SANJAY versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1790 · Decided: 06-02-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.