Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 363, 376(2)(i), 201 — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Ss. 3, 4 — Evidence — Circumstantial evidence — “Last seen together” — FIR — Omission of vital facts — Unnatural conduct of witnesses — Investigation lapses — Case resting solely on circumstantial evidence — FIR lodged despite informant having complete knowledge of incident but omitting name of accused and identity of alleged last-seen witnesses — Names of material witnesses surfacing only on following day — Evidence of last-seen witnesses found inconsistent, unnatural and self-contradictory — Strong animosity between accused and witnesses not ruled out — Conduct of witnesses showing rank apathy towards four-year-old victim — Failure of police to examine or medically test alleged last-seen witnesses — Chain of circumstances not complete — Conviction based on conjectures — Benefit of doubt — Conviction and sentence set aside — Accused acquitted.

Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 363, 376(2)(i), 201 — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Ss. 3, 4 — Evidence — Circumstantial evidence — “Last seen together” — FIR — Omission of vital facts — Unnatural conduct of witnesses — Investigation lapses — Case resting solely on circumstantial evidence — FIR lodged despite informant having complete knowledge of incident but omitting name of accused and identity of alleged last-seen witnesses — Names of material witnesses surfacing only on following day — Evidence of last-seen witnesses found inconsistent, unnatural and self-contradictory — Strong animosity between accused and witnesses not ruled out — Conduct of witnesses showing rank apathy towards four-year-old victim — Failure of police to examine or medically test alleged last-seen witnesses — Chain of circumstances not complete — Conviction based on conjectures — Benefit of doubt — Conviction and sentence set aside — Accused acquitted.

---

B. ANALYSIS OF FACTS

1. The accused-appellant was prosecuted for offences under Sections 363, 376(2)(i) and 201 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, arising out of FIR No. I-68 of 2013 registered at Kalol Police Station.

2. The prosecution case was that a four-year-old child victim was subjected to sexual assault and later found in a naked and bleeding condition during the night of 13.06.2013.

3. The complainant (PW-1) claimed to have seen four boys taking the child victim and alleged that these boys informed him that they had seen the accused pushing the child victim out of his house.

4. The FIR, however, did not mention:

   • the name of the accused,

   • the names or description of the four boys, or

   • the alleged last-seen circumstance.

5. The names of the four boys surfaced only on the next day during investigation. Two of them turned hostile at trial.

6. The trial Court convicted the accused relying upon:

   • alleged last-seen together evidence,

   • recoveries from the accused’s house,

   • medical and FSL evidence.

7. The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

8. The accused approached the Supreme Court after having remained in custody for nearly thirteen years.

---

C. ANALYSIS OF LAW

1. Nature of the Case — Circumstantial Evidence

The Court held that the prosecution case was entirely circumstantial, with no direct evidence, and therefore the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra governed the field.

Each circumstance had to be:

• fully established,

• consistent only with guilt of the accused, and

• forming an unbroken chain excluding innocence.

---

2. FIR — Omission of Vital Facts

The Court found that:

• The complainant admittedly had knowledge of the alleged last-seen circumstance and identity of witnesses before lodging the FIR.

• Despite this, the FIR was bereft of even rudimentary details.

Such omission of essential facts was held to strike at the root of the prosecution case, relying upon:

• Amar Nath Jha v. Nand Kishore Singh

• Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of M.P.

---

3. Last-Seen Together Evidence

The Court disbelieved the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4, holding that:

• Their conduct in allegedly taking a naked, bleeding child without informing police or providing clothing was highly unnatural.

• Their versions were inconsistent on time, place, and sequence of events.

• Admissions showed that the allegation of the accused pushing the child out of his house was disclosed for the first time during police statements.

The Court held the last-seen theory to be a clear afterthought and embellishment.

---

4. Conduct of Witnesses and Possibility of False Implication

The Court noted:

• Prior animosity between the family of the accused and the family of witnesses.

• Failure of witnesses to name themselves or the accused at the earliest point.

• Possibility that the witnesses were attempting to shield themselves by shifting blame.

The conduct of the complainant and the journalist witness was described as grossly insensitive and suspicious.

---

5. Investigative Lapses

Serious lapses were noted:

• No medical examination or forensic testing of the four boys.

• No explanation as to how unidentified witnesses were traced overnight.

• Mechanical acceptance of a sketchy complaint.

The Court held that investigation was hopelessly botched and the trial proceeded with pedantic rigidity divorced from truth-finding.

---

6. Effect on Circumstantial Chain

The Court concluded that:

• The chain of circumstances was broken at multiple links.

• Conviction was based on conjectures and moral indignation rather than proof.

• Benefit of doubt necessarily accrued to the accused.

---

D. DECISION / OPERATIVE PART

1. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

2. It was held that:

   • The FIR suffered from fatal omissions,

   • The last-seen evidence was unreliable,

   • Investigative lapses vitiated the prosecution case.

3. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court of Gujarat were set aside.

4. The accused-appellant was acquitted of all charges.

5. The appeal was allowed, and the accused was directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.