Sushma, a minor of 14 years, was living with Rajesh Kumar, her uncle at his place, with her mother and younger sister in Dewas, Haryana. One day, a group of boys were roaming around her house in the evening and around 10:30 in the night, Sushma's grandmother found her missing from home and everyone started looking for her. Rajesh then went to Chajju Ram, ex-sarpanch of the village and told him about the incident. After listening to the incident the ex sapanch advised Rajesh not to file a FIR and that they'll be able to find Sushma on their own without involving Police.
After few days of searching when they couldn't find Sushma,they filed a missing complaint in the Police Station. After a month of filing the FIR the accused was arrested on basis of extra judicial confession. The Trial Court convicted the accused under IPC- S-364 [kidnapping and murdering in order to murder], S-376 [Punishment for Rape], S-302 [Punishment for murder] and S-201[causing disapprearenve of evidence and false information] with rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and life imprisonment and 2 years respectively for above offences. The accused appealed to the High court,who agreed with the decision of the Trial Court. Later it was further appealed in Supreme Court. There was no eye witness hence circumstantial evidence were taken into consideration.
Circumstances that were taken into consideration-
1)Accused met Suresh,the first witness,in the morning and confessed that he regrets raping and throwing away the dead body of Sushma into the well.
2)Sushma's grandmother saw some boys roaming around the house in evening on the date of the incident.But court didn't completely took it into consideration because Court felt that
'So far as the second circumstance roaming around the house of the deceased is concerned, this cannot be a ground to connect the accused with the crime. Not only the accused but also the other boys of the same age were roaming around the house of the deceased. None of the other boys were suspected. Merely, because the accused was 18 years of age as on the date of the incident, roaming around the house of deceased would not lead to the conclusion that the accused has committed the crime
of rape and murder. Unless the prosecution is able to connect the accused with the crime with appropriate material, the court cannot come to the aid of the prosecution merely on the basis of the surmises and conjectures.'
3)Finding of Semen stains from the accused bed
So far as recovery of ‘Gudri’(Mattress) is concerned,
there is nothing on record to show that the incident of
rape has occurred on 11.06.2005. On the same night
itself, the villagers started searching the deceased. If
really the rape has taken place in the evening of
11.06.2005 that too in the house of the accused, the villagers could not have missed to find out the deceased
from his house in the village itself. The search has taken place more than 03 days. Despite the search, the deceased was not found. Moreover, ‘Gudri’ (Mattress) seized from the house of the accused was having semen stains but it did not have the vaginal smear. The
recovery of ‘Gudri’ (Mattress) may raise some sort of suspicion in the mind of the court but having regard to other material on record more so when the deceased was not found in the village for more than 03 days itself goes to show that the incident must have not occurred in the house of the accused. The Doctor who conducted the post mortem has categorically deposed that no opinion could be given regarding rape on the victim in view of the passage of 4 days from the date of death till the date of post mortem report.
Therefore, on the basis of above reasons,Supreme Court allowed the appeal on the grounds saying that mere extra judicial confession is a weak type of circumstance and cannot be convicted for the same and no other points could be proved by the prosecution. Also no full proof evidence could be achieved. Hence,Court granted him bail and quashed the decision of High Court and Trial Court.