Case Citation
Court Name: Supreme Court of India
Case Title: Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiya v. State of Gujarat
Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. _________ of 2024 (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 9015-9016 of 2019)
Date of Judgment: 17th December 2024
Judge(s) Name: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Facts of the Case
On April 13, 2016, a four-year-old boy, Rohit @ Shital, went missing while playing near a temple in Piludara village, Gujarat. The appellant, Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiya, was last seen taking the boy under the pretext of buying ice cream. Later that day, the boy’s lifeless body was discovered near a lake, naked and with visible injuries, pointing to sexual assault and throttling as the cause of death. The postmortem confirmed these findings. The appellant was arrested the following day and injuries were found on his genitals, further implicating him.
Contentions of the Appellant
The appellant contended that the evidence was purely circumstantial and lacked direct proof. The discovery of the place of crime and the recovery of the child’s clothes were disputed, as the defence argued the place was already known to the police. They also questioned the reliability of forensic evidence, claiming no DNA test was conducted to establish a link. The appellant’s defence emphasized the lack of eyewitnesses and inconsistencies in witness testimonies.
Contentions of the Respondent
The prosecution relied on the circumstantial evidence chain, including the appellant being last seen with the victim, injuries on the appellant’s genitals, and matching blood group analysis linking the appellant to the crime. The prosecution argued that the appellant offered no explanation regarding the child’s whereabouts after taking him and that his conduct during recovery pointed to guilt. The evidence of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act was also highlighted.
Issues of the Judgment
- Whether the appellant can be convicted based on circumstantial evidence?
- Whether the evidence of the appellant being last seen with the victim and his conduct post-crime is sufficient to prove guilt?
- Whether the absence of DNA evidence undermines the prosecution’s case?
- Whether the appellant’s actions amounted to aggravated penetrative sexual assault and murder under IPC and POCSO Act?
- Whether the case falls within the “rarest of rare” category warranting the death penalty?
Observations/Findings by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that the case relied on strong circumstantial evidence. The appellant was last seen with the child, failed to provide any plausible explanation for the boy’s disappearance, and injuries were found on his genitals corroborating the assault. The blood group analysis linking the appellant and the victim strengthened the case. The Court held that the presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act applied, and the appellant failed to rebut it. However, the Court ruled that the case did not meet the “rarest of rare” standard for awarding the death penalty.
Principle of the Case
In cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of events pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused. The presumption under the POCSO Act shifts the burden of proof to the accused once foundational facts are proven. The lack of a DNA test does not vitiate prosecution evidence if other links in the chain are strong and conclusive.
Final Order
The Supreme Court upheld the appellant’s conviction under Sections 302 (murder), 364 (kidnapping), and 377 (unnatural offences) of the IPC, as well as Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. However, the death penalty was set aside. Instead, the appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 25 years without remission, to run concurrently with other sentences.
Importance of This Judgment to Society
This judgment underscores the importance of protecting children from heinous crimes and the seriousness with which courts treat cases under the POCSO Act. By upholding the conviction and prescribing a stringent sentence, the Supreme Court reaffirms that justice must balance retribution with the possibility of reformation. This case highlights the role of circumstantial evidence and sets a precedent for cases where forensic limitations exist but other evidence builds a strong chain of guilt. It sends a clear message that crimes against children will be met with the full weight of the law.
