Supreme Court Acquits Man After 13 Years in Custody in Child Sexual Assault Case, Citing Shoddy Investigation

New Delhi, December 15, 2025 – In a scathing indictment of investigative negligence and procedural lapses, the Supreme Court of India has acquitted Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar, overturning his life sentence for the alleged brutal sexual assault of a four-year-old girl in 2013. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, criticized the "hopelessly botched" probe and "unnatural conduct" of witnesses, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence failed to form an unbroken chain proving guilt. The appellant, who has spent nearly 13 years behind bars, is to be released forthwith.

Case Background and Timeline

The case originated from an incident on June 13, 2013, in Kalol, Gujarat, where a four-year-old girl was found naked and bleeding from her private parts around 11 PM. Complainant Nazir Mohammed (PW-1), a local plumber, spotted four boys carrying the child and inquired about her. The boys claimed they found her near a pan stall opposite the house of the accused and suspected she belonged to the nearby Nayak community. The child was rushed to Kalol Government Hospital, where Dr. Shakuntala Parmar (PW-10) confirmed sexual assault based on bleeding and injuries.

An FIR (Crime No. I-68 of 2013) was registered against unknown persons under Sections 376(1)(i) and 201 IPC. The next day, the four boys—Arifkhan (PW-3), Shahejadkhan (PW-4), Bilal Ahemad (PW-5), and Mohsin Gafurkhan (PW-6)—allegedly identified Parmar as pushing the child out of his house. Parmar was arrested, and blood-stained items were seized from his residence. Charged under Sections 363, 376(2)(i), and 201 IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, he was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahal, Godhra, on November 3, 2015, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Gujarat High Court upheld the conviction on April 5, 2016.

The Supreme Court appeal, filed in 2023, highlighted the absence of direct evidence, relying solely on circumstantial links like "last seen together" testimony, recoveries, and medical evidence.

Prosecution's Case and Defense Arguments

The prosecution's narrative rested on the boys' testimony of seeing Parmar eject the naked, injured child from his house, corroborated by blood-stained recoveries (bedsheets, clothes) matching the child's "A" blood group and medical findings of assault. The FIR, lodged by PW-1, described the child as an "unknown girl" assaulted by an "unknown person," omitting the boys' names or the accused's identity despite PW-1's later claims of prior knowledge. Forensic reports detected semen in the child's viscera, and the trial court deemed the chain of circumstances "complete and unbroken," ruling out false implication.

The defense, represented by counsel for Parmar, argued the evidence was fabricated. They pointed to omissions in the FIR—such as not naming the boys or accusing Parmar—as material contradictions. Witnesses' "highly unnatural" behavior, like failing to clothe the child or immediately alert police, suggested ulterior motives. Cross-examinations revealed enmities: Jethabhai (Parmar's father) had filed a 2006 complaint against relatives of PW-3. Two boys (PW-5 and PW-6) turned hostile, while PW-3 and PW-4's accounts varied on timings and details. Investigative officers (PW-14 and PW-15) admitted lapses, including not recording initial statements, failing to identify boys promptly, and neglecting DNA profiling or house ownership proof. The defense contended the boys might be the perpetrators, protected by communal ties (PW-1 and boys being Muslim).

Key Legal Principles and Precedents Applied

The bench invoked the landmark test for circumstantial evidence from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, requiring circumstances to be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive, excluding alternatives, and forming an unbroken chain leaving no reasonable doubt of innocence. The Court found the prosecution failed all prongs: last-seen evidence was "cooked up" due to FIR omissions and witness contradictions; recoveries lacked chain-of-custody proof and house possession evidence; medical evidence, while confirming assault, did not link Parmar.

Drawing parallels to Amar Nath Jha v. Nand Kishore Singh (2018) 9 SCC 137 and Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of M.P. (AIR 1975 SC 1026), the Court stressed that vital FIR omissions of known facts (e.g., boys' identities and accused's role) create suspicion of a "staged" crime. Unlike compoundable offenses, this POCSO case involved heinous societal harm, but acquittal was warranted where evidence was unreliable, not due to settlement but evidentiary failure. The bench distinguished quashing (pre-trial) from acquittal (post-trial), emphasizing no compromise in child assault cases without proof.

Pivotal excerpt: "The highly unnatural conduct of the witnesses, marked by gross insensitivity/rank apathy, contradictions and apparent concoctions raises serious doubts about the reliability of the prosecution’s case." Another: "When investigations are carried out in a manner that betrays their foundational purpose... the resulting miscarriage of justice reverberates far beyond the confines of the courtroom."

Court's Decision and Broader Implications

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the trial court's November 3, 2015, conviction and the High Court's April 5, 2016, order, acquitting Parmar under all charges. The ruling underscores the perils of shoddy probes in sensitive cases, warning that "procedural lapses and institutional negligence overshadow substantive justice," eroding public faith.

Beyond the acquittal, the judgment issues nationwide directives for trial courts to include tabulated charts of witnesses, documents, and material objects in judgments for better clarity. This structural reform aims to aid appellate review, especially in voluminous cases, and may extend to civil proceedings.

The decision highlights systemic issues in child sexual assault investigations, urging diligent forensics and witness scrutiny. While affirming zero tolerance for such crimes, it reinforces that convictions must rest on ironclad evidence, preventing wrongful imprisonments.