1. Rape and murder of a child — Conviction under Sections 302 and 376, IPC — Appeal against conviction and death sentence. (Para 1 , 2 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 76
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Abdul Nassar – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1122-1123 of 2018
Decided On : 07-01-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Trideep Pais, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sakshi Jain, Adv. Mr. Harini Raghupathy, Adv. Ms. Saloni Ambastha, Adv. Mr. Pallav Mongia, AOR Mr. Anubhav Mishra, Adv. Mr. Amritesh Krishna, Adv. Mr. Shashank Dwivedi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Manu Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Santhosh K, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Trideep Pais, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sakshi Jain, Adv. Mr. Harini Raghupathy, Adv. Ms. Saloni Ambastha, Adv. Mr. Pallav Mongia, AOR Mr. Anubhav Mishra, Adv. Mr. Amritesh Krishna, Adv. Mr. Shashank Dwivedi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Manu Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Santhosh K, Adv.
The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, with DNA and witness testimonies establishing the accused's guilt, affirming the death sentence as the case fell within the rarest of rare category.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 376 - Death sentence and rigorous imprisonment - Accused found guilty of rape and murder of a child - Conviction upheld by High Court - Evidence relied upon includes circumstantial evidence and scientific findings linking accused to the crime. (Paras 2, 10, 28)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Principles governing circumstantial evidence established - Complete chain of evidence required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction affirmed based on strong circumstantial evidence and DNA analysis. (Paras 14, 26)
Facts of the case:
The accused was found guilty of raping and murdering a 9-year-old girl, whose body was discovered concealed in his bathroom after she went missing. (Paras 6.1, 6.6)
Findings of Court:
The prosecution proved the guilt of the accused through circumstantial evidence, including DNA matches and witness testimonies. (Paras 25, 28)
Issues: Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. (Para 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a complete chain of evidence in circumstantial cases and confirmed the conviction based on established principles. (Paras 14, 26)
Result: Appeals dismissed; death sentence execution rendered moot due to the appellant's death.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to circumstantial evidence chain — Allegations of crime scene contamination and unreliable DNA reports — Non-compliance with Section 313, CrPC. (Para 11 )
3. Application of Panchsheel principles for circumstantial evidence — Evaluation of witness testimonies and scientific DNA evidence — Critique of lower courts' evaluative methodology. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
4. Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence — Specific standards for meticulous analysis of witness testimony and inferences. (Para 14 , 30 )
5. Appeals dismissed — Execution of death sentence rendered otiose due to the death of the accused. (Para 31 )
6. What are the essential principles for establishing guilt based on circumstantial evidence?
The circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, conclusive in nature, exclude every other possible hypothesis, and form a complete chain leaving no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. (Para 14 )
7. How should courts evaluate witness testimony in cases relying on circumstantial evidence?
Each witness's testimony must be meticulously analyzed in its entirety. Courts must explicitly delineate reasonable inferences, provide a comprehensive rationale for accepting or rejecting evidence, and demonstrate how the conclusion of guilt was logically derived from the evidence. (Para 30 )
8. What constitutes a complete chain of incriminating circumstantial evidence?
A chain is complete when each individual circumstance is proved and, collectively, they forge an unbroken sequence that is consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused's guilt and totally inconsistent with their innocence. (Para 30 )
JUDGMENT :
(Sandeep Mehta, J.)
1. These appeals assail the judgment and order dated 28th February, 2018 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No. 1452 of 2013 and Death Sentence Reference No. 3 of 20131[Hereinafter, being referred to as D.S.R. No. 3 of 2013]. The Death Sentence Reference and the Criminal Appeal arose out of the judgment dated 31st July 2013 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Manjeri2[Hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’] in Sessions Case No. 487 of 2012.
2. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned trial Court found the appellant (the sole accused) guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603[Hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’] and sentenced him as follows:
(i). Under Section 302 IPC: Death sentence (subject to the confirmation by the High Court)
(ii). Under Section 376 IPC: Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months). [This imprisonment was allowed to be set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19734[Hereinafter being referred to as ‘CrPC’]]
3. Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1452 of 2013 before the High Court. Since the trial Court awarded capital punishment to the accused appellant, the matter was referred to the High Court under Section 366 CrPC for confirmation of the death sentence vide D.S.R. No. 3 of 2013. Both D.S.R. No. 3 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No. 1452 of 2013 were decided by the High Court vide common impugned judgment dated 28th February 2018 whereby, the Criminal Appeal was dismissed, and the Death Sentence Reference was allowed confirming the death sentence awarded to the accused. Being aggrieved, the accused appellant has filed the present appeals by way of special leave.
4. This Court vide order dated 4th September, 2018, stayed the execution of death sentence awarded to the accused appellant.
5. During the pendency of these appeals, the appellant passed away on 16th January 2024. An application was submitted by the legal heirs of the appellant before this Court under Section 394(2) CrPC for the continuation of the present appeals to wash off the stigma attached to the accused appellant and his family which was allowed vide order dated 1st February, 2024.
6. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of these appeals are as follows: -
6.1 The prosecution story in brief is that on 4th April, 2012, at about 6:30 am, the child victim aged about 9 years was proceeding from her house to the Madrassa situated at Ponnamkallu in Amarambalam Village. On the way to the Madrassa, she went to the house of the accused which was situated on the side of the panchayat road at Ponnamkallu, in search of her friend who is the daughter of the accused so as to go to the Madrassa together.
6.2 On seeing the child victim all alone, the accused who was also alone in the house, committed rape upon her in a room in his house at around 6:45 am, and after that, he strangled the child victim with a shawl and smothered her with his hands which lead to the death of the victim.
6.3 It is the case of the prosecution that the accused, with the intention to destroy evidence, concealed the dead body of the victim beneath a cot inside the bedroom in the said house. Thereafter, the accused shifted the victim’s dead body to the bathroom attached to the said house. He also attempted to dispose of the dead body in the septic tank situated at the north-eastern corner of the house as the stones from under the slab of the septic tank were found removed.
6.4 When the victim could not be found anywhere despite frantic efforts to trace her out, a written complaint5[Exhibit P-1] came to be submitted by complainant-Salim (PW-1) at the Nilambur Police Station on 4th April, 2012 at 7:00 pm on the basis of which an FIR No. 308 of 20126
