:40 P.M. At that time, he saw a dog tied to the
window of a room. He later learnt that the accused appellant had
tied the said dog there. Subsequently, he also came to know that a
3-year-old girl child was missing and that her dead body was found
near the chawl.
49. Apparently, thus, while testifying on oath, the witness has made
wholesale improvements from the version as set out in his statement
under Section 164 of the CrPC wherein he did not utter a word
about having seen the child victim on 30th September, 2013. These
improvements are most vital and have a direct bearing on the
credibility of the deposition of the witness (PW-14). We are convinced
that the witness (PW-14) deliberately modulated and twisted the
facts in order to lend succour to the prosecution’s case against the
accused appellant. Thus, findings recorded by the trial Court as well
as the High Court that the witness (PW-14) has given unimpeachable
testimony supporting circumstance of the last seen together, are
untenable and unsustainable on the face of the record. For record,
we may note that this witness (PW-14) too, did not come forward
to state about the circumstance of last seen together to the police
officials who visited the crime scene on 30th September, 2013; 1st
532 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

October, 2013 and 2nd October, 2013. The witness has also made
blatant improvements from his earlier version recorded under Section
164 of the CrPC, and hence, his testimony cannot be relied upon
so as to lend credence to the last seen circumstance.
50. Sanjay Ganesh Rawat (PW-15) stated that he was residing near
the Unnati Wood Society in the year 2013 and was working as a
watchman in Phase No. 1, Building No. 3. On the day of the incident,
he went home to take lunch at about 01:00 P.M. and saw that a dog
was tied to the window of his room. When he came back after taking
lunch, he saw a person with long hair enquiring from the accused
appellant that “the dog is here, so where is the child?” The accused
appellant was wearing a lungi and baniyan at that point in time.
51. We feel that the evidence of the witness (PW-15) is neither here nor
there because the witness does not give any indication of having seen
the accused appellant with the child. The so-called person having long
hair was not pinpointed by the prosecution, and hence, the testimony
of this witness does not lend any support to the prosecution case.
52. Vikas Sanjerao Lokre [(PW-16), 1st Investigating Officer] was working
as an Assistant Police Inspector at the Police Station Kasarvadavali
on 30th September, 2013. He was assigned the investigation of the
present case on 30th September, 2013. The witness (PW-16) stated
that upon receiving the investigation file, he visited the site and
undertook a search for the girl. He conducted intensive combing
operations throughout the area. On 1st October, 2013, he prepared
the spot panchnama (search panchnama). The said panchnama was
exhibited by the prosecution as Exh. 34 and it bears the signatures
of the witness (PW-16) and the complainant (PW-1) in addition to the
panchas. The panchnama gives specific reference to the complainant
having made inquiries from Premshankar Jayshankar Gupta at 10:45
A.M., Raju Pukraj Choudhari at 11:00 A.M., Jaybhim Channappa
Kamble at 11:15 A.M. It also mentioned in the panchnama that the
complainant made enquiries from Dipendrakumar Dhirendranath
Shukla (PW-9) and Pradipkumar Ganesh Rawat (PW-14) as well.
The panchnama specifically records that all these persons had
seen the child victim along with the dog in a time bound sequence
commencing from 10:45 A.M. onwards. However, there is no whisper
in the panchnama regarding any of the witnesses having divulged
that the child victim had been seen in the company of the accused
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 533

Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State of Maharashtra Etc.

appellant. This is a significant loophole and a grave shortcoming
in the prosecution case. It may be stated that the 1st Investigating
Officer (PW-16) did not make any effort to make an enquiry from
Premshankar Jayshankar Gupta, Raju Pukraj Choudhari and Jaybhim
Channappa Kamble, either on 30th September 2013 or 1st October
2013. In the natural course of events, these persons would have
been the first in the line of sight of the Investigating Officer (PW-
16) to unfurl the sequence of events and to take leads about the
child victim’s whereabouts. Had there been any sincerity in the 1st
Investigating Officer’s actions, he would have immediately ventured
to make a thorough investigation into the persons whose names
surfaced in the panchnama without losing any time. However, no
such effort was made by the Investigating Officer (PW-16).
53. The statements of Dipendrakumar Dhirendranath Shukla (PW-9)
and Pradipkumar Ganesh Rawat (PW-14), the star prosecution
witnesses of the last seen circumstance, were recorded by the
2nd Investigating Officer (PW-18) for the first time as late as 3rd
October 2013, as is borne out from his deposition. Apparently,
thus, till 3rd October 2013, there was not a shred of evidence on
the investigation file which could have incriminated the accused
appellant for the crime. In spite thereof, the accused appellant was
arrested in this case.
54. The investigation was handed over by Vikas Sarjerao Lokre (PW-16)
to Inspector Mandar Vasant Dharmadhikari (PW-18), on 3rd October,
2013, who continued the investigation thereafter. At the cost of
repetition, it may be noted that the 1st Investigating Officer (PW-16),
did not make any effort to record the evidence of the most material
prosecution witnesses, namely, Dipendrakumar Dhirendranath
Shukla (PW-9) and Pradipkumar Ganesh Rawat (PW-14), who
later on vouched to the last seen circumstance as projected by the
prosecution. This omission is fatal to the prosecution case, as it
impinges on the credibility of the witnesses’ version and also gives
a clear indication about flawed and tainted investigation.
55. It is only when Mandar Vasant Dharmadhikari (PW-18, 2nd Investigating
Officer), took over investigation of the case on 3rd October, 2013,
that the statements of the witnesses of the last seen circumstance
were recorded for the first time. The witness made the categorical
admissions in his cross-examination which are reproduced as under: -
534 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“(9) In the spot panchanama at Exh.30 names of witnesses
Dipendra Shukla and Pradeep Rawat are mentioned. I have
not enquired with Shri Lokare as to whether he recorded
statements of both these witnesses and I have also not
recorded statement of Shri Lokare to that respect. Prior to
03.10.2013 said witnesses never stated that they had seen
the deceased girl with the accused. It is true to say that
said both the witnesses are residing in the transit camp.”
56. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the witnesses, namely,
Dipendrakumar Dhirendranath Shukla (PW-9) and Pradipkumar
Ganesh Rawat (PW-14), were created by the Investigating Officers,
by way of padding, because a case of sensational nature was
not being solved. Their evidence is totally false and unworthy of
credence. The witness Sanjay Ganesh Rawat (PW-15) did not state
in his testimony that he had seen the child victim in the company of
the accused appellant, and hence, his evidence does not give any
support to the circumstance of last seen together. Thus, we have no
hesitation in holding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove
the circumstance of last seen together by leading credible evidence.
57. The second segment of circumstantial evidence on which the
prosecution heavily relied upon was that of the extra-judicial
confession allegedly made by the accused appellant to Anil Mahatam
Singh (PW-17), who was the Supervisor under whom the accused
appellant was working. The witness (PW-17) stated that he knew
the accused appellant, who had joined duty as a watchman about
6 to 7 days before the incident. On 30th September 2013, a small
girl went missing. On that day, the accused appellant was assigned
work at Phase 2 Building No. 5 and had reported for duty. The
police came to the building for the purpose of inquiry and took some
watchmen from there. On the next day, i.e., on 1st October 2013, he
went for a round but did not find the accused appellant on duty. The
accused appellant was summoned through his father. The accused
appellant turned up at the project and, upon being questioned by
the witness about his absence from duty, he claimed to be tensed
up and stated that he could not perform his duties and that he would
be going back to his village on the same day. The witness (PW-17)
was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor and while answering
the leading questions put to him, he admitted that he had stated
before the police that the accused appellant told him that he could
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 535

Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State of Maharashtra Etc.

not work as he was tensed up and that he had made a mistake.
The witness (PW-17) also agreed to the suggestion of the public
prosecutor that the accused appellant divulged before him that he
had been called by the police the day before and in reference thereto,
he had committed a mistake.
58. The significant fact which requires mention at this stage is that
the statement of Anil Mahatam Singh (PW-17) recorded under
Section 164 of the CrPC, was proved at the instance of the prosecution
as Exh. 78, wherein the witness stated that on 1st October, 2013,
he did not see the accused appellant while marking attendance.
He then made inquiries about the accused appellant’s absence and
summoned him to the circle.
59. When the witness asked the accused appellant about his absence,
the accused appellant replied that he was tensed up. On hearing
this, the witness told the accused appellant that staying idle would
not help and that he should resume his duty to relieve the tension.
The accused appellant agreed and complied with the suggestion and
resumed his duty. Thus, in the previous statement of the witness
(PW-17) recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, there is no
reference to any extra-judicial confession having been made by the
accused appellant. Furthermore, the statement of the said witness
under Section 161 of the CrPC was recorded as late as on 12th
October 2013, as stated by the Investigating Officer (PW-18).
60. Hence, the statement of the witness (PW-17) on the aspect of extra-
judicial confession is full of improvements and contradictions and
hence, it is totally unreliable. If at all, the accused appellant had
made an extra-judicial confession before the witness on 1st October,
2013, his immediate reaction would have been to rush to the police
and divulge this fact to the Investigating Officer (PW-16). However,
he made no such effort whatsoever.
61. In this background, the evidence of PW-17 regarding the extra-judicial
confession, [which is otherwise also a very weak piece of evidence],
is totally unreliable and unacceptable and does not lend succour to
the prosecution case.
62. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the evidence of
Investigating Officer/s is of utmost importance. The Investigating
Officer, Vikas Sarjerao Lokre (PW-16) stated in his evidence as
below: -
536 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Examination in Chief of PW-16
“….Then we called the dog squad to take the search of
the victim girl. We have taken the efforts but said girl
was not traced out. Accordingly I have submitted the
report. Now shown to me. It bears my signature as well
as signature of the authority of Dog Squad. Contents are
true and correct. It is at Exh.70. Then I have circulated the
photograph of the victim girl to the various police stations
for her search. Now that letter shown to me. It bears my
signature. Contents are true and correct. It is at Exh.71.
I have also forwarded the wireless message inter-state
along with the detail description of the victim girl. Now
that wireless message shown to me. It bears signature of
Sr. PI Dharmadhakari. I know his signature. Contents are
true and correct. It is at Exh.72. Then, I have recorded
the statements of those witnesses who had lastly seen
that girl. I have also recorded the statement of the mother
of victim girl.
Then on 02.10.2013 when our police squad was taking
the search of that girl we had found dead body of one
small girl in the muddy pond near about 2.00 p.m. Then
we called the person from Fire Brigade and removed that
dead body out of the pond. I called two panch witnesses
and prepared panchanama of that spot in their presence.
That panchanama is at Exh.38. Now shown to me. It bears
my signature, signatures of two panch witnesses. Contents
are true and correct. Measurement of said pond is 25 X
15 ft. It was behind the Unnati Wood Society, in one field
near one nala. There was cloth on the said dead body i.e.
pink colour full sleeves T-shirt. On the distance of 20 ft. I
have found the stamp-marks of the legs of dog from the
said pond. I have seized the water of that pond and earth
which was out of the pond. 1 sealed it with the signature of
panch witnesses. Then I have deposited said muddemal by
preparing muddemal receipt with the muddemal clerk. Now
that receipt shown to me. It bears my signature. Contents
are true and correct. It is at Exh.73. Then I have prepared
the inquest panchanama of the dead body in presence
of two panch witnesses. That time complainant identified
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 537

Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State of Maharashtra Etc.

his daughter. That inquest panchanama is at Exh.47.
Now shown to me. It bears my signature and signatures
of two witnesses. Contents are true and correct. Then I
have forwarded the said dead body for post-mortem at
Civil Hospital, Thane. The said letter is now shown to me.
It bears my signature. Contents are true and correct. It
is at Exh.74. Then Civil Hospital referred the dead body
to J.J. Hospital. Therefore, I have issued a letter to J.J.
Hospital. Said letter is at Exh.56. It bears my signature.
Contents are true and correct. Moreover, it also bears the
acknowledgment of J.J. Hospital. Then I have also issued
request letter to J.J. Hospital that while conducting the
post-mortem it should be conduct under the photography
and video shooting. The said letter is at Exh.57. It bears
my signature. Contents are true and correct. Then doctor
has issued Advance Cause of Death Certificate which
mentioned the reason that death due to head injury with
evidence of extensive genital injuries- unnatural. Then I
have added sections in the present offence and accordingly
issued letter to the concerned Court…..”
Cross-Examination of PW-16
On 01.10.2013 I have recorded the statements of
witnesses Ganesh Dhaki, Jayashri Datar, Arti Navin
Dhondi. It is true to say that they have not stated that
they had seen the victim girl. There are five names
comes in the panchanama at Exh.30, out of those
on 01.10.2013 I have recorded the statement of one
witness by name Premshankar Gupta. He has not
stated that he had seen that girl along with accused.
On 01.10.2013 I have also visited to the watchman
chawl. I went there for only one time. Near about 30 to
40 watchmen were residing there. But on 01.10.2013
I have not recorded statement of single watchman.
When I visited to the house of complainant there was no
dog. I have not prepared the panchanama of that female
dog and also not obtained her photographs. Moreover,
where I found the scratches of the nails of dog I have not
obtained the photographs of that place and also not called
expert to identify those scratches.
538 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Alleged pond is on the open space and it is accessible for
anybody. It is not true to say that dead body of the said
girl was fully decomposed. It is true to say that where said
dog was tied on the window of the room of watchman,
I have not recorded statement of that watchman. I have
recorded the statement of grandmother of deceased girl
by name Mayavati Bhaskar Sadavarte on 01.10.2013. She
has also stated that she has taken the search of their
granddaughter in the watchman chaw]. But she has not
expressed her doubt towards any watchman. I have not
recorded the statement of any witness on 01.10.2013
stating that anybody had seen that girl along with
accused. Virendrakumar Shukla and Pradeeikumar
Rawat are residing in the transit chaw!. Ashapura
Kirana Shop is on the distance of 10 to 15 minutes
from the alleged pond. Witness Pushkaran Chaudhary
has stated that when he had seen that girl he told to her
to go to her house. That time she proceeded towards
her house. That time was of 11.00 a.m. It is not true to
say that I am deposing false that Jaybhim Kamble had
seen that girl along with dog at Manera Chawl. It is not
true to say that I am deposing false that I had seen the
scratches of dog’s nails on the window where dog was
tied. It is not true to say that I have not recorded the
statements of witnesses as per their say. It is not true
to say that I have not prepared panchanama at Exh.38
on the spot. It is not true to say that her father was
not identified the dead body because her face was not
identifiable. It is not true to say that I am deposing false
that there was stamp-mark of that dog near the pond.
It is not true to say that inquest panchanama was not
prepared as per Exh.47. It is not true to say that I have
not seized the clothes of that girl vide Exh.23 and not
deposited muddemal in presence of panch. witnesses.
It is not true to say that I have not taken the opinion of
the doctor that why such genital injuries were caused to
deceased girl. But to that respect no document is filed
along with the charge-sheet.”
(Emphasis supplied)
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 539

Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State of Maharashtra Etc.

63. The significant facts, which can be deduced from the evidence of the
Investigating Officer (PW-16), are that he made fervent attempts to
trace the child victim on 30th September, 2013 and 1st October, 2013.
In the spot panchnama21 prepared by the witness on 1st October,
2013 between 7.30 A.M. to 8.45 A.M., there is a clear reference to
the witnesses of the last seen circumstance, but in spite thereof, the
officer made no effort whatsoever to record the statements of those
witnesses. This is grave infirmity in the investigation which impinges
on the credibility of the Investigating Officer and the witnesses of the
last seen circumstance. The present case, being a case of grave
nature, it does not stand to reason that in spite of the names of the
witnesses of last seen circumstance having been mentioned in the
spot panchnama prepared on 1st October, 2013, and despite the fact
that the witness (PW-16) was making strenuous efforts to trace out
the child victim from 30th September, 2013 and 1st October, 2013,
none of the witnesses claimed to have seen the child victim in the
company of the accused appellant were examined by the Investigating
Officer (PW-16). It is difficult, if not impossible, to believe that even
though fervent efforts were going on to search for the missing child in
the colony, the witnesses who claimed to have seen the child victim
with the accused appellant would not have stepped forward to give
leads to the 1st Investigating Officer (PW-16) at the earliest possible
opportunity. These significant omissions and fundamental flaws in the
investigation are sufficient to satisfy us that the witnesses of the last
seen circumstance were created to add padding to the prosecution
case and as a matter of fact, none of them had seen the accused
appellant and the deceased (child victim) together.
64. In the cross-examination of Mandar Vasant Dharmadhikari [(PW-18),
i.e., 2nd Investigating Officer], the following significant facts were
elicited: -
“In the spot panchanama at Exh.30 names of witnesses
Dipendra Shukla and Pradeep Rawat are mentioned.
I have not enquired with Shri Lokare as to whether
he recorded statements of both these witnesses and
I have also not recorded statement of Shri Lokare to
that respect. Prior to 03.10.2013 said witnesses never
stated that they had seen the deceased girl with the

21 Supra note 6.
540 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

accused. It is true to say that said both the witnesses
are residing in the transit camp. I have not prepared
the panchanama of female dog and also not included her
photograph in the documents. In the complaint at Exh. 20 no
name of accused is mentioned. All the incidence spots are
situated in the open space and anybody can access there.
There is a road connected to Unnati Society and peoples
used that road. It is not true to say that there is no
documentary evidence produced on record regarding
the said chawl where accused was residing. Accused is
residing in the present chawl, showing the said fact there is
no documentary evidence on record. But it has come in the
statements of witnesses. Complainant has not stated that
whether any witness had seen the deceased girl with the
accused. But he has stated it in supplementary statement.
In the present matter T.I. Parade was not conducted.
It is true to say that during the investigation some
witnesses were knowing to the accused and some
witnesses were not knowing to him. When I have
arrested the accused I have not examined his private part.
It is not true to say that at the time of arrest there was no
abrasion on the foreskin of accused. It is not true to say
that to involve the accused in the present matter we made
abrasion on his private part. It is mandatory that after the
arrest of accused within 24 hours he has to forward for
his medical examination. It is not true to say that I have
not forwarded him for examination immediately.”
(Emphasis supplied)

65. Thus, the witness (PW-18) affirms the fact that the witnesses of the
last seen theory who were residing in the transit camp did not step
forward to disclose to the police that they had seen the deceased girl
with the accused appellant. Neither of the two Investigating Officers
uttered a word regarding the witness Anil Mahatam Singh (PW-17)
coming forward and disclosing that the accused appellant had made
an extra-judicial confession in his presence.
66. Thus, upon an overall appreciation of the evidence of the two
Investigating Officers and the witnesses of the last seen theory
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 541

Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State of Maharashtra Etc.

and so also the sole witness of extra-judicial confession, we are
convinced that the entire sequence of events narrated by these
witnesses is unreliable and unbelievable. It is clearly a case of
concocted depositions secured by the prosecuting agency by way
of padding so as to fasten the guilt of this heinous crime, on the
accused appellant and thereby lay a claim to have solved the case.
67. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mandar Vasant Dharmadhikari
[(PW-18), 2nd Investigating Officer], was assigned the investigation
of the case on 3rd October, 2013. He visited the place of the incident
and claims to have recovered some blood stained soil from the
second room in the watchmen chawl. The evidence of this witness
(PW-18) does not indicate as to how he reached the conclusion that
the crime had taken place in the said room. The accused appellant
was arrested on 3rd October, 2013. Till then, there was no material
on the investigation file so as to even cast a minimal suspicion
against the accused appellant. The Investigating Officers did not even
possess the barest evidence which could have pointed a finger of
suspicion towards the accused appellant. Thus, the very foundation
for arresting the appellant in this case is lacking. The witness (PW-18)
also collected forensic samples and recovered allegedly incriminating
materials in furtherance of the information provided by the accused
appellant. He claims to have recovered a lungi, a baniyan, a pair
of shoes and the watchman uniform worn by the accused appellant
from his room. These recoveries were effected on 8th October, 2013.
68. Both the Investigating Officers had made extensive investigation in
the entire area and this definitely would have included the search
of the room of the accused appellant. At this stage, it is pertinent
to note that Vikas Sarjerao Lokre (PW-16) admitted in his cross-
examination that he had visited the watchmen chawl on 1st October
2013. Hence, if at all, these articles were lying in the room of the
accused appellant, they would not have escaped the notice of the
1st Investigating Officer (PW-16). Clearly thus, the factum of recovery
of incriminating articles at the instance of the accused appellant by
the 2nd Investigating Officer (PW-18) does not inspire confidence.
69. In addition to the fact that none of the articles recovered at the instance
of the accused appellant tested positive for the presence of the human
blood or semen, the fact remains that the accused appellant could
not be expected to preserve these worthless incriminating articles
for a period of three days, during which he was a free bird, so as to
542 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

provide incriminating material against himself. Thus, these recoveries,
apart from being inconsequential, are also doubtful.
70. The FSL report22 and the DNA Analysis Report23 did not result in any
positive finding regarding the presence of human blood or semen on
the clothing and other articles seized at the instance of the accused
appellant. The DNA analysis report remained inconclusive does not
implicate the accused appellant. Neither the trial Court nor the High
Court placed reliance on these reports for recording a finding against
the accused appellant.
71. The only so-called incriminating scientific report (Exh. 105) against
the accused appellant was pertaining to the comparison of the soil/
mud on the sole of the pair of shoes recovered at the instance of
the accused appellant and the specimen soil recovered from the
pond where the dead body of the child victim was found. The said
report was exhibited as Ext. 105 and indicates that the soil sample
collected from the pair of shoes tallied with the soil sample that
was recovered from the pond in respects of hue, physio-chemical
characteristics and spectro-chemical composition.
72. First of all, we may observe that there is no evidence to show that the
aforesaid observations made by the expert in Ext. 105 are admissible
ipso facto under Section 293 of the CrPC which is equivalent to
Section 329 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It may
be noted that the expert who prepared the report was not examined
by the prosecution.
73. Furthermore, the findings in this report are absolutely vague and
inconclusive. If at all, the prosecution desired to prove without any
exception that the soil found on the shoes of the accused appellant
was unexceptionally from the location from where the dead body of
the child victim was recovered, then the Investigating Officer (PW-18)
should have collected soil samples from the other places frequented
by the accused appellant. Then only the possibility of the soil not
being from any other place visited by the accused appellant could
have been excluded.
74. In any event, even if it is held that the soil/mud found on the shoes
of the accused appellant tallied with the soil found in the pond, that

22 Exh. 104.
23 Supra note 10.
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 543

Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State of Maharashtra Etc.

would be just an indication of the fact that the accused appellant
may have visited the area surrounding the pond at some point of
time. This, by itself, would not incriminate the accused appellant in
any manner.
75. Resultantly, we conclude: -
(i) that the evidence of the witnesses of last seen circumstance
is vacillating, shaky and tainted with wholesale improvements,
and hence, unworthy of credence.
(ii) the conduct of the witnesses of the last seen circumstance in failing
to timely step forward to make a disclosure to the Investigating
Officer (PW-16) that they had seen the accused appellant and
the deceased child victim together on the date of the incident
in spite of the fact that the police officers were regularly visiting
Unnati Woods area, right from late hours of 30th September, 2013
onwards, clearly indicates that these witnesses are untrustworthy
and were created by the investigation agency for ulterior motive;
(iii) There was a clear reference to the witnesses of last seen
circumstance, namely the complainant, i.e., Manoj Bhaskar
Sadavarte [(PW-1), father of the deceased child], Dipendrakumar
Dhirendranath Shukla (PW-9), Pradipkumar Ganesh Rawat
(PW-14) and Sanjay Ganesh Rawat (PW-15) in the spot
panchnama (Exh. 34) which was prepared by Vikas Sarjerao
Lokre (PW-16, i.e., Investigating Officer) on 1st October, 2013,
at around 7.30 A.M. In spite thereof, the 1st Investigating Officer
(PW-16) made no effort whatsoever to record the statements
of these witnesses at the earliest available opportunity. Rather,
the said Investigating Officer did not record the statements
of these witnesses at all, and the witnesses were examined
for the first time on 3rd October, 2013 by the 2nd Investigating
Officer, i.e., Shri Mandar Vasant Dharmadhikari (PW-18). This
omission is vital and indicative of gross negligence on the part
of the Investigation Officers.
(iv) The evidence of extra-judicial confession as deposed by Anil
Mahatam Singh (PW-17) is also unacceptable because the said
witness too did not step forward to inform the police regarding
the fact of the so called extra-judicial confession made by the
accused appellant before him, in spite of being aware that the
police was searching for the child.
544 [2025] 6 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(v) That the FSL report (Ext. 105) regarding the similarity of soil
samples is also inconsequential for the reasons mentioned
supra.
(vi) The reports pertaining to the comparison of the samples
taken from the other watchmen never saw the light of the day
because prosecution chose not to place the same on record.
Hence, it is clearly a case where the prosecution has withheld
important evidence thereby, compelling the Court to draw
adverse inference against the prosecution.
76. Thus, we are compelled to hold that flawed and tainted investigation
has eventually led to the failure of the prosecution case involving the
gruesome rape and murder of a child at the tender age of 3 years
and 9 months only. Despite there being hardly any reliable evidence
on the record of the case, the accused appellant was convicted and
sentenced by the Courts below and has suffered incarceration for
almost 12 years of which 6 years were under the Damocles sword
of death penalty. The findings recorded in the impugned judgments
holding the accused guilty of charges framed against him, are based
on conjectures and surmises and hence, both the judgments and the
order of sentence are unsustainable on the face of record.
77. As an upshot of the above discussion, the impugned judgment dated
25th November, 2021 passed by the High Court and judgment of
conviction dated 5th March, 2019, and the order of sentence dated
8th March, 2019, passed by the trial Court, do not stand to scrutiny
and are hereby quashed and set aside.
78. Resultantly, the appeals are allowed.
79. The appellant is acquitted of the charges. He is in custody and shall
be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
80. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeals allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain