Ramkirat Munilal Goud vs State of Maharashtra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 841

VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, SANDEEP MEHTA
Ramkirat Munilal Goud – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Raghenth Basant, Sr. Adv. Ms. Fauzia Shakil, AOR Ms. Aathma Sudhir Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Adv. Ms. Pratiksha Basarkar, Adv. Ms. Kaushitaki Sharma, Adv. Ms. Hima Bhardwaj, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Ms. Soumya Priyadarshinee, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Aren, Adv. Mr. Amlaan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Jatin Dhamija, Adv. Mr. Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv.

Table of Content
1. overview of the events leading to the crime and initial investigations. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments raised by the defense and response from the prosecution. (Para 17 , 26)
3. analysis of circumstantial evidence and its insufficiency for conviction. (Para 31 , 33 , 36 , 39)
4. conclusion resulting in the acquittal due to prosecution's failure. (Para 76 , 77)

SANDEEP MEHTA, J.

2. The instant case is yet another classic example of shabby and perfunctory investigation leading to failure of the prosecution case involving a gruesome incident of rape and murder of the budding life of a tender young girl¹ [Hereinafter referred to as ‘child’ or ‘child victim’] aged about 3 years and 9 months.

4. Succinctly stated, the facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeals may be noted herein-below.

6. The complainant inquired from two persons living in the neighbourhood, who told him that they had seen the child playing with the dog. Thereafter, he went to the watchmen chawl located near his room, where several watchmen used to reside. The pet dog was found in the ch