STATE OF GUJARATversusRATANSINGH @ CHINUBHAL ANOPSINH CHAUHAN

                     [2014] 1 S.C.R. 397


                    STATE OF GUJARAT                               A
                               v.
   RATANSINGH @ CHINUBHAl ANOPSINH CHAUHAN
          (Criminal Appeal No. 403 of 2007)

                     JANUARY 10, 2014
                                                                   B
      [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K.SIKRI, JJ.]

    Penal Code, 1860:

     ss.376, 302 and 21 - Rape and murder- Charges of-             c
Circumstantial evidence - Conviction by trial court and
sentence of death - Set aside by High Court - Held: High
Court has rightly held that the evidence led by the
prosecution does not establish a complete chain of
circumstances to connect the accused with the murder of            0
deceased - There are significant defects and shortcomings
in the investigation; witnesses have come out with
contradictory versions; and have made significant
improvements in their versions in their depositions in the court
- In a case of circumstantial evidence, it would be unwise to      E
record conviction on the basis of such a scanty, weak and
incomplete evidence - As the prosecution has not been able
to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, High Court
has rightly set aside the judgment of the trial court.

    s.376 - Rape - Victim, a 7 year old girl - Death of -          F
Held: There was no direct evidence and High Court has rightly
recorded a finding that on the basis of medical evidence
offence of rape was not proved by prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt.
                                                                   G
     Evidence:

     Circumstantial evidence - Last seen theory - Held: This
is one of the major circumstances pressed by prosecution -

                              397                                  H
    398      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014) 1 S.C.R.

A High Court has rightly found certain inherent contradictions
  in the deposition of witnesses as regards the prosecution case
  that deceased was last seen with accused - Investigation has
  also not been carried properly and does not inspire confidence
  - Investigation.
B
       The respondent was prosecuted for committing
  offences punishable u/ss 376, 302 and 201, IPC on the
  allegations that he committed rape on a 7 years old girl,
  who was her neighbor, and killed her. The trail court
  convicted him of the offences charged and sentenced
C him to life imprisonment u/s 376 IPC and awarded him
  death sentence u/s 302 IPC. However, the High Court
  acquitted the accused holding that the case being one
  of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution failed to
  establish the chain of circumstances to connect the
D accused with the crime.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court

      HELD: 1.1. As far as charge of rape is concerned, the
E High Court has rightly observed that there was no direct
  evidence and on the basis of medical evidence, which
  was only a circumstantial evidence, offence of rape was
  not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
  [para 5-6) [405-E-F; 406-B]

F      1.2. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and the
  prosecution case starts with the theory of last seen. For
  this purpose the prosecution has relied upon the
  testimonies of PW12, PW16, PW17 and PW18. The High
  Court has found certain inherent contradictions in the
G depositions of these witnesses on the basis of which it
  has come to the conclusion that it is difficult to accept
  their version, which is even contrary to each other about
  the details of the events. PW12 was playing with the
  deceased and another girl in the court yard of the
H residence of the accused and when accused-reached the
STATE OF GUJARAT v. RATANSINGH @ CHINUBHAI 399
            ANOPSINH CHAUHAN
spot, he asked them to leave. As per the prosecution          A
version itself, the geceased had left that place; elbeit at
the asking of the -respondent who had sent her to the
market to purchase Gutka and she returned back to the
respondent after purchasing the said Gutka, to hand it
over to the deceased. As regards her returning back also,     B
according to the High Court, there are various
contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses. As per
PW7, the shopkeeper from whom the deceased had gone
to purchase Gutka, the deceased had come to his shop
on that date at about 3 p.m. He also admitted that in his     C
statement before the police on 19.8.2003, he had not
stated that the deceased had come to his shop to
purchase eatable. On specific question put to him in the
cross-examination as to why he did not tell the police
about the victim's visit to his shop to purchase eatable,
he did not give any specific reply. [para 13) [409-F, G-H;
                                                              0
410-A-F]

     1.3. As per PW16, who is the neighbour of the
respondent, she had s~en the three girls playing in the
courtyard of the respondent. She further stated that the      E
respondent drove away two girls and then caught the
victim and pushed her:.into his house. Thereafter she
heard cries of the victim and then she heard sound of
beating. The witness h~ further stated that on the next
day when mother of the victim was searching her, she did      F
tell her about the incident and joined the search. During
cross-examination, the witness has admitted that she had
not stated in her statement before police that the accused
had intimidated her. She says that she did not tell her
husband or her son about the incident. Apart from the         G
omissions on the part of PW16 and PW17 in not
mentioning to the police when they gave their statements,
immediately after the incident, the High Court has also
analyzed their statements along with deposition of PW12
and found them to be inconsistent and self-contradictory      H
    400    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014] 1 S.C.R.

A as regards the accused last seen with the victim. [para
  14-15) [410-G-H; 411-8)

       1.4. After analyzing the evidence of PW-16, PW-12 and
  PW-17, the High Court has rightly held that the evidence
  led by the prosecution on last seen together aspect
8 cannot be accepted. It is not only contradictory,
  inconsistent and improbable, but it also suffers from vice
  of improvements and, therefore, it sounds unreliable. The
  case is founded on circumstantial evidence. This is one
  of the major circumstances pressed by the prosecution.
C The investigation is also not carried out properly and
  does not inspire confidence. The evidence on last seen
  together aspect, therefore, cannot be accepted as a link
  in the chain of circumstances leading to exclusive
  hypothesis of guilt of the accused. This Court, therefore,
D holds that prosecution has not been able to establish,
  with clinching evidence that the deceased was seen lastly
  in the company of the accused. [para 15-16) [411-E-F;
  414-C-F]

E      1.5. Even the medical evidence is of no help to arrive
  at the conclusion that guilt of the respondent stands
  proved beyond reasonable doubt. When the respondent
  was arrested on 19.8.2003, a Panchnama (Ex.14) was
  drawn. In that it is recorded that the accused had
  abrasions on chest, back and shoulder caused by nail
F and also that there was swelling on his penis and swelling
  on skin with abrasion. Immediately after his arrest, the
  respondent was sent for medical check up. The doctor
  admitted in his cross-examination that he did not notice
  any injury on the penis of the accused. Therefore, this
G shows contradiction between the recording of medical
  condition in the Panchnama and the medical examination
  conducted by the doctor. It reflects adversely on the
  prosecution case. As regards injuries found on chest and
  back of the respondent, they are tried to be shown as
H
STATE OF GUJARAT v. RATANSINGH @ CHINUBHAI 401
            ANOPSINH CHAUHAN
injuries caused with nail of the deceased. However, the     A
post mortem note does not indicate presence of any
traces of skin of the accused in nail of the deceased.
[para 17] [414-G-H; 415-A-D]

    1.6. The High Court has also expressed its doubts on    8
recovery of grinding stone from the house of the
respondent which was allegedly used for committing
murder of the deceased. It is pointed out by the High
Court that the evidence suggests that the officer of the
FSL was summoned on 19.8.2003 who inspected the             C
place of incident and instructed the Inquiry Officer to
recover the stone which was, accordingly, recovered.
Thus, as per the deposition of the officer of FSL, stone
was recovered on 19.8.2003. As against this, as per
discovery Panchnama drawn on 23.8.2003 the said
grinding stone was recovered from beneath steel             D
cupboard at the instance of the respondent. This casts
doubt about the relevant documents and the discovery
of stone itself. [para 18] [416-D-G]
     1.7. There is another aspect which is very pertinent   E
and cannot be ignored. After the incident when sniffer
dog was brought to the site. The said dog had tracked
to the house of PW16 and not to that of the respondent.
In fact, on this basis the son of PW 16 was even taken
into custody by the police and was detained for 2 days.     F
Thereafter, he was allowed to go inasmuch, as per the
police he had not committed any offence. This version
has come from the testimony of PW16 herself. On the
other hand, 1.0. has totally denied that the son of PW16
was ever detained for 2 days. There is no such entry in     G
the daily diary as well. It also speaks volumes about the
reliability of the investigation and evidence collected,
more so when no explanation is coming forward as to
why the son of PW16 was released by the police and the
respondent arrested. [para 19] [416-H; 417-A-C, E]
                                                            H
    402      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A     1.8. Thus, the High Court has rightly held that the
  evidence led by the prosecution does not establish a
  complete chain of circumstances to connect the accused
  with the murder of the deceased. There are significant
  defects and shortcomings in the investigation; witnesses
B have come out with contradictory versions; and have
  made significant improvements in their versions in their
  depositions in the court. In a case of circumstantial
  evidence, it would be unwise to record conviction on the
  basis of such a scanty, weak and incomplete evidence.
c As the prosecution has not been able to prove the
  charges beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court has
  rightly set aside the judgment of the trial court. [para 20]
  [417-F-H]

      CRIMINAL APPELLLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
D Appeal No. 403 of 2007.

        From the Judgment and Order dated 14.09.2006 of the
    High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Crl. Confirmation Case
    No. 9 of 2004 with Crl. Appeal No. 1915 of 2004.
E
          Nitin Sangra, Pinky Behra, Parul Kumari, Hemantika Wahi
    for the Appellant.

          Nidhi for the Respondent.

F         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       A.K.SIKRI, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against
  the final judgment and order dated 14th September 2006
  passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Criminal
  Confirmation Case No.9 of 2004 with Criminal Appeal
G No.1915/2004, setting aside the judgment and order passed
  by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge and second Fast Track
  Court in Sessions Case No.4/2004 convicting the respondent
  under Section 376,302 and 201 IPC for the offence of rape and
  murder of a seven year old girl and punishing him with sentence
H of death. The High Court found severe loopholes and
STATE OF GUJARAT v. RATANSINGH @ CHINUBHAI 403
      ANOPSINH CHAUHAN [A.K.SIKRI, J.]
shortcomings in the prosecution story, rendering it unbelievable       A
and thereby acquitted the respondent in the aforesaid case.

        2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, was that the
  respondent/accused was the neighbour of the deceased girl
  Komal aged 7 years r/o village Bhammiya. On the day of
                                                                       8
  incident i.e. 16.8.2003 the victim was playing with her two
 friends viz. Parul and Saroj in the courtyard of the respondent.
 The respondent/accused came to his house between 15.00 to
  15.30 hrs. and scolded the girls for playing there. Parul and
  Saroj ran away whereas, however, the deceased girl was
  forcibly caught by the respondent and pushed her into his house      C
  and he shut the door. Shakriben Chandrasinh, a neighbour who
  was washing clothes, heard the cries of victim which got silent
  after sometimes. Thereafter Savitaben mother of the deceased
  girl, who returned from work at about 16.00 hrs. and not finding
  her daughter started searching for the victim along with             D
  Shakriben. A day after the incident, dead body of the victim was
  recovered from a nearby field wearing a white frock with
  undergarment missing, which was later found from the hedge
  falling between the house of the respondent and Shakriben
  Chandrasinh. A complaint was lodged and FIR registered by            E
  Arvindbhai Khatubhai, the father of the victim. The police started
  investigation and recorded the statements of witnesses.
  Necessary samples were also collected during the
  investigation and sent to FSL. The dead body of the deceased
. was sent for the post mortem which was conducted by Dr.              F
  Shashikant Nagori between 16.45 hrs. & 17.45 hrs. on
   17.8.2003. The post mortem report mentioned following
  injuries:-

      *Abrasion on both thighs, both knees and bruises over the G
      legs.

      * The injuries found on labia majora had a swelling of 3 x
      2 ems. on right majora and abrasion on left majora, such
      injuries were possible in an attempted rape. There was
      penetration on the private parts of the victim girl.             H
    404       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A         * The presence of injuries on left mastoid region, which
          was bone deep and brain matter had come out of the
          wound.

          * There was haematoma over whole skull on both parietal
          and frontal region and blood was oozing out of the left ear.
B
          * There was a depressed fracture of skull on frontal and
          left parietal region.

         The doctor opined that the injuries were sufficient in
c   ordinary course of nature to cause death and it was homicidal
    death.

       3. The respondent was arrested after two days i.e. on
  19.8.2003 from a nearby village, who had allegedly fled after
  committing the offence. On search, a suicide note purportedly
0
  written by the respondent was recovered from his pocket.
  Besides, blood stained clothes and blood group of the
  deceased was noticed on other articles. He was found to have
  sustained injuries on his person, which was recorded in the
  arrest panchnama. Upon disclosure of the accused, the grinding
E stone used in inflicting injuries on head of the deceased was
  recovered from his house. After the recovery of the stone, a
  panchnama of recovery of the stone was drawn in the presence
  of panch witnesses on 20.8.2003. Thereafter discovery
  panchnama of the articles was drawn which were concealed
F beneath the steel cupboard. After the completion of
  investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Ld. Chief
  Judicial Magistrate, Godhra on 22.8.2003. After committal, the
  case was registered as Sessions Case No.4 of 2004 and
  charge against the respondent accused was framed under
G Sections 376,302 and 201 of the IPC. The respondent denied
  the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined
  23 witnesses in support of its case. None was examined by
  the accused in his defence. The statement of the respondent
  was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. On 7.10.2004
H the learned Sessions Judge after examining the oral and
STATE OF GUJARAT v. RATANSINGH @ CHINUBHAI 405
      ANOPSINH CHAUHAN [A.K.SIKRI, J.]
documentary evidence, returned the finding of guilt and A
convicted the respondent for the offence of rape and murder.
The learned Sessions Judge awarded capital punishment for
the offence of murder u/s 302 and imprisonment for life and fine
of Rs.1000/- for the offence of rape u/s 376 and in default to
undergo SI for 3 months. The record of the case was forwarded B
to the High Court u/s 366 of the Cr.P.C. for approval of the
death sentence awarded by the Sessions Court. The accused
also preferred Criminal Appeal No.1915/2004 before the High
Court of Gujarat against the judgment and order dated
7.10.2004.                                                       c
The Impugned Judgment:

      4. As is clear from the above, the precise charge against
the respondent was of raping the minor girl Komal and thereafter
murdering her. The High Court, on the basis of medical D
evidence namely the post-mortem report of the deceased found
that it was case of homicidal death. There is no quarrel about
the same and this aspect is not disputed by the respondent
before us as well.
                                                                     E
      5. As far as charge of rape is concerned, the High Court
observed that there was no direct evidence and medical
evidence was the only circumstantial evidence which could be
relied upon. It discussed the evidence of Dr. Nagori to this
effect, who had conducted the post mortem on the dead body.
It was found that there was swelling of 3x2 ems on right labia F
majora and abrasion over left labia majora. It is also recorded
in the postmortem notes that as per vagina examination, it was
found that little finger passed with difficulty and there was no
internal injury. The post mortem notes also indicated abrasions
on both thighs, both knees and bruises over legs. In his G
deposition, the doctor has deposed, after describing the
injuries, that the injuries found on labia majora were possible
in an attempted rape. During cross-examination he deposed
that, if there was penetration of penis in the vagina, there was
possibility of internal injuries. He stated, in terms, that from the H
    406     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A   post mortem examination, in the instant case, there was no
    penetration of penis in the vagina.

         6. On the basis of aforesaid, the High Court acquitted that
    offence of rape was not proved by the prosecution beyond
    reasonable doubt and it could, at the most, be considered an
8   attempted rape. The finding of the trial court recording the
    conviction for offence of rape under section 376 of the IPC has,
    accordingly, been set aside. It is primarily on the ground that
    even if it is to be accepted that in a case of rape of a minor,
    complete penetration of penis with emission of semen and
C   rupture of hymen is not necessarily to be established, in the
    instant case, the medical evidence clearly suggests that there
    was no penetration at all i.e. the factor which influenced the High
    Court to set aside the conviction based on section 376, IPC.

0      7. The High Court, thus, proceeded on the basis that the
  deceased was murdered and there was an attempted rape on
  her. It then addressed the central issue viz. whether the
  respondent could be connected with the said murder and
  attempted rape. It was a case of circumstantial evidence, in the
E absence of any eye witness. After discussing the evidence, the
  High Court found that prosecution had failed to establish the
  chain of circumstances could connect the accused with the
  crime. There were material contradictions and inconsistencies
  in the depositions of various witnesses etc. which did not form
  a complete chain. The High Court has, accordingly, set aside
F the order of conviction of the trial court as unsustainable and
  acquitted the accused of the charges. It is, inter-alia, held that
  the evidence led by the prosecution on last seen together cannot
  be accepted. It is not only contradictory, inconsistent and
  improbable, but also suffers from vice of improvements and
G therefore, it sounds unreliable. As regards injuries found on
  chest and back of the person of accused are concerned, which
  the prosecution tried to show as injuries caused with nail,
  possibly by the deceased, the High Court has discounted this
  prosecution version on the ground that the Post Mortem note
H does not indicate presence of any traces of skin of the accused
 STATE OF GUJARAT v. RATANSINGH @ CHINUBHAI 407
       ANOPSINH CHAUHAN [A.K.SIKRI, J.)
 in the nail of the deceased. As per the High Court the              A
 investigation is not found to be independent, trustworthy or
 reliable, the evidence does not establish a complete chain of
 circumstances to connect the accused with the crime. There are
 major defects in the investigations which render it doubtful when
 the case is founded on-circumstantial evidence. It, thus, set       B
 aside the judgment of the Trial Court on the ground that the
 conviction cannot be recorded on such scanty, weak and
 incomplete evidence.

 The Arguments:
                                                                     c
      8. The learned counsel for the State argued that High Court
 committed grave error in holding that there was no complete
 chain of the circumstances connecting the respondent to the
 incident. He pointed out that certain samples of blood, clay etc.
-were collected from the spot and FSM report (Ex.54) was             D
 obtained therefrom which was duly proved in the trial court
 through witness No.20-Chandubhai Nagjibhai Pargi who had
 stated in his deposition that on receiving the message from
 control room on 17.8.2003 he along with FSL Mobile Van had
 gone to the place of incident and collected the following           E
 samples:

             Clay with blood from the place of incident.

             Clay bearing doubtful spot recovered from the
             place in between two legs.                              F

             Control clay recovered from the place at the
             distance of 5 feet from the dead body.

             Clay bearing pan padiki spittle recovered from the      G
             place at the distance of 7 feet from the dead body.

             One red colour knickers bearing spots from the
             vada behind the house of Chandrasinh Laxmansinh
             Chauhan, situated in the south direction from the
             dead body.                                              H
    408      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A       9. He further drew the attention of this Court to post mortem
    report (Ex.7) containing external examination of the deceased.
    As per the said post mortem report, the following aspects were
    established:

     1. Condition of the clothes whether         Stained with blooc
B
        wet with water, stained with blood,
        soiled with vomit or foecal matter.

     2. Injuries to external genitals, indication Swelling
        of purging.                               (hemetomal) 3x2
c                                                 cm over Rt.Labia
                                                  mejora abrasion·
                                                  over It.labia
                                                  mejora.

D     3. Surface wounds and injuries their        a.A,brasions over
         natural position, dimensions             medical upper of
         (measured) and directions to be          both thighs.
         accurately stated: their probable        b.Abrasions over
         ages and cause to be noted.              both knee.
E                                                 c.Bruises over
                                                  both legs.

        10. He also pointed out that opinion as to the cause or
  probable cause of death recorded by the Medical Officer was
  "cause of death is shocked due to head injury leading to skull
F injury over brain". He also pointed out that cloth of the deceased
  was stained with blood and there were abrasions over medial
  upper both thighs, over both knees and bruises over both legs.
  According to the learned counsel, this shows that the deceased
  was subjected to sexual assault and murdered.
G
         11. In order to connect the accused with the said incident,
    the learned counsel referred to the testimony of PW12, Saroj
    who was playing along with Parul and deceased on the fateful
    day, on the courtyard of the residence of the accused when the
H
STATE OF GUJARAT v. RATANSINGH @ CHINUBHAI 409
       ANOPSINH CHAUHAN [A.K.SIKRI, J.]
accused reached there and scolded these girls. His submission           A
was that there was no cross-examination by the defence on this
aspect and from this testimony it stood proved that the
deceased was last seen with the accused, as PW12 had
categorically stated that she and Parul left the place but the
deceased remained there. He further submitted that this was             B
corroborated by the neighbour Shakriben Chandrasinh (PW16)
as well.

      12. In nutshell, the submission of the learned counsel for
the State was that the circumstances formed a complete chain
of events connecting the crime to the accused inasmuch as:              C
(1) the victim was last seen in the company of the accused; (2)
certain samples were collected from the residence of the
accused including plaster bearing blood, blood taken on thread
by rubbing from ground floor of western wall, support (datto) of
wooden plate bearing blood spots, pieces of paper affixed on            D
the metal barrel, bearing blood spots etc.; the blood on the
aforesaid as found was of "B" Group which is the blood group
of the deceased; (3)clay from thighs with semen from the
deceased was collected and semen was found to be of "O"
Group which is that of the accused; (4) the medical evidence,           E
which clearly nails the respondent and there could be no other
person who would have committed this crime.

Our Analysis:
                                                                        F
     13. Since it is a case of circumstantial evidence and the
prosecution case starts with the theory of last seen, the first
place is as to whether the prosecution has been able to
conclusively and beyond reasonable doubt prove that the
deceased was last seen in the company of the respondent. For
this purpose, as already noted above, the prosecution has               G
relied upon the testimonies of PW12,PW16,PW17 and PW18.
The paramount question is as to whether testimonies of these
witnesses is reliable. The High Court has found certain inherent
contradictions in the depositions of the aforesaid witnesses on
the basis of which it has come to the conclusion that it is difficult   H
   410      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A to accept their version, which is even contrary to each other
  about the details of the events. No doubt PW12, Sarojben was
  playing with the deceased and Parul on the grounds of the
  residence of the accused and when respondent reached the
  spot, he asked them to left. However, thereafter whether the
B deceased remained there and was not seen at all thereafter
  till her dead body was found , is a pertinent question. As per
  the prosecution version itself the deceased had left that place;
  elbeit at the asking of the respondent who had sent her to the
  market to purchase Vimal Gutka and she returned back to the
c respondent after purchasing the said Gutka, to hand it over to
  the deceased. Whether it is conclusively proved that she
  returned back to the respondent? Here, according to the High
  Court, there are various contradictions in the depositions of the
  witnesses. As per PW?, the shopkeeper from where the
  deceased had gone to purchase Gutka, the deceased had
0
  come to his shop on that date at about 3 p.m. She purchased
  eatable ( and not Gutka) for Rupee one and then she went
  away. During cross-examination, he stated that it had not
  happened that the victim had come to his shop to purchase
  Vimal Gutka. So according to him deceased had come to his
E shop to purchase some eatable. He also admitted that in his
  statement before the police on 19th August 2003, he had not
  stated that the deceased had come to his shop to purchase
  eatable. On specific question put to him in the cross-
  examination as to why he did not tell the police about the
F victim's visit to his shop to purchase eatable, he did not give
  any specific reply.

       14. As per PW16(Shakriben),who is the neighbour of the
  respondent, she had seen the three girls playing in the courtyard
G of the respondent. She further stated that the respondent drove
  away Parul and Saroj and then caught the victim and pushed
  her into his house. Thereafter she heard cries of the victim and
  then she heard sound of beating. She has further stated that
  she went into the house thereafter but was threatened by the
H respondent that if she talked to anyone in the town, he would
STATE OF GUJARAT v. RATANSINGH @ CHINUBHAI 411
       ANOPSINH CHAUHAN [A.K.SIKRI, J.]
kill her and her son. She has further stated that the accused         A
had arrived at about 2.30 p.m. on the day of the incident and
he was drunk. He tried to push open the rear door of the house.
The witness said that mother of the accused, Divaliben had
given the key of the house to her and, therefore, she gave the
key to the accused. The witness has further stated that on the        B
next day when mother of the victim was searching the victim,
she told her that she had not seen the victim and she joined
the search. During cross-examination, the witness has admitted
that she had not stated in her statement before police that the
accused had intimidated her. She says that she does not know          c
whether the victim had gone to purchase Gutka packet. The
distance between her house and the house of the accused is
25 to 30 feet. She says that she did not tell her husband or her
son about the incident. She admits that she did not state before
police that, at the time of the incident, she went into the house     0
after washing clothes and sat in the house and, at that time,
accused had intimidated her that, if she tells anyone in the
village, he would kill her and her son. She admits that, on the
day of incident as well as oh the next day, when people were
searching for the girl, she did not tell anyone about the incident.
                                                                      E
     15. Apart from the aforesaid omissions on the part of PW16
and PW17 in not mentioning to the police when they gave their
statements, immediately after the ipcident, the High Court has
also analyzed their statements along with deposition of PW12
and found them to be inconsistent and self-contradictory in the       F
following manner:

            "From depositions of these three witnesses, the
     prosecution has tried to establish the circumstances of the
     accused having been seen in company of the deceased
     last. But scrutiny of this evidence leads us to negative this    G
     aspect. According to PW12-Saroj, she was playing with
     the victim and Parul. Accused arrived around 30' clock and
     shouted "Ladidiyo" (meaning young girls). Therefore, she
     and Parul ran away and the victim was left behind. She
     says that accused sent the victim to purchase a packet of        H
    412       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2014] 1 S.C.R.


A         Vimal. She also says that, thereafter, she went home and
          was doing lesson. She saw the victim going with a packet
          of Vimal to give it to the accused. Therefore, necessarily,
          if her say is taken at face value, then also the victim was
          seen going to the house of accused with a packet of Vimal
8         and if she did factually reach there, at that point of time,
          neither Saroj nor Parul was present.

                Against the above situation emerging from
          deposition of Saroj, if deposition of Shakariben (Ex.49) is
          seen, she says that when Saroj, the victim and Parul were
c         playing in the courtyard of the accused, the accused
          arrived and drove away Parul and Saroj and caught hold
          of the victim and pushed her into the house, whereafter she
          heard cry of the victim and then sound of beating, meaning
          thereby that when the deceased was taken into the house,
D         that was the last point of time when she was seen in
          company of the accused and, at that point of time, both
          Saroj and Parul were present, which is just contrary to what
          Saroj says. Viewed from another angle, Shakariben does
          not speak of any even taking place before the victim was
E         pushed into the house and thereafter the incident has
          occurred, as against the say of Saroj that the accused sent
          the victim to get a packet of Vimal. Necessarily, therefore,
          what Shakariben saw was not the last point of time when
          the victim and the accused were together. The victim was
F         seen by Saroj at a later point of time and also by witness-
          Himatbh ai. Parul has not been examined by the
          prosecution as a witness. Therefore, the evidence
          regarding the accused seen last in company of the
          deceased, as led by the prosecution, is inconsistent and
G         self-contradictory.
                 That apart, the conduct of PW16 seems to be
          unnatural and thus unworthy of reliance. The High Court has
          rightly observed that it does not inspire confidence for
          several reasons, namely: (1) though she claims to have the
H
STATE OF GUJARAT v. RATANSINGH@ CHINUBHAI 413
      ANOPSINH CHAUHAN [A.K.SIKRI, J.]

  witness the accused pushing the victim into the house and        A
  then hearing her cry followed by sound of beating, she did
  not take any steps to rescue her. (2) She did not even tell
  about this incident to anyone, including her husband and
  son till 19th August 2003 when her statement was recorded.
  (3) Even in her statement to the police she has omitted to       B'
  state the aforesaid purported facts.(4) On the next day of
  the incident, when the search for the victim was on, she
  still kept quite and did not disclose the incident to anybody.
  Strangely, she joins the group searching for the victim.(5)
  There is no explanation as to when and why the respondent        c
  could have intimidated her. As per the sequence of events
  narrated by her, the respondent came; she gave him the
  key of his house; the respondent went to his house and
  shouted at girls; the two other girls went away and
  respondent pushed the victim into house; and thereafter
                                                                   0
  she (the witness went to her house). If these sequences
  are to be seen, there was no occasion for the accused to
  intimidate her.

         As far as evidence of PW12,Saroj is concerned, she
   stated that she had lastly seen the deceased going with         E
   packet of Vimal. She simply presumed that the victim was
   going to give the said packet to the accused. However,
   she did not see the deceased going with packet of Vimal
   Gutka to the respondent as she specifically stated that after
   seeing the deceased carrying the packet of Vimal she            F
   went home and started doing her lesson. There is no
   evidence to show that the deceased reached the house
   of the accused and met him. In fact, there is some
   contradiction even on the purchase of the item inasmuch
   as as per PW17 the deceased had purchased eatable               G
   whereas PW-12 says that she was carrying Vimal Gutka.
   PW17 has specifically said that the deceased had not
   purchased Vimal Gutka from him. From the aforesaid
   testimonies of Saroj Shakariben the High Court has also
   observed that from both the evidence taken together,            H
    414      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A         prosecution story cannot be believed inasmuch as if the
          situation is examined from a different angle, if what Saroj
          says had happened, then what Shakariben says could not
          have happened, because according to Shakariben, on
          arrival, the accused shouted at the girls and drove away
B         Parul and Saroj and pushed the deceased into the house
          and, if what Shakariben says is correct, what Saroj says
          could not have happened. The doubt assumes greater
          strength because of certain circumstances which would be
          discussed in the paragraphs to follow.
c                Examined from any angle, the evidence led by the
          prosecution on last seen together aspect cannot be
          accepted. It is not only contradictory, inconsistent and
          improbable, but it also suffers from vice of improvements
          and, therefore, to us, it sounds unreliable. The case is
D         founded on circumstantial evidence. This is one of the
          major circumstances pressed by the prosecution. We also
          find that the investigation is not carried out properly and
          does not inspire confidence. The evidence on last seen
          together aspect, therefore, cannot be accepted as a link
E         in the chain of circumstances leading to exclusive
          hypothesis of guilt of the accused."

       16. We are in agreement with the aforesaid analysis of the
  evidence by the High Court and, therefore, hold that prosecution
F has not been able to establish, with clinching evidence that the
  deceased was seen lastly in the company of the accused.

       17. Even the medical evidence on which strong reliance
  was placed by the learned counsel for the State, is of no help
  to arrive at the conclusion that guilt of the respondent stands
G proved beyond reasonable doubt. When the respondent was
  arrested on 19th August 2003 a Panchnama (Ex.14) was drawn.
  In that it is recorded that the accused had abrasions on chest.
  back and shoulder caused by nail and also that there was
  swelling on his penis and swelling on skin with abrasion.
H Immediately after his arrest, the resoondent was sent for
STATE OF GUJARAT v. RATANSINGH@ CHINUBHAI 415
       ANOPSINH CHAUHAN [A.K.SIKRI, J.]
medical check up. As per the medical report (Ex.17) there were       A
injuries on chest and back which is described by the doctor as
linear abrasions. There were no foreign particles in his nails.
The doctor also admitted in his cross-examination that he did
not notice any injury on the penis of the accused. Therefore, this
shows contradiction between the recording of medical                 B
condition in the Panchnama and the medical examination
conducted by the doctor, in so far as they relate to the injury on
the penis of the respondent. High Court has rightly observed
that the Panchnama has recorded abrasions and therefore it
could not have disappeared within such a short time. It reflects     c
adversely on the prosecution case. As regards injuries found
on chest and back of the respondent, they are tried to be shown
as injuries caused with nail of the deceased. However, the post
mortem note does not indicate presence of any traces of skin
of the accused in nail of the deceased. Further, comments of
                                                                     0
the High Court in the impugned judgment about the medical
evidence, pertinent for our purposes, are reproduced below as
we entirely agree with the said analysis:

     "From the above discussion of evidence, it is clear that
     even according to doctor, there was no bleeding injury on       E
     penis of the accused. There was no bleeding injury to the
     deceased either. There were no internal injuries in the
     vagina of the deceased. Against this, if the results of
     vaginal swab are seen, presence of blood and semen is
     found. How this could have been found is a question which       F
     has remained unexplained and unanswered. This would
     cast heavy doubt about the reliability of investigation. That
     apart, the group has remained unidentified so far as
     vaginal swab is concerned.
                                                                     G
     If evidence of Shakariben is seen and, even as per
     prosecution case, the incident occurred in the house of the
     accused and this is tried to be proved through deposition
     of Shakariben, who says that accused pushed the
     deceased into his house and, thereafter, she heard cry of
                                                                     H .-
    416      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A         the deceased and then sound of beating. As per the
          prosecution case, blood stains of the group of the
          deceased were found in the house of the accused at
          various places. No trace of semen was found in the house
          of the accused. But, surprisingly, at the place where the
B         dead body was found, semen was found on the ground.
          That was of the group of the accused. If the incident
          occurred in the house, the traces of semen ought to have
          been found in the house and not at the place where the
          dead body was found. No motive is indicated for the
c         accused to murder the deceased immediately after
          pushing her into the house and, if the rape or attempted
          rape was committed in the house followed by alleged
          murder, there would have been traces of semen in the
          house. These factors have remained unexplained and
          seem to have gone unnoticed by the trial court."
D
       18. The High Court has also expressed its doubts on
  recovery of grinding stone from the house of the respondent
  which was allegedly used for committing murder of the
  deceased. It is pointed out by the High Court that evidence
E suggests that the officer of the FSL was summoned on 19th
  August 2003 who inspected the place of incident and instructed
  the Inquiry Officer to recover the stone which was, accordingly,
  recovered. It is so stated in his report as well as in his
  deposition. Thus, as per the deposition of the officer of FSL,
F stone was recovered on 19th August 2003. As against this, as
  per discovery Panchnama drawn on 23rd August 2003 the said
  grinding stone was recovered from beneath steel cupboard at
  the instance of the respondent. How this recovery could have
  taken place if the stone had already been recovered on 19th
G August 2003. This casts doubt about the aforesaid documents
  and the discovery of stone itself.
        19. There is another aspect highlighted by the High Court
    which is very pertinent and cannot be ignored. After the incident
    when sniffer dog was brought to the site. The said dog had
H
 STATE OF GUJARAT v. RATANSINGH@ CHINUBHAI 417
        ANOPSINH CHAUHAN [A.K.SIKRI, J.]
 tracked to the house of PW16 and not the respondent. In fact,          A
 on this basis the son of PW 16 was even taken into custody
 by the police and was detained for 2 days. Thereafter, he was
 allowed to go inasmuch, as per the police he had not committed
 any offence. This version has come from the testimony of PW16
 herself. On the other hand, 1.0. has totally denied that son of        B
 PW16 was ever detained for 2 days. There is no such entry in
 the daily diary as well. From this evidence appearing on record,
 the High Court has concluded that investigation cannot be
 considered as honest inasmuch as it would indicate to two
 possibilities, namely:                                                 c
         (1) The investigating officer did not detain or interrogate
         the son of PW16 for 2 days. If that is so he failed in his
         duty when the sniffer dog tracked to the house of PW16.

         (2) If 1.0. had detained the son of PW16, then case diary      D
         does not record the events correctly and he is not telling
         the truth before the Court.
      That apart, it also speaks volumes about the reliability of
 the investigation and evidence collected, more so when no
 explanation is coming forward as to why the son of PW16 was            E
 released by the police and the respondent arrested.

         20. We, thus, agree with the findings of the High Court that
 the evidence led by the prosecution does not establish a
 complete chain of circumstances to connect the accused with
                                                                        F
 the murder of Komal, the deceased. There are significant
 defects and shortcomings in the investigation; witnesses have
 come out with contradictory v~rsion; and have made significant
 improvements in their versions in their depositions in the Court.
 In a case of circumstantial evidence, it would be unwise to            G
 record conviction on the basis of such a scanty, weak and
 incomplete evidence. As the prosecution has not been able to
 prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, agreeing with the
 conclusions of the High Court we dismiss the present appeal.
. R.P.                                          Appeal dismissed.       H