STATE OF GUJARAT versus RATANSINGH @ CHINUBHAL ANOPSINH CHAUHAN

Citation: [2014] 1 S.C.R. 397 · Decided: 10-01-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 1 S.C.R. 397 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
v. 
RATANSINGH @ CHINUBHAl ANOPSINH CHAUHAN 
(Criminal Appeal No. 403 of 2007) 
JANUARY 10, 2014 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K.SIKRI, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
A 
B 
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. 
Evidence: 
Circumstantial evidence - Last seen theory - Held: This 
is one of the major circumstances pressed by prosecution -
397 
G 
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, 
0 
he did not give any specific reply. [para 13) [409-F, G-H; 
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 

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