RAMESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI RATHOD versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 1055 · Decided: 27-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 6 S.C.R. 1055 
~cit 
RAMESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI RATHOD 
A 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
(Criminal Appeal No. 575 of 2007) 
APRIL 27, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
c 
ss. 363, 366, 376, 397 and 302 - A girl of.10 years 
enticed away by accused, raped and murdered -
Circumstantial evidence - Conviction and sentence of death · 
awarded by trial court, confirmed by High Court - HELD: 
'J 
Conviction maintained - As regards the sentence, in view of 
difference of opinion as to confirmation of death sentence or D 
imposition of life imprisonment, matter referred to larger Bench 
- .Circumstantial evidence. 
The appellant-accused, a watchman, was prosecuted 
for commission of offences punishable ulss 363, 366, 
E 
376, 397 and 302 IPC on the allegations that he enticed 
,., 
'1 
away a child of ten years from her apartment, ravished 
her and then killed her. The prosecution case was based 
on the circumstances, namely, (1) the victim was raped 
and she died a homicidal death; (2) she was residing with 
F 
her parents in 'S' Apartment; (3) the accused was serving 
as a watchman since long and was residing with his 
family in the Apartment opposite to 'S' Apartment; (4) the 
-., 
accused had won the confidence of the victim; (5) 
,;. 
between 8.45 P.M. and 9.00 P.M. on 17-12-1999 (the date 
G 
of incident), the accused was last seen playing 
badminton with deceased in ·s· Apartment; (6) at about 
10.30 P .M. when parents of victim returned home, they 
found her missing; (7) between 9.00 P.M. to 9.30 P.M. on 
1055 
H 
1056 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R. 
A 17-12-1999 P.W.24 saw the appellant taking the victim on 
his cycle; (8) after disclosure of PW.24 to PW 6 about 
accused taking the victim on a cycle, a search was made 
for accused and he was found missing; (9) on the 
morning of 19-12-1999, the accused made extra-judicial 
B confession before PW-4; (10) the accused showed the 
place of incident where the dead body of the victim was 
lying; (11) at the instance of the accused his cycle and 
the school bag of the decease_d containing her 
belongings were recovered; and (12) human blood was 
C found on the T-shirt of the accused for which he offered 
no explanation. The trial court convicted the accused of 
the offences charged and sentenced him to death. The 
High Court affirmed the conviction and confirmed the 
death sentence. Aggrieved, the accused filed the appeal.· 
0 Referring the matter to the larger Bench the Court 
HELD: By the Court: 
Though the conviction is to be maintained, there 
being difference of opinion whether death sentence has 
E to be confirmed or life sentence is to be given, the matter 
is referred to a larger bench only on the question of 
sentence. 
Per Pasayat, J 
F 
1.1. There is no doubt that conviction can be based 
solely on circumstantial evidence, but it should be tested 
by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial 
evidence laid down by this Court. It has been consistently 
laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely 
G on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be 
justified only when all the incriminating facts and 
circumstances are found to be incompatible with the 
innocence of the accused and the guilt of any other 
person. (Paras 13 and 18) (1078-B-C; 1080-C-D] 
H 
-
RAMESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI RATHOD v. STATE OF 1057 
GUJARAT 
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State of A 
Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343; Hukam Singh v. State 
of Rajasthan AIR 1977 SC 1063; Eradu and Ors. v. State of 
Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316; Earabhadrappa v. State of 
Kamataka AIR 1983 SC 446; State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and 
Ors. AIR 1985 SC 1224; Ba/winder Singh v. State of Punjab· B 
AIR 1987 SC 350; Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. 
AIR 1989 SC 1890; Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1989 
SC 1890; C . . Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 
10 SCC 193; Pada/a Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. 
AIR 1990 SC 79; State of UP. v. Ashok Kumar 'Srivastava c 
(1992 Crl.LJ 1104 and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State 
of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622, referred to. 
"Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) by Sir 
Alfred Wills, referred to. 
,, 
--
. 
1.2. In the instant case, the circumstances 
highlighted by the trial court and analysed in detail by the 
High Court unerringly point at the accused to be author 
of the crime. [Para 4) (1074-E] 
State of U.P. v. Salish 2005 (3) SCC 114; Joseph and 
Paulo v. State of Ke
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.