Holding

A conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of unreliable extra‑judicial confession and insufficient circumstantial evidence; therefore, the appellant’s conviction and death sentence are set aside.

Summary

The appellant Sanjay was convicted of murder and rape of a four‑year‑old girl, X, and sentenced to death by the trial court, a decision affirmed by the High Court. The prosecution's case relied on the victim’s last‑seen testimony, an extra‑judicial confession by the accused that led to the recovery of the body and clothing, and forensic reports, while the defence offered no evidence. The Supreme Court examined the reliability of the circumstantial evidence, noting contradictions in the confession’s location, the absence of independent witnesses to corroborate the confession, and the failure of forensic analysis to link the accused to the crime. Applying principles from precedents on circumstantial evidence and extra‑judicial confessions, the Court held that the evidence did not conclusively establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and death sentence, ordering the appellant’s release. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the conviction and death sentence based primarily on circumstantial evidence and an extra‑judicial confession satisfy the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the extra‑judicial confession, given the surrounding suspicious circumstances and lack of independent corroboration, can be relied upon to sustain a conviction.
Whether the last‑seen testimony alone can form a complete chain of circumstantial evidence sufficient for conviction.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 366
Evidence Act, 1872s. 27
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302, s. 376(2)(G)

Headnote

Issue for Consideration The Appellant/accused was convicted under Section 302 IPC and 376(2)(G) IPC for alleged murder of a four-year-old girl. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to death, which was later confirmed by the High Court. The High Court confirmed the sentence dead body was recovered following the accused’s disclosure and was identified by PW1, the victim’s father. The last-seen evidence was firmly established through the testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW6, and PW7, confirming that the victim was last seen with the accused. The

Subjects

Death PenaltyMurderMinor

Judgment

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1790 : 2025 INSC 317

Sanjay
v.
State of Uttar Pradesh
(Criminal Appeal No. 239 of 2025)
06 February 2025
[Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
The Appellant/accused was convicted under Section 302 IPC
and 376(2)(G) IPC for alleged murder of a four-year-old girl. The
Trial Court convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to death,
which was later confirmed by the High Court. The High Court
confirmed the sentence based on key findings. The victim’s dead
body was recovered following the accused’s disclosure and was
identified by PW1, the victim’s father. The last-seen evidence
was firmly established through the testimonies of PW1, PW2,
PW3, PW6, and PW7, confirming that the victim was last seen
with the accused. The accused’s confession was corroborated by
evidence, including the recovery of the victim’s clothing (frock and
underwear) and her body, strengthening the prosecution’s case.
The circumstantial evidence was comprehensive and unerringly
pointed to the accused’s guilt, forming a logical chain with no
alternate explanation. Given the heinous nature of the crime,
the High Court held that the Trial Court had rightly imposed the
death penalty.
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence
of death penalty imposed on the Appellant by the Trial Court
confirmed by the High Court can be interfered with.

Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Murder of four-year-old minor girl –
Sentence of death penalty imposed by the Trial Court & High
Court – Accused acquitted for want of conclusive evidence
to point at guilt of Accused:
Held: The case at hand is one based on circumstantial evidence – It
is the settled law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence,
the prosecution must convince the Court that circumstances point

* Author
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1791

Sanjay v. State of Uttar Pradesh

towards the guilt of the accused alone and none else, as also
lack of his innocence – The conviction handed to the accused-
appellant has been based on (a) last seen circumstance; (b)
extra-judicial confession given by him, leading to the recovery of
the dead body of ‘X’ along with articles worn by her at the time
of death; (c) the FSL Report of the articles recovered, both of the
deceased and the accused – The conviction of the accused by
the Courts below is based on improper appreciation of evidence
on record and in correct appreciation of settled principles of
law resulting in the travesty of justice – The entire case of the
prosecution, from its genesis, is doubtful – In the first instance,
the conduct of the accused does not give rise to suspicion – PW1
and PW2 have deposed to the fact that the appellant was part of
the search parties for 5-6 days after the incident – It is improbable
that a person who killed ‘X’ would have been there all along, as
a search party looking for her – None suspected him and pointed
a finger of suspension against him, despite the hypothesis of
the last seen theory – Another aspect which creates doubt in
the prosecution story is that for six days from when the child
disappears, there is not a single person who lodges a missing
report with the police or any other authority – This aspect is more
suspicious coupled with the deposition of PW1 to 3, PW6 and PW7.
[Paras 15, 17-20]
Furthermore, the body of ‘X’ was recovered in an open sugarcane
field six days after the incident – PWs 2 and 3 deposed that a
foul smell was coming from the spot as well – However, no single
villager came upon this open spot for six days, which creates
suspicion in our minds about the prosecution story – The field
is not a jungle; it was cultivated; sugarcane crop was grown; it
was privately owned; and the village was inhabited, hence, it is
unbelievable that no one noticed the foul smell, particularly when
the entire area was combed over for nearly 5-6 days. [Para 21]

Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Circumstantial evidence –
When two views possible, one in favour of Accused to be
adopted:
Held: Reliance placed on Pradeep Kumar v. State of Haryana
(2024) 3 SCC 324 where it has been held that in circumstantial
evidence cases, all facts must be consistent with the hypothesis
of the accused’s guilt, excluding his innocence and also exclusion
of third-party involvement – Reliance placed on Pradeep Kumar v.
1792 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

State of Chhattisgarh (2023) 5 SCC 350 where it has been held
that in cases where there is a heavy reliance on circumstantial
evidence and on a perusal of evidence, two views are possible,
the one which is favourable to the accused must be adopted.
[Para 16]

Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Extra-judicial confession –
Trustworthiness of extrajudicial confession depends on the
trustworthiness of the witness before whom it is given – Extra-
judicial evidence to be supported by other evidence:
Held: The extra-judicial confession and the consequent recovery
are also surrounded by suspicious circumstances – There is no
doubt that the case of the prosecution depends entirely on the
extra judicial confession of the accused leading to the recovery of
body from the sugarcane field, along with other articles worn by
the deceased – Reliance placed on Kalinga v. State of Karnataka
(2024) 4 SCC 735 – If extra-judicial confession is not supported
by other evidence on record, it fails to inspire confidence and in
such a case, it shall not be treated as a strong piece of evidence
for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion of guilt – The extent
of acceptability of an extra-judicial confession depends on the
trustworthiness of the witness before whom it is given and the
circumstances in which it was given – The prosecution must
establish that a confession was indeed made by the accused, that
it was voluntary in nature and that the contents of the confession
were true – The standard required for proving an extra-judicial
confession to the satisfaction of the Court is on the higher side
and these essential ingredients must be established beyond any
reasonable doubt – The standard becomes even higher when the
entire case of the prosecution necessarily rests on the extrajudicial
confession – Reliance placed on Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State
of W.B. (2023) 6 SCC 605 where it has been held that where
suspicious circumstances surround an extra-judicial confession,
its credibility becomes doubtful and loses. [Paras 23-26]

Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Requirement of independent
witnesses to prove in the case of circumstantial evidence:
Held: The most pertinent suspicion in the prosecution case is that
no single independent witness is adjoined or examined in support
of the confession or consequent recovery – The recovery of the
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1793

Sanjay v. State of Uttar Pradesh

body of the deceased is from a field which is accessible and open
to the public, which further warrants need for an independent
witness – Given the availability of independent witnesses in this
case, the investigating officer has deliberated to exclude them.
[Paras 29, 30]

Case Law Cited
Pritinder Singh alias Lovely v. State of Punjab [2023] 10 SCR
1033 : (2023) 7 SCC 727; Pradeep Kumar v. State of Haryana
[2024] 1 SCR 306 : (2024) 3 SCC 324; Pradeep Kumar v. State of
Chhattisgarh [2023] 2 SCR 682 : (2023) 5 SCC 350; Kali Ram v.
State of H.P. [1974] 1 SCR 722 : (1973) 2 SCC 808; Kalinga v.
State of Karnataka [2024] 2 SCR 391 : (2024) 4 SCC 735; Nikhil
Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. [2023] 2 SCR 20 : (2023) 6 SCC
605; Krishnan v. State of T.N. [2014] 9 SCR 340 : (2014) 12 SCC
279; Randeep Singh v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3383; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda 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.

List of Keywords
Death Penalty; Murder; Minor.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
239 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2005 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in CRLA No. 4911 of 2004

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Dr. S. Muralidhar, Sr. Adv., Ms. Pratiksha Basarkar, Maitreya
Subramaniam, Anish R. Shah.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Suryaprakash V. Raju, A.S.G., Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. A.A.G.,
Zoheb Hussain, Annam Venkatesh, Samrat Goswami, Arvind Kumar
1794 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Sharma, Dr. Vijendra Singh, Deepak Goel, Shailesh Sharma,
Kumar Abhinandan, Ms. Apurva Mahndiyan, Pradeep Misra, Daleep
Dhyani, Suraj Singh.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Order

Sanjay Karol, J.

1. The present appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated
26th July, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
in Criminal Appeal No.4911 of 2004 & Reference No.15, which
confirmed the judgment and order dated 21st September, 2004
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.16,
Bulandshahar, in Sessions Case No.306/2004 whereby the accused-
appellant, Sanjay, was convicted under Section 302 and 376(2)(G)
of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter ‘IPC’) and sentenced to death.
The incident in question relates to the alleged rape and murder of
a four-year-old girl child.

Prosecution Case
2. The prosecution case emerging from the record, as also set out by
the Courts below, is as under :
2.1 On 22nd April, 2004, Sanjay (hereinafter referred to as the
accused) accompanied the complainant’s daughter, aged 4
years (hereinafter referred to as ‘X’) and her paternal aunt,
Rajkumari, to the marriage of one Naresh. It was part of seven
combined marriages taking place at the same hall. After some
time, the accused informed Rajkumari that he was taking ‘X’
home. However, ‘X’ did not reach home. On query the accused
informed that he had left her at the marriage hall itself.
2.2 Later, on 28th August, 2004, on questioning, the accused
confessed to having left the body of ‘X’ in the sugarcane field
after committing rape and murder. Upon discovery of the dead
body, the complainant lodged an FIR being Criminal Case
No.36/2004, P.S. Jahangirabad on 28.02.2004 at 5:45 PM under
Sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1795

Sanjay v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2.3 S.I. Jai Ram Yadav commenced investigation of the incident,
before whom also the accused confessed his guilt and got
recovered specific articles from the spot where he had disposed
of the body of the deceased.
2.4 With the completion of investigation, the challan was presented
in the Court for trial, where the prosecution examined eight
witnesses and marked Exhibits Ka 1 to Ka 17. The defence
did not adduce any oral evidence.

The reasoning of the Courts below
3. The Trial Court, after elaborate consideration, vide judgment and
order dated 20th September, 2004, convicted the accused under
Section 376, 302 and 201 of the IPC. The Court gave the following
findings:
a. On consideration of the testimonies of PW1 and PW5, the
identity of the body recovered, being ‘X’, was not in doubt.
b. Given the testimonies of PW1 and PW2, the confessional
statement of the accused stood proved, leading to the conclusion
that it was he who had killed the deceased by strangulation.
c. Recoveries of articles related to the crime, made at the behest of
the accused, are admissible under S.27 of the Indian Evidence
Act as proven through PW1, PW2 and PW8.
d. PW3, PW6 and PW7 prove that ‘X’ was last seen with the
accused.
e. The chain of circumstantial evidence is complete against the
accused.
f. Given the nature of crime committed on the deceased child,
the death sentence is appropriate to be awarded.
4. The accused-appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, which was numbered as Criminal Appeal
No.4911 of 2004. A reference for confirmation of the death sentence
was also submitted to the High Court, which came to be numbered
as Reference No.15 in consonance with Section 366 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. Vide the impugned judgment and order
dated 26th July, 2005, the High Court confirmed the conviction and
death sentence awarded to the accused, giving the following findings:
1796 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

a. The evidence on record shows that the dead body was recovered
on the pointing out of the accused and identified by PW1, the
father of the deceased.
b. After considering the testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW6,
and PW7, the circumstances of the last sight of the deceased
with the accused stood established.
c. The confession made by the accused stood proved by cogent
evidence. The recovery of the dead body, frock, and underwear
on the pointing out of the accused corroborated the extra-judicial
confession, which was a very strong circumstance against him.
d. The circumstances taken cumulatively pointed unerringly
towards the guilt of the accused and formed a chain so complete
that there is no escape from such a conclusion.
e. The Sessions Judge had rightly sentenced the accused to death.

Issue for consideration
5. The question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether
or not the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, as
affirmed by the High Court, are sustainable in law.

Our View
6. We now proceed to examine the prosecution case, as has unfurled
through the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

PW Name Role Relation
1 Dinesh Complainant Father of X
2 Lakhpat Witness to extra-judicial Grandparent
confession, last seen and of X
recovery
3 Rajkumar Witness to extra-judicial Aunt of X
confession, last seen and
recovery
4 C.P. Rajpal Singh Registration of FIR -
5 Dr. Yashwant Singh Post-mortem -
6 Santo Last seen witness Not related
7 Babli Last seen witness Not related
8 S.I. Ram Yadav Investigating Officer -
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1797

Sanjay v. State of Uttar Pradesh

7. PW1, Dinesh is the father of the deceased. He deposed that he
knew the accused as he was the son of his maternal uncle and
had resided in his house for the last 8 months. On 22nd February,
2004, he went to the wedding of one Naresh along with his family.
His sister-in-law Rajkumari (PW3) informed him that the accused
had taken ‘X’ home from the wedding hall. However, when they
returned home, ‘X’ was not found. The accused told him that he had
left ‘X’ at the wedding hall. Thereafter, despite continuous search,
his daughter was not found.
8. Further that, when 8 days after the incident, he, along with
Rameshwar, Lakhpat Singh (PW2) and Ramachandra, enquired about
the whereabouts of ‘X’ from the accused, he confessed of having
committed an act of rape and murder of ‘X’. The accused then took
them to the sugarcane field, where he pointed out the body of the
deceased child and other articles worn by her. Consequently, they
proceeded to the police station, where Gyanendra Singh lodged
a report. He identifies his signature on the FIR (Ex. Ka-1) and the
recovery memo. Lastly, he identified the accused in the Court. In his
cross-examination, he deposed that he had left his daughter with his
sister-in-law Rajkumari while leaving the wedding venue. He further
stated that the accused was part of the search efforts and confessed
his crime at the marriage hall.
9. PW2, Lakhpat deposed that he had accompanied the accused to
the marriage hall. His testimony is similar to that of PW1. ‘X’ was his
grand daughter. He deposed that the accused took ‘X’ with him from
the marriage hall. The accused had also joined the party searching
for the deceased, which continued for 5-6 days. Thereafter, at the
marriage hall, the accused confessed that he had committed rape and
murder of ‘X’ by strangulation. He further deposed to having witnessed
recovery of the body of the deceased at the behest of accused.
10. PW3, Rajkumari is the aunt of ‘X’. She deposed that at the marriage
hall, around 2:00 PM, the accused left with the deceased child. The
accused seemed dull from the date of the incident and was not eating
properly. Pertinently, she deposed that the accused confessed to
the crime in the field near tube well. This is in contradiction to the
statements of PWs 1 and 2, who deposed that the confession took
place in the marriage hall. Moreover, in the cross-examination, PW3
then states that she has not witnessed the confession.
1798 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

11. PW4, C.P. Rajpal Singh, is the police officer who had made GD Entry
of the crime based on the written complaint of PW1. He verified his
signature on Ex. K-3.
12. PW5, Dr. Yashwant Singh, is the medical officer who conducted a
post-mortem on the deceased. He deposed that animals ate away
some parts of the dead body. The reason for death, time of death,
and sex could not be determined due to the condition of the dead
body. He verified his signature on Ex. K-4.
13. PW6, Santo, and PW7, Babli, deposed that they saw the accused
leaving the marriage hall with the deceased child.
14. PW8, S.I. Jai Ram Yadav, is the investigating officer of the case.
He deposed that on 28th February, 2004, he took the statement of
accused-appellant confessing the crime. Furthermore, the accused
disclosed that the dead body was lying in the field of sugarcane.
Thereafter, he along with PW1, constables, and some other people,
came to the sugarcane field where the dead body was recovered.
PW1 identified the dead body, after which the recovery memo was
drawn (Ex.Ka-5), which bears his signature. Other articles recovered
from near the body of the deceased, i.e., the shirt’s button and hair
of the deceased, were recorded vide memo Ex.-Ka-6. The accused
took him to the house of PW1, where he recovered the clothes (Ex.
Ka-8) worn on the day of the incident. He further deposed that the
underwear and frock of the deceased, along with the clothes of the
accused, were sent to the forensic laboratory Agra for testing, the
report of which remained awaited on the date of the examination.
In his cross-examination, he deposed that the accused had suffered
injuries during an inquiry by witnesses.
15. Undoubtedly, the case at hand is one based on circumstantial
evidence. It is the settled law that in a case based on circumstantial
evidence, the prosecution must convince the Court that circumstances
point towards the guilt of the accused alone and none else, as also
lack of his innocence. This Court in Pritinder Singh alias Lovely v.
State of Punjab1 succinctly summarized the position of law on
circumstantial evidence :

1 (2023) 7 SCC 727
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1799

Sanjay v. State of Uttar Pradesh

“17. It can thus be seen that this Court has held that the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should be fully established. It has been held that
the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not
“may be” established. It has been held that there is not
only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may
be proved” and “must be or should be proved”. It has been
held that 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. It has been
held that the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency and they should exclude every
possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved,
and that there must be a chain of evidence so complete so
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.
18. It is a settled principle of law that, however strong a
suspicion may be, it cannot take the place of proof beyond
a reasonable doubt. In the light of these guiding principles,
we will have to consider the present case.”
(Emphasis supplied)

16. More recently, this came to be reiterated by this Court in Pradeep
Kumar v. State of Haryana 2 observing that in circumstantial
evidence cases, all facts must be consistent with the hypothesis
of the accused’s guilt, excluding his innocence and also exclusion
of third-party involvement. Moreover, in Pradeep Kumar v. State
of Chhattisgarh,3 this Court clarified that in cases where there is
a heavy reliance on circumstantial evidence and on a perusal of
evidence, two views are possible, the one which is favourable to the
accused must be adopted. [See also: Kali Ram v. State of H.P.4]

2 (2024) 3 SCC 324
3 (2023) 5 SCC 350
4 (1973) 2 SCC 808
1800 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

17. The conviction handed to the accused-appellant has been based on
(a) last seen circumstance; (b) extra-judicial confession given by him,
leading to the recovery of the dead body of ‘X’ along with articles
worn by her at the time of death; (c) the FSL Report of the articles
recovered, both of the deceased and the accused.
18. In the considered view of this Court, the conviction of the accused
by the Courts below is based on improper appreciation of evidence
on record and in correct appreciation of settled principles of law
resulting in the travesty of justice. The entire case of the prosecution,
from its genesis, is doubtful.
19. In the first instance, the conduct of the accused does not give rise to
suspicion. PW1 and PW2 have deposed to the fact that the appellant
was part of the search parties for 5-6 days after the incident. He
was always present. In our view, it is improbable that a person who
killed ‘X’ would have been there all along, as a search party looking
for her. None suspected him. None pointed a finger of suspension
against him, despite the hypothesis of the last seen theory.
20. Another aspect which creates doubt in the prosecution story is that
for six days from when the child disappears, there is not a single
person who lodges a missing report with the police or any other
authority. This aspect is more suspicious coupled with the deposition
of PW1 to 3, PW6 and PW7. All these witnesses deposed that
they had last seen ‘X’, leaving the marriage hall with the accused.
Despite all these witnesses having made this observation, neither
raises a suspicion nor registers a complaint about the missing
child. The explanation given by PWs 1 and 2 that for six days
they were searching for the child in other villages only renders the
genuineness of the prosecution story to be unbelievable. There
is no reason ascribed to why they thought ‘X’ would have been
taken to another village, and there is no evidence to support the
claim that they actually visited other areas around the spot of the
incident. Possibility of involvement of others, including PW3, who
also appeared to be a suspect, as is evident from the examination,
cannot be ruled out.
21. Furthermore, the body of ‘X’ was recovered in an open sugarcane
field six days after the incident. PWs 2 and 3 deposed that a foul
smell was coming from the spot as well. However, no single villager
came upon this open spot for six days, which creates suspicion in
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1801

Sanjay v. State of Uttar Pradesh

our minds about the prosecution story. The field is not a jungle; it
was cultivated; sugarcane crop was grown; it was privately owned;
and the village was inhabited, hence, it is unbelievable that no one
noticed the foul smell, particularly when the entire area was combed
over for nearly 5-6 days.
22. These circumstances make us doubt the genesis of the prosecution
story as also the veracity of the prosecution witnesses and their
testimonies.
23. There is no doubt that the case of the prosecution depends entirely
on the extra judicial confession of the accused on 28th February,
2004, leading to the recovery of body from the sugarcane field, along
with other articles worn by the deceased.
24. The principles of the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession
are summarized by this Court recently in Kalinga v. State of
Karnataka5 as under :
“16. It is no more res integra that an extra-judicial
confession must be accepted with great care and caution.
If it is not supported by other evidence on record, it fails
to inspire confidence and in such a case, it shall not be
treated as a strong piece of evidence for the purpose of
arriving at the conclusion of guilt. Furthermore, the extent
of acceptability of an extra-judicial confession depends
on the trustworthiness of the witness before whom it is
given and the circumstances in which it was given. The
prosecution must establish that a confession was indeed
made by the accused, that it was voluntary in nature
and that the contents of the confession were true. The
standard required for proving an extra-judicial confession
to the satisfaction of the Court is on the higher side and
these essential ingredients must be established beyond
any reasonable doubt. The standard becomes even higher
when the entire case of the prosecution necessarily rests
on the extra-judicial confession.”
(Emphasis supplied)

5 (2024) 4 SCC 735
1802 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

25. We must also advert to the exposition of this Court in Nikhil Chandra
Mondal v. State of W.B.,6 where B.R. Gavai, J., writing for the bench,
observed as follows:
“16. It is a settled principle of law that extra-judicial
confession is a weak piece of evidence. It has been
held that where suspicious circumstances surround an
extra-judicial confession, its credibility becomes doubtful
and loses importance. It has further been held that
it is well-settled that it is a rule of caution where the
Court would generally look for an independent, reliable
corroboration before placing any reliance upon such
extra-judicial confession. It has been held that there is
no doubt that conviction can be based on extra-judicial
confession, but in the very nature of things, it is a weak
piece of evidence.”
(Emphasis supplied)

26. The extra-judicial confession and the consequent recovery are also
surrounded by suspicious circumstances.
27. The first suspicion of this extra-judicial confession arises from different
versions of where the confession took place. PW1 has deposed that
the accused confessed his crime at the marriage hall. Meanwhile,
PW2 has deposed that it was so done at the tube well. PW3 brings
out a different version in her deposition by stating that the confession
took place in the field near the tube well. PW3 changes the story in
her cross-examination, stating that the confession was not witnessed
by her. In the considered view of this Court, these are not minor
contradictions that can be brushed off. There are three different
versions of one confession, which does not inspire confidence in
the testimony of these witnesses.
28. Apart from the above contradiction, another circumstance which
does not inspire confidence of the Court in the testimony of PW1,
the Complainant and star witness of the prosecution, is that in his
deposition, he stated that he had accompanied his family to the
marriage hall. It directly contradicts the testimony of PW8, who

6 (2023) 6 SCC 605
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1803

Sanjay v. State of Uttar Pradesh

deposed that during the investigation when he had recorded the
statement of PW1, such a fact was not disclosed.
29. The most pertinent suspicion in the prosecution case is that no
single independent witness is adjoined or examined in support of the
confession or consequent recovery. We must clarify that this is not
a case where the Investigating Officer tried to adjoin independent
witnesses, but it was refused. PW1, in his statement categorically
states that a large public from the village had gathered when the
accused led them to the spot where the body of the deceased
was recovered. The investigating officer, PW8, himself deposed
that ‘some other people’ were present during the recovery. No
explanation is provided for their non-joining, more so when the
entire prosecution case rests on this circumstance. The recovery
of the body of the deceased is from a field which is accessible and
open to the public, which further warrants need for an independent
witness.
30. Given the availability of independent witnesses in this case, the
investigating officer has deliberated to exclude them. PW1, in his
testimony, also mentions that his father, Ramchandra, and one
Rameshwar had also witnessed the confession of the accused.
The prosecution has also not examined these two persons. This is
a glaring omission in the attending facts and circumstances.
31. We are now considering the report of the Assistant Director, Forensic
Lab, Agra. This report has miserably failed to link the accused with
the crime. The examination conducted only verifies whether the
blood found is of human origin, and that semen was present on the
underwear allegedly belonging to the deceased. There is no testing
undertaken to compare the blood found on the clothes of the deceased
with the blood of the accused-appellant. How does signs of semen
found on the clothes of the accused link him to the crime of either
rape or murder. It is not the proven case of the prosecution that the
semen of the accused was found on any part of the body or clothes
of the deceased or for that matter, blood of the deceased found on
the clothes of the accused. Alleged recovery of a button of a shirt
does not link the accused to the crime in any manner. Cumulatively,
therefore, the contents of this report do not point towards the guilt of
the accused and fail to substantiate the conviction of the accused-
appellant under Section 376 IPC.
1804 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

32. The only circumstance remaining against the accused that can
be believed, is the last-seen theory. PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW6
and PW7 have deposed that they saw the accused lastly with the
deceased. It is settled law, however, that conviction cannot be solely
based on last-seen theory. This Court in Krishnan v. State of T.N.7
had observed :
“21. The conviction cannot be based only on the
circumstance of last seen together with the deceased. In
Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar [1994 Supp (2) SCC 372 :
1994 SCC (Cri) 1551] this Court held as follows: (SCC
p. 385, para 31)
“31. Thus the evidence that the Appellant had
gone to Sitaram in the evening of 19-7-1985 and
had stayed in the night at the house of deceased
Sitaram is very shaky and inconclusive. Even
if it is accepted that they were there it would
at best amount to be the evidence of the
appellants having been seen last together with
the deceased. But it is settled law that the only
circumstance of last seen will not complete the
chain of circumstances to record the finding that
it is consistent only with the hypothesis of the
guilt of the accused and, therefore, no conviction
on that basis alone can be founded.”
24. In Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab [(2005) 12 SCC
438 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 579] this Court held that in the
absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial
evidence, the Appellant cannot be convicted solely based
on “last seen together” even if version of the prosecution
witness in this regard is believed.”
(Emphasis supplied)

33. We must also clarify that even the last-seen theory against the
accused-appellant is not free from suspicion. In her cross-examination,
PW7, an independent witness, who has been relied upon for this

7 (2014) 12 SCC 279
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1805

Sanjay v. State of Uttar Pradesh

circumstance, admits that she had not told the I.O.-PW8, on the first
instance, that she had seen the accused leaving the marriage hall
with the deceased. The reason for this omission at the first instance
remains unexplained.
34. This Court is of the view that the circumstances presented before us
do not establish conclusively the guilt of the accused in committing
the murder and rape of ‘X’.
35. We deem it appropriate to reiterate what came to be observed by this
Court in Randeep Singh v. State of Haryana,8 that a conviction can
only be made when guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt,
and as such, there cannot be a moral conviction in law. Though the
offence in question strikes at the human conscience, there being
a murder of a four-year-old girl child, the evidence brought by the
prosecution is not clear and unimpeachable, pointing towards the
guilt of the accused alone, meeting with the principles enunciated by
this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra.9
36. Therefore, in view of the above, the conviction of the accused-
appellant under Sections 302 and 376 of the IPC is set aside. The
impugned order dated 26th July, 2005 passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 4911 of 2004 &
Reference No.15, which confirmed the judgment and order dated
21st September, 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court No.16, Bulandshahar in Sessions Case No.306/2004
is quashed and set aside. The accused-appellant is directed to be
released forthwith, if not required in another detention order.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.**

†
Headnotes prepared by: Mukund P Unny, Hony. Associate Editor
(Verified by: Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv.)

8 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3383
9 (1984) 4 SCC 116
** Note: On 6th February 2005 itself, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 224 of 2019 in the matter of Sanjay v. Union
of India was dismissed by this Hon’ble Bench.