Law Web: Supreme court guidelines for Preparation of Tabulated Charts in all the judgments of Criminal cases

82. Preparation of Tabulated Charts in all the

judgments:

82.1 All trial Courts dealing with criminal matters

shall, at the conclusion of the judgment, incorporate

tabulated charts summarizing: -

a. Witnesses examined,

b. Documents exhibited, and

c. Material objects (muddamal) produced and

exhibited.

82.2. These charts shall form an appendix or

concluding segment of the judgment and shall be

prepared in a clear, structured and easily

comprehensible format.

83. Standardized Chart of Witnesses

83.1. Each criminal judgment shall contain a witness

chart with at least the following columns:

a. Serial Number

b. Name of the Witness

c. Brief Description/Role of the Witness, such

as: Informant, Eye-witness, Medical

Jurist/Doctor, Investigating Officer (I.O.),

Panch Witness, etc.

83.2. The description should be succinct but

sufficient to indicate the evidentiary character of the

witness. This structured presentation will allow quick

reference to the nature of testimony, assist in locating

the witness in the record, and minimize ambiguity.

83.3. Specimen Chart for Witnesses Examined

Prosecution

Witness No.

Name of

Witness

Description

1 Mr. X Eye-witness

2 Mr. Y Witness of last seen

circumstance

3 Ms. Z Medical Jurist

4 Mr. A Investigating Officer

5 Mr. B Complainant/First

Informant

84. Standardized Chart of Exhibited Documents

84.1 A separate chart shall be prepared for all

documents exhibited during trial. This chart shall

include:

a. Exhibit Number;

b. Description of document;

c. The Witness who proved or attested the

document.

84.2 Illustratively, the description may include:

FIR, complaint, panchnamas, medical certificates,

FSL reports, seizure memos, site plans, dying

declarations, etc.

84.3. The requirement of specifying the witness who

proved the document ensures traceability of proof

and assist the Court in appreciating compliance with

the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/Bharatiya Sakshya

Adhiniyam, 2023.

84.4. Specimen Chart for Exhibited Documents

Exhibit

No.

Description of the

Exhibit

Proved

by/Attested by

1 Inquest

Panchnama/Memo

PW-1

2 Recovery

Panchnama/Memo

PW-2

3 Arrest Memo PW-3

4 Post-mortem Report PW-4

5 FSL Report PW-5

85. Standardized Chart of Material

Objects/Muddamals

85.1 Whenever material objects are produced and

marked as exhibits, the trial Court shall prepare a

third chart with:

a. Material Object (M.O.) Number;

b. Description of the Object;

c. Witness who proved the Object’s Relevance

(e.g., weapon, clothing, tool, article seized

under panchnama, etc.)

85.2. This enables clarity regarding the physical

evidence relied upon.

85.3.Specimen Chart for Material

Objects/Muddamals

Material

Object No.

Description of the

Exhibit

Proved

by/Attested by

1 Weapon of Offence PW-1

2 Clothing of

accused/victim

PW-2

3 Mobile

Phone/Electronic

Object

PW-3

4 Vehicle PW-4

5 Purse/earrings/identity

card

PW-5

86. Special Provisions for Cases Involving

Voluminous Evidence

86.1. In complex cases, such as conspiracies,

economic offences or trials involving voluminous oral

or documentary evidence, the list of witnesses and

exhibits may be substantially long. Where the

number of witnesses or documents is unusually

large, the trial Court may prepare charts only for the

material, relevant, and relied-upon witnesses and

documents, clearly indicating that the chart is

confined to such items. This ensures that the charts

remain functional reference tools rather than

unwieldy compilations.

87. Application to Defence Witnesses and

Evidence

87.1. The aforesaid directions shall apply, mutatis

mutandis, to all witnesses examined and all evidence

adduced by the defence.

88. Adoption of Specimen Format and

Permissible Deviations

88.1. The specimen charts provided herein shall

ordinarily serve as the standard format to be followed

by trial Courts across the country.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

MANOJBHAI JETHABHAI

PARMAR (ROHIT) Vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Author: Mehta, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1433.

Dated: DECEMBER 15, 2025.

1. Heard.

2. A grave and distressing case of brutal sexual

assault upon a four-year old girl1 stands before this

Court, enveloped in layers of investigative apathy and

procedural infirmities. The First Information Report,

despite the informant’s professed complete

knowledge of the incident, is bereft of even the most

rudimentary details, neither the name of the accused

person (appellant herein) nor those of the purported

1 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘child victim’.

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

witnesses of the last seen together circumstance find

mention. What followed was an investigation

hopelessly botched and a trial conducted with a

pedantic rigidity that obscured, rather than unveiled,

the truth. 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. Yet, in face of this disturbing

matrix, the accused-appellant stands convicted and

has remained behind bars for nearly thirteen long

years.

3. This Court cannot remain oblivious to the

sobering reality that such handling of criminal cases

leaves scars not merely upon the individuals involved

but upon the justice system itself. When

investigations are carried out in a manner that

betrays their foundational purpose, and trials

become mechanical exercises divorced from the quest

for truth, the resulting miscarriage of justice

reverberates far beyond the confines of the

courtroom. It erodes public faith, instils uncertainty

in victims, and sends a chilling message to society at

large that the pursuit of justice may falter not at the

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

altar of complexity but at the hands of indifference.

The criminal law, which must stand as a bulwark

protecting the vulnerable, risks becoming an

instrument of unintended cruelty when procedural

lapses and institutional negligence overshadow

substantive justice. With this prelude, we now

proceed to examine the factual matrix of the case.

4. The appellant-Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar2

was arraigned as an accused in connection with FIR

bearing Crime No. I-68 of 2013 registered at Kalol

Police Station for the offences punishable under

Sections 363, 376(2)(i) and 201 of the Indian Penal

Code, 18603 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20124. He was

subjected to trial before the learned Additional

Sessions and Special Judge, Panchmahal, Godhra5 in

Special Case No. 08 of 2014 (POCSO). Vide judgment

of conviction and order of sentence dated 3rd

November, 2015, the accused-appellant was

convicted and sentenced as below:

2 Hereinafter, referred to as the accused-appellant.

3 For short, ‘IPC’.

4 For short, ‘POCSO Act’.

5 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘trial Court’.

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

i. For offence under Section 363 IPCRigorous

imprisonment for 3 years and fine

of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of

fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

months.

ii. For offence under Section 376(2)(i) & 201

IPC- Life imprisonment and fine of

Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine,

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6

months.

iii. For offence under Section 3/4 of POCSO

Act- Life Imprisonment and fine of

Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine,

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6

months.

5. The appeal6 preferred by the accused-appellant

for assailing the judgment of the trial Court stands

rejected by the Division Bench of the High Court of

Gujarat7 vide judgment dated 5th April, 2016 which

is subjected to challenge in this appeal by special

leave.

6 Criminal Appeal (Against Conviction) No. 448 of 2016.

7 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘High Court’.

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

Brief facts:

6. On 13th June, 2013, the complainant, Nazir

Mohammed (PW-1), had taken his dinner and was

resting with his family members in the open

courtyard of his house. At about 11 o’clock in the

night, he saw three to four boys going from the front

of his house with the child victim who did not have a

stitch of cloth on her body. The complainant stopped

them and made an inquiry as to where they were

taking the child, on which one of the boys replied that

they suspected the child to be from the Nayak

community and that she might have gone missing

and thus, they were taking her to the Nayak Faliya

for making an inquiry.

7. The complainant (PW-1) thereupon brought the

child victim under some light in order to identify her.

He judged that the child was aged about four years

and saw blood dribbling down her legs. He

accompanied the boys to Nayak Faliya and made

inquiries from two to three people, however, no

information was forthcoming regarding her family.

8. The complainant (PW-1) tried to inspect the

body of the child victim closely, on which, he found

that she was bleeding continuously from her nether

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

regions. He suspected that some untoward incident

had happened with the child victim. He, therefore,

asked the boys as to where they had brought the

child victim from, on which, they replied that the

child victim was found nearby a house situated in

front of pan stall of Jafrubhai situated at Oad Faliya.

9. The complainant (PW-1) thereupon informed his

friend Karimbhai Mogal over the phone. Persons from

vicinity gathered there, amongst whom one was

Vivekbhai Suthar8 (PW-2), a journalist. Vivekbhai

tried to make an inquiry from the child victim who

did not respond, on which, an ambulance was called,

and she was taken to the hospital.

10. The complainant (PW-1) and Vivekbhai (PW-2)

followed the ambulance to the Kalol Government

Hospital where the child victim was admitted, and

her treatment started. The treating Doctor, Ms.

Shakuntala Parmar (PW-10) examined the victim and

opined that the child victim had been sexually

assaulted and due to that reason, she was bleeding

from her private parts. After gathering the above

information, Nazir Mohammed (PW-1) lodged a

8 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘Vivekbhai’.

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

complaint at the Kalol Police Station which was

registered as Crime Report No. 68 of 2013 against

unknown persons for the offences punishable under

Sections 376(1)(i) and 201 of the IPC.

11. For sake of ready reference, the complaint (Exh.

10) is reproduced hereinbelow in its entirety: -

“I, hereby, state the facts of my complaint in person

that I reside with my family at the aforementioned

address and I earn my living by doing door-to-door

plumbing and electrical work in Kalol town. I have

been residing in a rented house in Kalol for the past

twelve years. Presently, I reside on rent in the

house of of Shahbuddin Maiyuddin Shaikh. I know

most of the persons living in Kalol town.

On 13/06/2013, yesterday, I was spending leisure

time with my family at around 9 pm. When I was

playing game in my mobile by lying on my cot

outside my home at around 11 pm, I saw 3-4 boys

coming from Ode Faliya and passing by my house.

I stopped them and asked about the situation and

the little girl they were carrying. One of them

responded that the girl seemed to have lost; she did

not have any clothes on her body; she seemed to

belong to Nayak community and therefore they

were taking her to Nayak Faliya for more details. I

tried to identify the girl by bringing her to light. I

found that she had no clothes on her body. She

seemed to me of around four years. She was

bleeding on her legs. I went with the boys to Nayak

Faliya. We inquired around by waking 3-4 persons

up. However, we did not have get any details. When

the girl was being inspected with the torch, I noted

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

that she was bleeding from the private part. As she

was still bleeding slowly at that time, I felt that

something untoward had happened with the girl.

When asked the boys where they found the girl,

they responded that she was found at the house,

located opposite to the Jafarbhai’s Pan Stall at the

offside of Ode Faliya. Subsequently, I informed my

friend Karimbhai Mogal by making a call. People

residing nearby gathered around in a while.

Vivekbhai Suthar who resides at Kalol also arrived

by that time. He observed the girl. We asked the girl

about her name and whereabouts. She did not

utter her name and stated ‘from Chowkdi

(crossroads)’. As the girl was bleeding, Vivekbhai

made a call to 108 ambulance. After handing over

the girl to the ambulance, Vivekbhai and I went to

Government Hospital, Kalol on a motorcycle. The

girl was immediately given medical treatment.

Doctor told me that the girl was bleeding from the

private part because somebody had raped her. I

then moved out of the hospital. Other people also

gathered around by that time. Therefore, Vivekbhai

and I are here at the Kalol Police Station for lodging

the complaint.

Therefore, I, hereby, lodge my complaint for

investigation of an incident of rape which has taken

place with a four-year old unknown girl by an

unknown person at an unknown place at any

time before 11 pm, yesterday, on 13/06/2013.

My witnesses are the persons mentioned in my

complaint and others as and when found in the

police investigation.

My complaint is as per my dictation before the

police and true. I have appended by signature

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

herein below after reading and understanding it

thoroughly.”

(Emphasis supplied)

12. Investigation was conducted by Hareshbhai

Pallacharya (PW-15) Inspector of Police, Kalol Police

Station who recorded the statements of the witnesses

concerned. Medical examination of the child victim

was conducted. The four boys who had brought the

child victim to Nayak Faliya were identified as

Arifkhan (PW-3), Shahejadkhan (PW-4), Bilal

Ahemad (PW-5) and Mohsin Gafurkhan (PW-6).

13. These four boys were examined under Section

161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19739, on 14th

June, 2013, and they claimed that they had seen the

accused-appellant pushing the child victim out of his

house.

14. The accused-appellant was arrested, and his

house was inspected from where blood-stained

clothes of the child victim were allegedly recovered.

The bedding lying in the house as well as the floor of

the house were also bearing blood stains. These

articles were seized for forensic examination. Finding

sufficient evidence against the accused-appellant,

9 For short, ‘CrPC’.

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

chargesheet was filed against him in the Special

Court. The Special Judge framed charges against the

accused-appellant for the offences punishable under

Sections 363, 376(2)(i) and 201 of the IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, who abjured his

guilt and claimed trial.

15. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses and

exhibited 19 documents and presented certain

material objects in order to prove its case.

16. The accused-appellant was confronted with the

circumstances appearing against him in the

prosecution evidence by way of questions put under

Section 313 CrPC which he denied and claimed to be

innocent. He also stated that he had been falsely

implicated in the case.

17. The trial Court, after hearing the arguments

advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and the

defence counsel, and upon appreciation of evidence

on record, came to the following pertinent

conclusions: -

i. That the testimony of witnesses Arifkhan (PW-3)

and Shahejadkhan (PW-4) provided strong evidence

pertaining to the circumstance of last seen together.

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

ii. The accused-appellant kidnapped the child victim

from the guardianship of her parents; forcibly took

her to his house where he subjected her to gruesome

sexual assault causing numerous injuries to the

private parts of the child victim.

iii. The allegation of forcible sexual assault was

thoroughly corroborated by the evidence of Dr.

Shakuntala Parmar (PW-10) who also took note of an

injury on the private parts of the accused-appellant

thereby, providing strong corroboration to his

involvement in the crime.

iv. The Investigating Officer, Hareshbhai Pallacharya

(PW-15), who conducted spot inspection of the house

owned by the accused-appellant claimed to have

recovered significant incriminating material viz.

blood-stained bedsheets, mattress and curtains from

the said house. Legging and t-shirt of the child victim

and mobile, handkerchief, night pant, lining t-shirt

and underwear of the accused-appellant were also

seized from the house allegedly owned by him.

v. These articles including the personal

belongings/apparels of the child victim were analyzed

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

at the Forensic Science Laboratory10, and tested

positive for “A” blood group which was same as that

of the child victim.

vi. The circumstance of last seen together spoken

to by Arifkhan (PW-3) and Shahejadkhan (PW-4) was

corroborated in material particulars by the

incriminating recoveries effected from the house of

the accused-appellant. The FSL report established

the presence of semen in the viscera collected from

the private parts of the child victim.

18. The trial Court observed that there was no

occasion for the witnesses to falsely implicate the

accused-appellant in such a gruesome case. As per

the trial Court, the prosecution proved the complete

and unbroken chain of incriminating circumstances

by leading unimpeachable evidence and proceeded to

convict and sentence the accused-appellant as noted

above11.

19. The appeal preferred by the accused-appellant

to the High Court for assailing the judgment of the

trial Court stands dismissed vide final judgment and

10 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘FSL’.

11 Para 4.

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

order dated 5th April, 2016 which is assailed in this

appeal by Special Leave.

Discussion and Findings

20. We have heard and considered the submissions

advanced by learned counsel appearing for the

accused-appellant and the learned standing counsel

Ms. Swati Ghildiyal representing the State of Gujarat

and have also gone through the impugned judgments

passed by the High Court and the trial Court. We

have also carefully scrutinized the original trial Court

record.

21. Admittedly there is no direct evidence in the

present case, and the case of the prosecution rests

entirely on circumstantial evidence, to be specific, in

form of last seen together circumstance,

incriminating recoveries and medical evidence.

22. The law with regard to conviction based on

circumstantial evidence has been crystallized by this

Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sharda

v. State of Maharashtra12, wherein it was held:

“153. A close analysis of this decision would show

that the following conditions must be fulfilled

before a case against an accused can be said to be

fully established:

12 (1984) 4 SCC 116.

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

(1) The circumstances from which the

conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully

established.

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that

the circumstances concerned “must or should” and

not “may be” established. There is not only a

grammatical but a legal distinction between “may

be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as

was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade

v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793] where

the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807]

“Certainly, it is a primary principle that

the accused must be and not merely may

be guilty before a court can convict and

the mental distance between ‘may be’ and

‘must be’ is long and divides vague

conjectures from sure conclusions.”

(2) The facts so established should be

consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt

of the accused, that is to say, they should not

be explainable on any other hypothesis except

that the accused is guilty.

(3) The circumstances should be of a

conclusive nature and tendency,

(4) They should exclude every possible

hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

(5) There must be a chain of evidence so

complete as not to leave any reasonable ground

for the conclusion consistent with the

innocence of the accused and must show that in

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

all human probability the act must have been

done by the accused.

(Emphasis supplied)

23. Having noted the principles governing a case

based purely on circumstantial evidence, we shall

now analyse the evidence led by the prosecution in

order to bring home the charges against the accusedappellant.

24. Firstly, we shall proceed to consider the

evidence on last seen together circumstance.

25. The prosecution has sought to prove this

circumstance stating that the

informant/complainant, Nazir Mohammed (PW‑1),

saw four boys taking the child victim to Nayak Faliya

at around 11:00 P.M., and that these four boys were

later identified as Arifkhan (PW‑3), Shahejadkhan

(PW‑4), Bilal Ahemad (PW‑5) and Mohsin Gafurkhan

(PW‑6). These four boys were the ones who saw the

accused-appellant pushing the child victim from his

house.

26. It may be noted that Bilal Ahemad (PW-5) and

Mohsin Gafurkhan (PW-6) did not support the

prosecution case during their deposition at the trial

and were declared hostile. However, Arifkhan (PW-3)

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

and Shahejadkhan (PW-4) tried to pose as witnesses

of last seen together circumstance during their

deposition.

27. We find that the evidence of these witnesses is

absolutely unconvincing and that they seem to have

cooked up the last seen together theory so as to

somehow implicate the accused-appellant in the case

for oblique motives. Rather, we feel that the entire

story is dubitable and there exist grave doubts

regarding the identity of these witnesses and the

credibility of their evidence.

28. We shall now analyze the evidence of the

material witnesses and assign reasons for discarding

their testimony. The relevant excerpts from the

evidence of the complainant, Nazir Mohammed (PW-

1) are extracted hereinbelow for ready reference: -

“Examination-in-chief

……At that time at around 10:30-11:00 pm, I saw

four boys carrying a little girl with them. I asked

them about the situation and the place there were

heading to. They responded that the girl was from

Nayak community, lost, and was bleeding from the

private part. I joined them and went to the the place

where Nayaks reside. I woke them up and enquired

about girl’s family. They all stated that the girl did

not belong to them. ……I asked the boys who were

carrying the girl about the place where they found

the girl. They stated that they saw Manoj Jethabhai

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

Parmar ousting the girl from his house. Names of

these four boys were (I) Arifkhan and (2) Sartaj; I

am unable to recall names of the remaining two.

However, I said all names in the police station.

Having seen the girl bleeding from the private part,

I made a call to my journalist friend, Karimbhai

Mogal. He could not come. Bilalbhai was present

with me at this time. He called a journalist,

Vivekbhai Suthar. He reached at our place in 10

minutes. He also looked at the girl. Looking at the

condition of the girl, we felt like someone has

established physical relation with her.

……I registered a police complaint then. I am being

shown the complaint vide Mark 5/4; which has my

signature on it and I recognize the same. It is given

Exhibit 10. Police, after registering the complaint

the same night, recorded my special statement. I

told police the name of the accused from the talks

with the four boys.

Cross-examination: for the accused

…..I did not seek for help from neighbors when

the boys were bringing the girl. My family

consists of my wife and four daughters. They

also did not come outside at that time. I did not

call my wife for coming out for inspection of the

girl who was in difficult situation. My wife or

daughter did not come out of home until Vivekbhai

Suthar arrived. Further, none of my neighbors or

anyone from Ashiyana Society came out; nor did I

call anyone for help. Around 30-45 minutes lapsed

from the boys brought the girl and the girl was

taken to the hospital in a mobile van. During this

time, I did not feel like informing my neighbors

about this incident. It is not true that the fact that

the accused Manoj Jethabhai was ousting the girl

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

from his house was told only to me by the four boys.

I did not mention anything in the complaint

such as the four boys had told the fact in

presence of other people. It is not true that the

four boys did not tell me the fact that they saw the

accused Manoj Jethabhai ousting the victim from

his house. It is true that I did not state about my

doubt on Manoj Jethabhai when I made a call to

the journalist. When I made a call to Vivekbhai

Suthar and then Vivekbhai made a call to the

police, the fact of having doubt regarding the

incident on Manoj Jethabhai was not mentioned.

…..It did not strike my mind to call my wife for

examination. The girl was without any clothes

when I saw her for the first time. I did not cover

her up with shawl or bed sheet. Nayak Faliya is

about 300-350 feet away from my house. I did not

happen to visit Nayak Faliya.

.…After examination with the torch, bleeding from

the private part was ascertained. I am aware of the

fact that such type of cases are dealt by the police.

I did not inform the police immediately after

Bilalbhai examined with the torch. It is not true

that I did not know the four boys who brought

the victim. I did not mention the names of these

four boys. My special statement was recorded at

10 am on the next day of registering the complaint.

It was not recorded at night of registering the

complaint. The police did not ask me to identify

the four boys. It is true that I never mentioned

the names of four boys to the police. It did not

happen that the four boys left after handing over

the victim to me at my house. Two out of four boys

carried the victim to the Nayak Faliya. The clothes

of the boys did not have blood marks. I have not

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

dictated the description of four boys in either

complaint or special statement.

…..It is not true that while we reached the Nayak

Faliya, the four boys who brought the victim

showed their doubt but did not name the person.

When I went to register the complaint, the accused

was not present at the police station. Further, I did

not meet the accused before. The four boys did

not tell me the name of the accused, Manoj. I

did not mention the name of the accused in the

complaint. It is not true that I did not mention the

name of the accused in my special statement.

……I went inside the police station. It is not true

that persons waiting outside were Jafarubhai,

Rafiqbhai, Sikandarbhai and Amanbhai. These

four persons were not in the hospital too. I know all

the four persons. The four boys who brought the

victim are the sons of the said four persons.

……It is true that Manojbhai, father of the

accused, had earlier filed a police complaint

against six persons i.e. aforesaid four persons

and two others.

It is not true that the four boys abducted the victim

with intention to rape her. It is not true that in

order to save the four boys, they were allowed to

flee from the spot because they belonged to our

Muslim community. It is not true that their names

were not dictated while registering the complaint

for saving them. It is not true that I registered the

complaint on being asked by Jafurbhai for the

same. The statements of these four boys were not

recorded by the police in my presence. I stayed at

the hospital for around 20 minutes. It is not true

that in order to save these four boys, I filed a false

complaint or am giving false deposition.

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

It is true that neither in the complaint nor in

the police statement did I mention that when

asked the four boys, they stated to have seen

Manoj Jethabhai Parmar ousting the girl from

his home.…..”

(Emphasis supplied)

29. In his testimony, the complainant, Nazir

Mohammed (PW-1), stated that the four boys whom

he had seen taking the child victim, told him that

they had seen the accused-appellant pushing the

child victim out of his house. On receiving this

information, Nazir Mohammed (PW-1) made a call to

the reporter Vivekbhai (PW-2) who, in turn, called the

108 Ambulance so that the child victim could be

taken for treatment to the hospital. Thereafter, Nazir

Mohammed (PW-1) lodged the complaint (Exhibit-

10).

30. Thus, going by the evidence of Nazir Mohammed

(PW-1) (supra), well before the FIR (Exh. 10) was

lodged by him, he had complete knowledge of all the

relevant facts including the identity of the four boys

who were seen taking the child victim to Nayak Faliya,

and the most crucial fact that these boys had seen the

accused‑appellant pushing the child victim out from

his house.

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

31. We may reiterate that the FIR of the case (Exh.

10) was lodged on the basis of the written complaint

of Nazir Mohammed (PW-1). In the complaint,

neither the names nor description of the four

boys who were seen by Nazir Mohammed (PW-1),

taking the child victim in a denuded state finds

a mention. It is also significant to note that the

witness Vivekbhai (PW‑2), who along with Nazir

Mohammed (PW-1) was instrumental in lodging the

complaint, is a reporter. This fact heightens the

expectation that all the relevant facts known to the

complainant would have been set out in the complaint.

32. Had there been any iota of truth in these

allegations, there was no chance that the complainant

(PW-1) would have missed or omitted to mention the

following vital/crucial facts in the complaint: -

(i) The identity of the four boys who were seen

taking the child victim with them.

(ii) The fact that these boys had seen the

accused-appellant pushing the child victim

out of his house.

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

33. The omission of these material facts in the FIR

brings the entire case of the prosecution under a

grave cloud of doubt.

34. This Court in Amar Nath Jha v. Nand Kishore

Singh13 dealt with a similar issue regarding non

reporting of essential facts in the FIR, wherein it was

observed as follows: -

“10. The third circumstance which we need to

concentrate on concerns non-reporting of

essential facts which were known to the

informant in the FIR. The High Court while

appreciating the entire materials on record has

affirmatively concluded that PWs 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10

and 12 belong to the same family of the deceased

and reside in the same house. It may be of some

significance to note that PW 9 (the informant) of

this case is the nephew of the deceased who lives

in an adjacent house to that of the deceased. In the

FIR, PW 9 has failed to mention the name of PW

1, is a significant person as per the prosecution

as he had allegedly identified the accused Nand

Kishore Singh and Maheshwar Singh, who were

the dacoits responsible for the aforesaid crime.

It has come out from the cross-examination of PW

9 that he was aware of the presence of PW 1 during

the incident but he failed to mention his name in

the FIR. Such non-mentioning of presence of PW

1, who was a material witness in this case,

creates further suspicion on the hypothesis

portrayed by the prosecution.

11. The High Court on appreciation of detailed

evidence has for the right reasons concluded

that the informant (PW 9) was aware of the

13 (2018) 9 SCC 137

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

names of dacoits who had killed the deceased

but failed to name them in the FIR. In this

context we may note that the incident is alleged to

have taken place in the intervening night of 21-4-

1999 and 22-4-1999, whereas the FIR came to be

registered at 3.15 a.m., after a lapse of 3 hours.

Despite sufficient time for the informant to

gather necessary information, which he did, the

names of two accused-respondents have

conspicuously been missing, which also formed

an additional factor for the High Court to acquit

the accused-respondents. Although we accept

that the FIR need not be an encyclopaedia of

the crime, but absence of certain essential

facts, which were conspicuously missing in the

present FIR, point towards suspicion that the

crime itself may be staged.”

(Emphasis supplied)

35. Similarly, the effect of a vital omission in the

first information report was considered by this Court

in the case of Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of M.P14,

the relevant observations from the said judgment are

quoted hereinbelow: -

“8. The abovementioned first information report

was lodged at Police Station Ganj on March 23,

1970 at 9.15 p.m. The time of the incident is

stated to be 5 p.m. The only person mentioned as

an eye-witness to the murder of Harbinder Singh

is Joginder Singh. The two daughters Taranjit

Kaur, PW 2, and Amarjit Kaur, PW 6, are

mentioned in the FIR only as persons who saw the

wrapping of the chadar on the wound of

14 AIR 1975 SC 1026.

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

Harbinder Singh. What is most significant is that

it is nowhere mentioned in the FIR that the

appellant had stabbed Harbinder Singh at all. It

seems inconceivable that by 9'15 p.m. it would not

be known to Uttam Singh, the father of Harbinder

Singh, that the appellant had inflicted one of the

two stab wounds on the body of Harbinder Singh.

9. No doubt, an FIR is a previous statement

which can, strictly speaking, be only used to

corroborate or contradict the maker of it. But,

in this case, it had been made by the father of

the murdered boy to whom all the important

facts of the occurrence, so far as they were

known up to 9-15 p.m. on March 23, 1970,

were bound to have been communicated. If his

daughers had seen the appellant inflicting a

blow on Harbinder Singh, the father would

certainly have mentioned it in the FIR. We

think that omissions of such important facts,

affecting the probabilities of the case, are

relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act

in judging the veracity of the prosecution case.

10. Even Joginder Singh, PW 8, was not an

eyewitness of the occurrence. He merely proves an

alleged dying declaration. He stated that

Harbinder Singh (described by his pet name as

“Pappi”) rushed out of his house by opening its

door, and held his hand on his chest with blood

flowing down from it. He deposed that, when he

asked Pappi what had happened, Pappi had

stated that Suresh and Pandey had injured him.

It is clear from the FIR that Joginder Singh had

met Uttam Singh before the FIR was made. Uttam

Singh did not mention there that any dying

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

declaration, indicating that the appellant had also

injured Harbinder Singh, was made by Harbinder

Singh. The omission to mention any injury

inflicted on Harbinder Singh by the appellant

in the FIR seems very significant in the

circumstances of this case. Indeed, according to

the version in the FIR, Joginder Singh, who was

in the lane, is said to have arrived while Harbinder

Singh was being injured. Therefore, if this was

correct, the two injuries on Harbinder Singh must

also have been inflicted in the lane outside.

………

17. As regards the second and third points, we

are unable to give credence to the version of

the three alleged eyewitnesses as they were

not mentioned as eyewitnesses in the FIR

made in the circumstances indicated above.

18. Lastly, the alleged dying declaration is also

not mentioned in the FIR On the other hand, the

FIR, mentions Joginder Singh who tried to prove

the dying declaration only, as an eyewitness.

……

21. Consequently, we allow this appeal and set

aside the conviction and sentence of the

appellant under Section 302/34, IPC If the

appellant has already served the sentence

awarded under Section 324 IPC, as it stated on

his behalf, he will be released forthwith.”

(Emphasis supplied)

36. Therefore, the attempt of prosecution in posing

through the complainant Nazir Mohammed (PW-1)

that Arifkhan (PW‑3), Shahejadkhan (PW‑4), Bilal

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

Ahemad (PW-5) and Mohsin Gafurkhan (PW-6) were

the four boys whom he had seen with the child victim

or that these boys had seen the accused-appellant

pushing the child victim out of his house is a clear

embellishment and significant omission, as these

vital facts were not set out in the complaint. This

crucial omission effects the credibility of the

complaint itself.

37. Furthermore, the introduction of the witnesses

namely Arifkhan (PW‑3), Shahejadkhan (PW‑4), Bilal

Ahemad (PW-5) and Mohsin Gafurkhan (PW-6) for

proving the last seen together circumstance is a clear

afterthought, as manifested by the fact that their

names cropped up for the first time on 14th June,

2013 i.e. the day after the incident.

38. A lame reason was assigned by the trial Court

to brush aside this serious flaw and effect of the grave

omission on the prosecution’s case observing that no

fact had come on record to show that the Nazir

Mohammed (PW-1), Arifkhan (PW‑3) and

Shahejadkhan (PW‑4) bore any enmity against the

accused-appellant due to which, they would make an

attempt to falsely implicate the accused-appellant.

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

This, in our opinion, could not have been a logical

ground to ignore this material omission.

39. The Journalist, Vivekbhai (PW-2), also tried to

take a similar stance as the complainant Nazir

Mohammed (PW-1) in his deposition. Relevant

excerpts from the deposition of Vivekbhai (PW-2) are

extracted hereinbelow for ready reference: -

“The incident occurred on 13/06/2013. I was at

Godhra in morning and returned Kalol at around

12:30 hrs after finishing my work by staying half

and hour there. As being native of Kalol, I was

present at my home that day. I was present at my

home in evening after taking dinner. I received a

call from Bilalbhai at around 11:30 pm. Bilalbhai

is my consulting. Bilalbhai told me that a girl was

bleeding from the lower part and something had

happened. I went through a road to river which is

opposite to the police station. Bilalbhai, 5-6 other

friends, and a four-year girl without clothes were

there. The girl was sitting with her legs wide and

others were standing. I speculated the case of rape.

At first, I made a call to Kalol PSI on his mobile. He

was on leave. He said he would inform the police

station. I made a call to 108 mobile van thereafter.

It took the girl to the Government Hospital, Kalol

for treatment. We did not know the name and

whereabouts of the girl. We arranged for her

primary treatment. In-charge P.S.I. Pallacharya

and C.P.I. Vajpai arrived at the hospital. In view of

limitation of treatment at Kalol Hospital, the girl

was referred to the Godhra Hospital. By this time,

the parents of the girl arrived at the hospital

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

due to police efforts. The doctor during the

treatment at Kalol Hospital asserted about rape

with the victim. When I was there during the

treatment at Kalol Hospital, my friends who

brought the girl went to the police station for

lodging a complaint.

The four boys who brought the girl told me the fact

at the Kalol Hospital that the accused, Manoj, had

raped the girl. The boys told me that the

accused, Manoj, ousted the victim without any

clothes from his house when they were sitting

at the stall near Manoj’s house. The girl without

clothes was walking on the way towards river. The

police were searching for the family of the victim

when she was being treated at the Kalol Hospital.

Parents and younger brother of the victim were

found during the exercise. They asserted about the

victim being their daughter. Police recorded my

statement in connection with the incident. I did not

know the accused before the incident. I know the

accused after the incident. He is present in the

court today.

Cross-examination: for the Accused

….When I reached at the river-slope, around 50

people gathered there.

…..P.S.I. Pallacharya arrived at the hospital within

2 minute of our arrival. C.P.I. Vajpai arrived in 10

minute. At around 12 at night, P.S.I. Pallahcharya

and C.P.I. Vajpai were present at the hospital.

Parents of the victim arrived at the hospital at

round 12:00-12:15 am.

…..I was the only one present during the

treatment. I did not go outside the room even

after the arrival of girl’s parents. Bilalbhai and

Najirbhai were talking to the police outside the

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

treatment room. I did not suggest police to inquire

the four boys who brought the girl.

…..Najirbhai registered a complaint at the police

station; not at the hospital.

It is not true that Najirbhai went to police station

for registering the complaint when I was engaged in

the treatment in the hospital. It is not true that the

four boys who brought the victim talked to me in

the hospital. It is a true fact that the four boys

told me at the Kalol Hospital that accused,

Manoj, raped the girl. It is true that I did not

dictate this fact before the police during recording

the statement. It is true that I did not dictate the

fact before the police while recording the statement

that the boys told us that when they were sitting at

the stall near the house of accused, Manoj, the

accused, Manoj, ousted the girl without clothes

from his home and the girl without clothes was

walking towards the way to river.

I came to know the names of the four boys on

the next day of the incident. I did not tell the

P.S.I. the fact that I had doubts on the said four

boys. I came to know that the four boys were from

Muslim community. It is not true that the grave act

was done by the four boys and they were sent to

their homes from the hospital with a view to save

them.”

40. The witness (PW-2) testified that he had been

called to the place of occurrence at about 11:30 P.M.

where he saw one Bilalbhai and four to five boys with

a minor girl aged about four years in a nude

condition. The witness (PW-2) called the ambulance

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

for taking the child victim to the hospital. The witness

(PW-2) tried to create an entirely new story that with

the efforts of the police, the parents of the child victim

came to the Kalol Hospital on the same night. This

theory was not stated by any other witness including

the police officers (PW-14 and PW-15) in their

respective testimonies.

41. The witness (PW-2) categorically stated that the

boys who had brought the child victim, stated to him

at the hospital that they were sitting nearby the

house of the accused-appellant and had seen him

throwing the child victim out of the house in a nude

condition.

42. This assertion of Vivekbhai (PW-2) makes his

entire testimony nothing but a bundle of lies. It is the

admitted case of the prosecution that these boys did

not accompany Nazir Mohammed (PW-1) and the

child victim to the hospital. Thus, when the four boys

never came to the hospital, there could not have been

any occasion for Vivekbhai to make any enquiries or

receive information from them about the incident at

the hospital.

43. Had there been any iota of truth in the version

of Vivekbhai (PW-2), then there was no reason

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

whatsoever as to why the police officers from the

Kalol Police Station who had reached the hospital,

would not have made immediate inquiries from these

boys and would have left a serious lacunae in the

case by accepting a sketchy complaint having no

details whatsoever of the alleged assailant and also

about the identity of the material witnesses of the last

seen together circumstance, who were allegedly

present in the hospital.

44. A very important admission was made by

Vivekbhai (PW-2) in his cross-examination that he

came to know the names of the four boys on the day

after the incident. We find the testimony and conduct

of Nazir Mohammed (PW-1) and Vivekbhai (PW-2) to

be highly suspicious. It seems highly probable that

both connived together to protect and cover up for the

four boys belonging to the community of Nazir

Mohammed by putting the blame on the head of the

accused-appellant. The claim of the witnesses that

they took over the charge of the child victim from the

four boys being the alleged witnesses of the last seen

together circumstance and then took her to the

hospital without making any effort whatsoever to

provide her some clothes further fortifies our

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

conclusion that the conduct of these witnesses viz.

Nazir Mohammed (PW-1) and Vivekbhai (PW-2) was

highly unnatural all along. Their suspect actions

would give rise to a strong inference that they were

trying to protect the true assailants of the ghastly

sexual assault. The fact that Nazir Mohammed’s wife

was in the house and in spite thereof, he did not call

her out and made no effort whatsoever to provide a

decent coverage to the victimised girl, adds further

succour, to our conclusion, regarding the suspicious

conduct of Nazir Mohammed (PW-1) and Vivekbhai

(PW-2).

45. It is very surprising and rather shocking that

neither Nazir Mohammed (PW-1) and Vivekbhai (PW-

2) and so also the police officials present at the

hospital were completely in the dark about the

identities of the most crucial witnesses to the ghastly

crime when the report of the incident was lodged.

46. Since two of the four witnesses of the last seen

together circumstance, namely, Bilal Ahemad (PW-5)

and Mohsin Gafurkhan (PW-6) did not support the

prosecution case and were declared to be hostile, we

shall discuss the evidence of Arifkhan (PW-3) and

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

Shahejadkhan (PW-4), who, in their depositions, tried

to assert the claim of being witnesses of last seen

together circumstance.

47. The relevant excerpts from the evidence of

Arifkhan (PW-3) and Shahejadkhan (PW-4) are

reproduced hereinbelow: -

Deposition of Arifkhan (PW-3)

“Examination-in-chief

About three months ago I was sitting at the Pan

Parlour of my uncle Jaffarulla Khan, where my

brother Aiyaz, Nephew Shehzaad and Sartaaj were

also present. At around 11-11:30 in the night,

when we saw the girl departing from the accused

Manoj’s home, whose age was about four-five

years, who was in a naked condition and came

towards us crying. She was bleeding at her private

parts, seeming to be of Nayak community, we

inquired further, but as she could not say anything,

we four took her to the Nayak Vas. On our way to

Nayak Faliya, we met Nazirbhai near Ashiyana

Society. We informed Nazirbhai that the girl was

found near Manojbhai’s house and handed her over

to him. Thereafter we four as well as Nazirbhai as

well as the girl, were standing near Nayakvas Tekra,

when Nazirbhai called Bilalbhai, who arrived, and on

seeing the girl said that she doesn’t seem to be of our

locality, so he called Vivekbhai. Thereafter, on

inquiring about her parents in the Nayakvas, it was

found that she doesn’t belong there. Vivekbhai was

present at the spot, when after talking to Bilalbhai,

he called Police Station. While Vivekbhai and

Bilalbhai were talking, we were standing away with

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

the victim. When Bilalbhai and Vivekbhai came to

the spot, the child was bleeding at her private parts,

and thereafter Vivekbhai called Police Station, who

told us to dial 108 and take her to the dispensary.

On dialling, 108 mobile van arrived and the victim

was taken to hospital. Thereafter, we reached home

via Police Station. We came to know the fact that the

girl is of a traveller, the next day. I saw when the

accused threw out the victim from the home. Police

took my statement with this regard.

Cross-Examination for the Accused

…..The owner Jaffarulla Khan is aged forty to fifty

years. I saw the victim approaching the parlour while

crying, from about fifty to sixty feet away. It is not

true that we did not saw the girl before she came to

the parlour. We did not inform Jaffarulla Khan about

the fact that the girl was bleeding from her private

parts. I did not wake people from my home, a person

from Ode community came, whom I know, but name

is not known to me. Apart from my uncle Jaffarulla

Khan, a person named Suhanben also came.

……It is not true that we were taking the victim from

the parlour to the Ashiyana Society by lifting, but as

I said, we walked her towards Ashiyana Society.

During this time, we did not wrap any cloth to

the girl, while the victim was still bleeding.

….Few other people sitting outside their homes,

whose names I cannot recall, asked what happened

to the girl. Such thing did not happen that on

handing over the victim to Nazirbhai, we went to our

home. When we reached Ashiyana society, Nazirbhai

asked us where are we taking her. Then as Nazirbhai

approached us and saw the girl, she was bleeding at

her private part. It is not true that Nazirbhai told

us to go home. Nazirbhai’s wife was about to

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

deliver, so he went to the Hospital and there was

nobody at his home.

In my statement before the police, I stated that on

meeting Nazir Mohammad Malek and Bilal Vaghela

at the Ashiyana society, as they thought the girl to

be of Nayak community, asked to hand over the girl

in order to search for her parents in the Nayak

Faliya. On handing over the girl, we went to our

homes. It is not true that we did not go to Nayak

Tekra from Nazir’s home. We four did not go to

Kalol Hospital. It is not true that on handing over

the girl to Nazirbhai, near his house, we went to our

homes.

On seeing the girl at the Pan parlour, I didn’t go

to Manojbhai’s home, nor did we call the accused

Manojbhai outside. It is not true that the I cannot

say with surity whether the house from which the

girl came out, belongs to Manojbhai. It is not true

that I did not see the accused Manojbhai throwing

the girl from home and I am giving false deposition.

I know the accused’s father Jethabhai, who had

lodged a police complaint against my uncle

Jaffarulla Khan in the year 2006, which included

my father’s name in the accused, who was not

arrested. I am unaware of the proceedings of that

case. It is not true that after the complaint against

my father was registered in 2006, we have

displeasure with the accused as well as his family.

There was no dispute between the accused and his

brother, and our family on March 2006. It is not true

that I am giving false deposition because father of

the accused had lodged police complaint against my

father and my uncle. It is not true that me as well as

my friends, committed rape against the victim girl

and threw her near Nazirbhai’s house.

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

It is true that till we reached Nayak Faliya,

Nazirbhai was knowing where the girl came from,

because I had conveyed that fact to him, which

he also conveyed to Bilalbhai when he came.

Similiarly when Vivekbhai arrived, he was

conveyed the fact by Bilalbhai and Nazirbhai

where the girl was found. It did not happen that

I told the fact to Nazirbhai, Bilalbhai and

Vivekbhai. When we were heading towards our

home from the Police Station, the victim was

being thrown away from the house by Manojbhai,

such fact we did not convey to the Police.

…..We reached our home at about 12-12:15 p.m.

Police inquired us the next morning.

…..It is not true that Nazirbhai has given false

complaint to save us as he knows me, and I am

giving false deposition for the sake of same. It is not

true that I did not see the victim thrown out of the

house by the accused, and it did not happen that the

girl approached us while crying, and it did not

happen that we headed towards Ashiyana Society.”

xxxxxxx

Deposition of Shahejadkhan Khan (PW-4)

“Examination-in-chief

The incident took place about 5 months ago, when

there was a Chhakda, in which I, Arif, Sartaj and

Aiyaz were sitting, at about 10 in the night. At

this time the accused sent a girl outside the

home, who approached us while crying and she

seemed to be of Nayak Faliya, so we took her to

the Nayak Faliya and asked everybody whose

girl is this, but was denied by all. Hence, we came

back to the Ashiyana Society, where Arifbhai and

Bilalbhai came, and 108 Ambulance was called as

she was bleeding through her private parts, and

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

taken to the Hospital for treatment. Bilalbhai took

the girl to the Hospital, while we four proceeded

to our homes. The next day, we got to know that

the accused Manojbhai raped the girl. The fact that

the accused Manojbhai threw the girl out of home

was witnessed by me, and the same was given in

the complaint by Nazirbhai. I identify the accused

who is present before the court.

Cross-Examination for the Accused

…..When we saw the girl for first time, she was

crying at about 5-6 feet away from the Chhakda,

so our attention was drawn to her cry.

…..Few people of the Faliya gathered, whose name

I do not know. My home is 3-4 feet away from the

parlour, where I live with my parents and brother.

I did not call my parents or brother on seeing the

crying girl coming towards us.

It is not true that we four boys carried the girl with

us to the Nayak Faliya, which is about a km away

from our house. After crossing the Ashiyana

Society, we traversed through the pukka road. On

our way from the place of incident to the Nayak

Faliya, we did not meet anybody. We woke people

of Nayak Faliya and asked about the girl. As they

refused, we went towards Ashiyana Society with

the girl, when Nazirbhai met us. All this time, the

girl was walking with us and was bleeding.

Nazirbhai met us and told us to leave the girl

there, and we went towards our homes, leaving

the girl there. I have no knowledge of what did

Nazirbhai do thereafter, and when did Police and

ambulance reach. Nazirbhai is present in the court

today, who met me today. With me are my other

friends, whose parents were not called. We

feared whether our parents would doubt us on

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

seeing the girl bleeding. Such did not happen that

Police took recorded our statement on the day of

incident. It is true that I did not tell anybody

whom I met that I have seen Manojbhai

throwing the girl out of the home. We did not see

when, how and with whom the girl came there. In

my statement before the police, recorded at 12 in

the afternoon, I did not inform about 7-8 people

reaching during the incident, nor that I can identify

their houses.

….The fact that I saw the accused Manoj

keeping the girl outside home, was not told to

anybody before it was firstly stated in my

statement before the police. Neither did I asked

Nazirbhai about what happened the next day,

nor did he call me before 12 in the noon. While

handing over the girl to Nazirbhai, we did not

give our name and address to him. Nazirbhai do

not identify me by name, but identifies on

seeing.

…..It is not true that she was raped by someone

from amongst us. It is not true that we lodged a

false complaint through Nazirbhai, in order to

avoid any case against us. It is not true that I

am giving false deposition. It is true that Police

did not conduct any medical examination of us, nor

did they seize our clothes. It is not true that I am

giving false deposition on Nazirbhai’s insistence,

and identifying the accused wrongly.”

(Emphasis supplied)

48. The highlighted part from the evidence of these

witnesses give rise to the following irrefutable

inferences: -

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

i. The four witnesses after seeing the

accused-appellant pushing out the child

victim from his house, casually took the

girl in their charge; made no effort to

provide clothes to the child victim; and

started walking with the child victim in a

denuded state towards Nayakvas without

even having the faintest of idea about her

identity or place of residence.

ii. These witnesses claimed to be having an

idea that the child victim belonged to

Nayak community and, therefore, they

were taking her to Nayak Faliya. This

could not have been possible unless they

were privy to the incident. As there was no

clue regarding the identity of the child

victim by the time her parents were

located, it is very strange that these four

witnesses had knowledge regarding the

community to which the child victim

belonged.

iii. Nazir Mohammed (PW-1) did not command

a position of significance in the society or

community. Inspite thereof, the boys

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

casually handed over the girl to Nazir

Mohammed (PW-1) near the Ashiana

society, after telling him that she had been

found near the accused Manojbhai’s

house.

iv. The boys, who were four in number and

the owner of the Pan Parlour, namely,

Jafarulla Khan, who was also closely

known to them, would, in the natural

course of events, be expected to confront

Manojbhai i.e. the accused-appellant, had

they actually seen the child victim coming

out from his house in a naked condition as

claimed. This would be expected from any

human being with the bare minimum

sense of decency, empathy and awareness.

v. Arifkhan (PW-3) stated that Nazir

Mohammed’s wife was about to deliver,

and she was admitted at the hospital and

nobody was at home. This fact is

contradicted by the evidence of Nazir

Mohammed (PW-1) who did not make any

such averment in his deposition and

rather stated that he did not call his wife

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

out for inspecting the child victim who was

in a very bad shape and was bleeding from

her nether regions. If, at all, these persons

had any empathy and were not the

offenders themselves, looking at the

compromised condition of the girl, natural

human conduct demanded that they

should, at the outset, made an attempt to

provide clothes to cover the body of the

child victim and to involve some lady to

ease her misery.

vi. Arifkhan (PW-3) admitted that Jethabhai,

the father of the accused-appellant had

lodged a complaint against Jaffarulla

Khan in the year 2006 and his father was

also arraigned as an accused in the said

case. Thus, there was a clear state of

animosity between Arifkhan (PW-3) and

the accused-appellant owing to the said

criminal case.

vii. Arifkhan (PW-3) stated that the incident

took place around 11:00-11:30 at night.

On the other hand, Shahejadkhan (PW-4)

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

stated that the incident took place at 10

o’clock in the night.

viii. Shahejadkhan (PW-4) stated that they

became aware of the child victim for the

first time, when he heard her crying at a

distance of about 5-6 feet away from the

Chhakda, and thus, their attention was

drawn to her. Admittedly, the house of the

accused-appellant was 40 to 50 feet away

from pan parlour. Thus, the witnesses

sensed the presence of the child victim for

the first instance, when she was at a

distance to 5-6 feet away from the place

where they were sitting. Hence, there was

hardly any possibility that in the dead of

the night, they could have seen the child

victim being pushed out from the house by

the accused-appellant.

ix. A very candid admission was made by

Shahejadkhan (PW-4) in his crossexamination

wherein he stated that he and

his other friends, did not call their parents

because they feared that their parents

would doubt them on seeing the child

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

victim bleeding. The witness further

admitted that he did not tell anybody who

he met that he had seen the accusedappellant

pushing the child victim out of

the home. This fact was stated by him, for

the first time, to the police when his

statement was recorded. He did not ask

Nazir Mohammad (PW-1) as to what had

transpired after handing over of the child

victim to him. He also admitted that while

handing over the child victim to Nazir

Mohammad (PW-1), they did not share

their names and address to him.

49. These facts make it clear that by the time the

FIR was lodged, there was no material whatsoever to

establish the identity of the four witnesses of last

seen together theory or that they had actually seen

the child victim being pushed out by the accusedappellant

from his house. As per Shahejadkhan (PW-

4) they did not tell anybody that they had seen the

accused-appellant pushing the child victim out of his

home. There is a significant discrepancy regarding

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

the time of the incident in the versions of PW-3 and

PW-4 as mentioned supra.

50. Since the identity of the witnesses of last seen

together circumstance was not known to anyone, it

becomes a matter of grave doubt as to how they were

pinpointed and called to the police station on the day

next to the incident for recording their statements

under Section 161 CrPC.

51. In juxtaposition with these embellishments, the

crucial fact borne out from the statement of Nazir

Mohammed (PW-1) that the four boys did not tell him

the name of Manojbhai (accused-appellant) and that

he did not mention in the complaint, or his statement

(sic) under Section 161 CrPC that these witnesses

had seen Manojbhai (accused-appellant) pushing the

child victim from his house, makes it clear that the

entire story implicating the accused-appellant for the

crime was cooked up after consultations and

deliberations on the day next to the incident. The

effect of this grave embellishment on the prosecution

case was not considered in the correct perspective

either by the trial Court or the High Court.

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

52. The rank indifference shown by these four

witnesses i.e. Arifkhan (PW-3), Shahejadkhan (PW-4),

Bilal Ahemad (PW-5) and Mohsin Gafurkhan (PW-6)

in taking any steps whatsoever either to report the

matter to the police or to make the efforts for taking

the child victim to the hospital and instead trying to

take her to Nayak Faliya reaffirms our doubt that

they might have been the perpetrators of the offence

and by way of self-preservation, threw the blame on

to the accused-appellant stating that they had seen

the accused-appellant pushing the child victim from

his house and that they were trying to take her to

Nayak Faliya. Thus, we reiterate that the evidence of

Arifkhan (PW-3) and Shahejadkhan (PW-4) is totally

unworthy of credence.

53. At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the

testimony of the two Investigating Officers i.e.

Pankajkumar Darji (PW-14) and Hareshbhai

Pallacharya (PW-15).

54. The relevant excerpts from the evidence of

Pankajkumar Darji (PW-14) are reproduced

hereinbelow for ready reference: -

“Examination-in-chief

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

……The name of Mr. Manojbhai Jethabhai as

accused was revealed during the investigation.

Therefore, the investigation was conducted.

When the accused person was found, he was

arrested in this offence after making physical

examination. The accused did not co-operate in

timelimit regarding clothes worn at the time of

incident, he was produced before the court and

remands were obtained. The accused person has

willingly stated about the clothes worn at the time

of incident during remand and same were seized.

The statement of witness Bilal Ahmed Waghela was

dictated. The collected sample of the victim and the

accused during medical investigation were sent in

F.S.L. to analyse and Medical Certificate was

received. The process of preparing map of the

incident place was done due to serious nature of

offence. The sufficient evidence were found to frame

chargesheet against the arrested accused person

therefore the chargesheet was prepared and sent to

the Hon’ble Court. The accused persons are same

who present before the court.

Cross examination: for the accused

I came to know the fact while receiving the

complaint that three to four boys took the

victim to the complainant. Thereafter, I saw the

said four boys during investigation. I did not

conduct any medical check up of these boys. I have

neither collected sample of boys’ sperm and blood.

No panchnama of dog tracking was drawn.

…..I did not feel that the victim was found from four

boys and conduct their medical check up.”

(Emphasis supplied)

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

55. The witness (PW-14) stated that the name of the

accused-appellant cropped up during investigation

and thus, he was arrested and various other steps of

investigation were carried out. In cross examination,

the witness admitted that he met the four witnesses

of last seen referred to in the complaint during

investigation. However, he did not explain as to how

the identity of these witnesses was established.

56. Now, we come to the evidence of the other

Investigating Officer, Hareshbhai Pallacharya (PW-

15). The relevant excerpts of his deposition are

reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: -

Cross examination: for the accused

“…..I was at home at that time. I left in Government

vehicle to reach Kalol. Entry is not made in Station

Diary when I left to go Kalol. First of all, I went to

Kalol Police Station and thereafter went to the

hospital, where the victim was taken. I reached

Kalol Police Station at around 11-00 to 11-30

hours. I do not remember as to who told me from

Police Station that the victim is in the hospital.

……I do not remember as to whether Najirbhai

was present there or not. I did not record

statement of the person who brought this girl to

the hospital.

……I reached hospital at about 12-30 to 1-00

hours. When I reached hospital, I saw Najirbhai.

……Najirbhai was sitting there and as I reached

there, complaint was given to me. Other

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

persons were also sitting with Najirbhai. It is

true that Najirbhai dictated in his complaint

that four boys were bringing the victim and

these persons handed over the victim to

Najirbhai. I did not ask Najirbhai as to who these

four boys were. Names of these four boys were

revealed during my course of investigation.

……I did not seize any document showing that

house to be of the accused. When I went there,

nobody was present in the house. It is not true that

the house, which I visited, was not the house of the

accused. It is not true that Muddamal, which I had

shown, was seized from the house of the accused.

It is not true that I also recorded statements of the

persons present around. I took complaint at police

station. It has not happened that complainant had

given complaint in the hospital. It is not true that I

have not written the statement as dictated by

Mohasinkhan. I did not record statement of Bilal

Ahmed. I do not remember exactly as to whether

Bilal Ahmed was present at the time when

Najirbhai came to lodge complaint. Statement of

Vivekbhai was recorded on 14/06/2013. Vivekbhai

was also present at Police Station. I handed over

charge to Darji sir at around 10-30 hours in the

morning. Panchnama of crime scene was

completed at that time. It is not true that I have not

drawn any panchnama in presence of panchas. It

is not true that statements of witnesses were

written as dictated by them. It is not true that the

victim and four boys were handed over to Najirbhai

and despite the fact that they were present there,

their statements were not recorded. Semen, blood

or nails of these four boys were not collected to

send to FSL.”

(Emphasis supplied)

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

57. In his cross-examination, the witness (PW-15)

stated that he reached Kalol Police Station at about

11.00 p.m. to 11.30 p.m., proceeded to the hospital,

and found that other police officials of Kalol Police

Station and Vejalpur Police Station were present

there from before. He admitted that he did not

record the statements of the persons who brought

the child victim to the hospital, nor did he record

the statement of Vivekbhai (PW-2). He further

stated that Nazir Mohammed (PW-1) was present

at the hospital and handed over the complaint to

him, in which there was a reference to four boys;

however, he candidly admitted that he did not ask

Nazir Mohammed (PW-1) for the names of those

four boys and that their identity was allegedly

revealed during the investigation. He also

admitted that when the panchnama of the house

where the incident took place was drawn, he did

not collect any documentary evidence regarding

ownership of the house.

58. The trial Court has observed that the accusedappellant

was apprehended from inside the house,

however, as is evident from the testimony of the two

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

Investigating Officers i.e. Pankajkumar Darji (PW-14)

and Hareshbhai Pallacharya (PW-15), neither of them

uttered a single word regarding presence of the

accused-appellant in the house when the search was

undertaken. Neither of the Investigating Officers

bothered to prove the arrest memo of the accusedappellant.

Memorandum statement of the accusedappellant

under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence

Act, 1872, leading to the recovery of his blood-stained

clothes was not proved by proper evidence.

59. The material facts as elicited during the

evidence of the two investigating officers

Pankajkumar Darji (PW-14) and Hareshbhai

Pallacharya (PW-15) make it abundantly clear that

the entire prosecution story has been woven on a

fabric of lies by introducing the four boys as selfacclaimed

witnesses to the last seen together

circumstance.

60. Hareshbhai Pallacharya (PW-15) admitted in his

cross-examination that he did not record the

statements of the persons who brought the child

victim to the hospital. Although the complaint

referred to four boys who had accompanied the child

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

victim and handed her over to the complainant (PW-

1), no effort was made by the Investigating Officers to

ascertain their identities at the earliest opportunity.

A vague explanation was furnished that the names of

these four boys cropped up during investigation.

However, the record contains no statement or any

other credible material that could convince the Court

that the identity of these four boys was ever

established by any cogent evidence.

61. We further find the conduct of the police officers

who conducted the investigation of the case to be

highly pedantic and gravely negligent.

62. After Nazir Mohammed (PW-1) had filed the

complaint and the child victim had been medically

examined, the facts presented a case of grave sexual

assault on the minor child victim aged four years. In

such a situation, any vigilant police officer would be

immediately expected to proceed to the crime scene;

try to locate the witnesses of the last seen together

circumstance by establishing their identity and make

efforts to apprehend the accused. However, after

perusing depositions of both the Investigating

Officers (PW-14 and PW-15), it is evident that neither

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

of them showed any intent or interest to conduct

these vital steps of investigation at the earliest

opportunity.

63. The investigation was casually proceeded with.

The so-called witnesses of last seen together

circumstance, namely, Arifkhan (PW-3),

Shahejadkhan (PW-4), Bilal Ahemad (PW-5) and

Mohsin Gafurkhan (PW-6) somehow popped up and

presented themselves before the Investigating Officer

on the next day of the incident. The police officers

casually proceeded to the house of the accusedappellant

on 14th June, 2013. The incriminating

material viz. blood stain clothes, bedsheet, curtain,

etc. were lying scattered in the house as if to serve

the incriminating evidence to the Investigating Officer

on a platter.

64. On a perusal of material on record, it is evident

that the site map plan of the place of incident (Exh.

42) was prepared by the Circle Officer, Bharatkumar

Mahajan (PW-12), with the panch witnesses being

Krunalkumar (PW-7) and Pintukumar. If the

prosecution intended to fortify its allegation that the

accused-appellant was seen pushing the child victim

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

out of the house by the witness of last seen together

theory, it was imperative that at least one of these

four witnesses, namely, Arifkhan (PW-3),

Shahejadkhan (PW-4), Bilal Ahemad (PW-5) and

Mohsin Gafurkhan (PW-6), be associated as a panch

witness to the preparation of the site map plan.

However, no such step was taken by the Investigating

Officers. This omission, coupled with the rank failure

of the Investigating Officers in collecting any evidence

whatsoever to link the possession or ownership of the

house in question to the accused-appellant, further

dilutes the credibility of the prosecution case.

65. In the present case, it is manifest that the

Investigating Officer had ample opportunity to secure

and preserve crucial forensic material, particularly by

securing samples necessary for conducting DNA

profiling of the child victim and the accusedappellant.

Such scientific examination, now an

integral component of modern criminal investigation,

would have provided objective corroboration and

materially assisted in ascertaining the truth.

However, no effort was made to obtain or preserve

such forensic material. This omission, whether

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

arising from negligence or otherwise, assumes

significance in light of the seriousness of the

allegations. The failure to pursue an available and

reliable scientific avenue not only weakens the

prosecution’s case but also raises a legitimate

apprehension that the investigation may not have

been carried out with the requisite fairness and

diligence. In the circumstances, the possibility that

such inaction was intended, or at least operated, to

shield the actual perpetrators of the offence cannot

be ruled out. Such lapses ex facie undermine the

credibility of the prosecution’s case and strike at the

foundational requirement that every investigation

must be fair, diligent, and oriented solely towards the

discovery of truth.

66. The admitted sequence of facts narrated above

clearly indicates something very fishy and unnerving

in the manner in which, the entire prosecution story

has been unfolded. In face of such grave allegations,

the rank apathy of the Investigating Officers in not

conducting expeditious and diligent investigation,

should have been sufficient to put the Courts below

on guard and become cognizant of the fact that

something was really amiss in the case presented for

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

trial. However, sadly, neither the trial Court nor the

High Court, adverted to these glaring shortcomings

in the case and mechanically accepted the case of

prosecution even though the conduct of the material

witnesses (of last seen together circumstance) was

sufficient to raise a strong suspicion that they might

have been the actual perpetrators of the crime.

67. It is imperative to state that during the trial, the

child victim was herself examined as (PW-18)

however, she could not give any evidence whatsoever

to connect the accused-appellant with the crime. She

could not even identify the accused-appellant as the

assailant. She further stated that she was tutored by

her mother. Hence, this significant point was also

missed by the trial Court before convicting the

accused-appellant.

68. Adverting to the aspect of incriminating

recoveries, we find that the recoveries allegedly

effected from the house of the accused-appellant

included a blood-stained bedsheet, mattress,

curtain, leggy, handkerchief, light green colour tshirt

and night pant. The seizure of this forensic

material was carried out by Hareshbhai Pallacharya

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

(PW-15), who stated that he recorded the statements

of the concerned witnesses and prepared the

panchnama of the place of occurrence in the presence

of the independent panchas and the FSL Officer.

However, in his deposition, the witness remained

conspicuously silent regarding the recovery of any

legging of the child victim, which was later projected

as a crucial piece of evidence. These articles, upon

being subjected to chemical examination, gave

positive test for blood group “A”, alleged to be that of

the child victim. Yet neither of the two investigating

officers (PW-14 and PW-15) gave any evidence

regarding the safe keeping of these incriminating

materials from the time of seizure until they reached

the forensic laboratory. In their entire evidence, both

police officers failed to state anything regarding the

sealing of the seized articles, their deposit in the

police station malkhana or the manner of their

transmission to the FSL. This vital link evidence,

necessary to establish the sanctity of the muddamal

articles was therefore never provided. Consequently,

neither the recoveries nor the forensic reports can be

read in evidence.

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

69. The trial Court relied on the testimony of panch

witnesses i.e., Krunalkumar (PW-7) and Altaf

Husenbhai (PW-8) to accept the recoveries. It is to be

noted that Krunalkumar (PW-7) in his testimony

stated that the recoveries of bloodstained mattress,

bedsheet and leggings of child victim were made from

the house of the accused-appellant on 14th June,

2013. However, in his cross-examination the witness

made the following admissions: -

“When I went to the place of offense at night,

police was already present there. When I

departed for my home, police was still present.

About 50 people assembled at the place of offense.

No article was seized at the night. Police went

to the house which was the place of offense, but

we did not go inside. We do not know what did

police do inside the house, which was the place

of offense.” (Emphasis supplied)

70. Hence, what comes out from the evidence of the

witness (PW-7) is that when he went to the place of

offence at night, the police were already present; that

about 50 people had assembled; that no article was

seized in his presence, and that the police entered the

house without the panchas. This seriously

undermines the credibility of the alleged recoveries.

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

71. Altaf Husenbhai (PW-8), in contrast, stated that

he acted as a panch on 17th June, 2013, that the

accused-appellant was found sleeping inside the

house in an intoxicated condition, and the clothes

of the child victim and blood-stained articles were

recovered on that day along with the accused’s t-shirt

and night pant. When the evidence of Krunalkumar

(PW-7) and Altaf Husenbhai (PW-8) is read in

juxtaposition to that of Hareshbhai Pallacharya (PW-

15), stark contradictions emerge. The witness (PW-

15) never specifically mentioned about the recovery

of the child’s clothing from the house of the accusedappellant.

The trial Court overlooked the fact that

Krunalkumar (PW-7) admitted in his crossexamination

that no recovery was effected in his

presence on 14th June, 2013 and that the police

entered the house on their own, raising serious

suspicion whether the alleged recoveries were

genuine or were planted ones.

72. In stark contradiction, Altaf Husenbhai (PW-8)

stated that the accused-appellant was arrested on

17th June, 2013, and the recoveries were also affected

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

on the same day. Thus, the entire sequence of arrest

and recoveries is absolutely unacceptable.

73. It must further be noted that the only persons

who could have identified the child victim’s clothes

were her parents i.e. Veenaben Pagi (PW-16) and

Ranchhodbhai Pagi (PW-17). However, they were

never made to do so either during investigation or at

the trial.

74. The prosecution also failed to establish that the

house at Oad Faliya belonged to or was in the

possession of the accused-appellant. Hareshbhai

Pallacharya (PW-15) admitted in his evidence that he

did not collect any evidence proving ownership.

Pankajkumar Darji (PW-14) also admitted the same

and even the Circle Officer, Bharatkumar Mahajan

(PW-12) conceded that he did not verify who occupied

the premises. No revenue records, bills, or

statements of neighbours were produced to establish

ownership or possession on the house. Without proof

of exclusive possession, recovery from the premises

cannot be treated as incriminating.

75. The contradictions between the depositions of

panch witnesses Krunalkumar (PW-7) and Altaf

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

Husenbhai (PW-8), and Investigating Officer (PW-15);

the absence of proof regarding the ownership of the

house; the lack of a proper chain of custody of seized

items; and the medical evidence negating the

presence of semen on the child victim, casts grave

doubt on the genuineness of the recoveries. The

attempt of the prosecution to rely on the FSL report

despite these grave infirmities is unacceptable. Since

the seizures itself were tainted and the ownership of

the house remains unproven, the FSL results hold no

evidentiary value. The trial Court and High Court

overlooked these critical flaws and the possibility of

planting evidence, thereby committing serious error

in recording the conviction.

76. Thus, we are convinced that the entire story of

the prosecution wherein it has been claimed that the

accused-appellant was seen throwing out the child

victim in a denuded condition after committing

forcible sexual assault upon her is not established by

any credible or reliable evidence. Rather, we find the

conduct of the complainant, Nazir Mohammed (PW-

1), Journalist Vivekbhai (PW-2), witnesses of last

seen together circumstance, Arifkhan (PW-3) and

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

Shahejadkhan (PW-4) and also of the concerned

Investigating Officers (PW-14 and PW-15) to be highly

unnatural, suspicious, full of improbabilities, and

self-contradictions.

77. Therefore, it is firmly established that the

prosecution case is clearly missing the key

component of an unbroken chain of incriminating

circumstances to convict the accused-appellant on

the basis of last seen together circumstance.

78. Having made a thorough analysis of the

evidence on record, and for the reasons stated above,

we find that the impugned judgment do not stand to

scrutiny. As a result, the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 3rd November, 2015, rendered

by the trial Court and the impugned judgment dated

5th April, 2016, rendered by the High Court are

hereby set aside. The appellant stands acquitted of

the charges. He is in custody and shall be released

forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

79. The appeal thus succeeds and is allowed.

80. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

81. Before parting with the present case, we would

like to highlight that the judgments of the trial Court

as well as the High Court in the instant case have

indeed appended charts of witnesses and documents

in their respective judgments. However, we are of the

considered view that a more structured and uniform

practice must be adopted to enhance the legibility of

criminal judgments. Accordingly, to ensure a

systematic presentation of evidence that enables

efficient appreciation of the record, we issue the

following directions to all trial Courts across the

country. These directions aim to institutionalize a

standardized format for cataloguing witnesses,

documentary evidence, and material objects. This

will serve to facilitate better comprehension and

immediate reference for all stakeholders, including

the Appellate Courts. Hence, we are passing the

following directions, which shall be adhered to by all

trial Courts across the country.

82. Preparation of Tabulated Charts in all the

judgments:

82.1 All trial Courts dealing with criminal matters

shall, at the conclusion of the judgment, incorporate

tabulated charts summarizing: -

a. Witnesses examined,

b. Documents exhibited, and

c. Material objects (muddamal) produced and

exhibited.

82.2. These charts shall form an appendix or

concluding segment of the judgment and shall be

prepared in a clear, structured and easily

comprehensible format.

83. Standardized Chart of Witnesses

83.1. Each criminal judgment shall contain a witness

chart with at least the following columns:

a. Serial Number

b. Name of the Witness

c. Brief Description/Role of the Witness, such

as: Informant, Eye-witness, Medical

Jurist/Doctor, Investigating Officer (I.O.),

Panch Witness, etc.

83.2. The description should be succinct but

sufficient to indicate the evidentiary character of the

witness. This structured presentation will allow quick

reference to the nature of testimony, assist in locating

the witness in the record, and minimize ambiguity.

83.3. Specimen Chart for Witnesses Examined

Prosecution

Witness No.

Name of

Witness

Description

1 Mr. X Eye-witness

2 Mr. Y Witness of last seen

circumstance

3 Ms. Z Medical Jurist

4 Mr. A Investigating Officer

5 Mr. B Complainant/First

Informant

84. Standardized Chart of Exhibited Documents

84.1 A separate chart shall be prepared for all

documents exhibited during trial. This chart shall

include:

a. Exhibit Number;

b. Description of document;

c. The Witness who proved or attested the

document.

84.2 Illustratively, the description may include:

FIR, complaint, panchnamas, medical certificates,

FSL reports, seizure memos, site plans, dying

declarations, etc.

84.3. The requirement of specifying the witness who

proved the document ensures traceability of proof

and assist the Court in appreciating compliance with

the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/Bharatiya Sakshya

Adhiniyam, 2023.

84.4. Specimen Chart for Exhibited Documents

Exhibit

No.

Description of the

Exhibit

Proved

by/Attested by

1 Inquest

Panchnama/Memo

PW-1

2 Recovery

Panchnama/Memo

PW-2

3 Arrest Memo PW-3

4 Post-mortem Report PW-4

5 FSL Report PW-5

85. Standardized Chart of Material

Objects/Muddamals

85.1 Whenever material objects are produced and

marked as exhibits, the trial Court shall prepare a

third chart with:

a. Material Object (M.O.) Number;

b. Description of the Object;

c. Witness who proved the Object’s Relevance

(e.g., weapon, clothing, tool, article seized

under panchnama, etc.)

85.2. This enables clarity regarding the physical

evidence relied upon.

85.3.Specimen Chart for Material

Objects/Muddamals

Material

Object No.

Description of the

Exhibit

Proved

by/Attested by

1 Weapon of Offence PW-1

2 Clothing of

accused/victim

PW-2

3 Mobile

Phone/Electronic

Object

PW-3

4 Vehicle PW-4

5 Purse/earrings/identity

card

PW-5

86. Special Provisions for Cases Involving

Voluminous Evidence

86.1. In complex cases, such as conspiracies,

economic offences or trials involving voluminous oral

or documentary evidence, the list of witnesses and

exhibits may be substantially long. Where the

number of witnesses or documents is unusually

large, the trial Court may prepare charts only for the

material, relevant, and relied-upon witnesses and

documents, clearly indicating that the chart is

confined to such items. This ensures that the charts

remain functional reference tools rather than

unwieldy compilations.

87. Application to Defence Witnesses and

Evidence

87.1. The aforesaid directions shall apply, mutatis

mutandis, to all witnesses examined and all evidence

adduced by the defence.

88. Adoption of Specimen Format and

Permissible Deviations

88.1. The specimen charts provided herein shall

ordinarily serve as the standard format to be followed

by trial Courts across the country.

89. Observations Regarding Applicability to Civil

Proceedings

89.1. While these directions are primarily intended

to streamline criminal trials, we leave it open to the

High Courts to consider, wherever appropriate, the

adoption of similar tabulated formats in civil matters

as well, particularly in cases involving voluminous

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 2973 of 2023

documentary or oral evidence, so as to promote

clarity, uniformity, and ease of reference.

90. The High Court may consider incorporating the

above directions in their respective rules governing

the procedure of trial Courts.

91. Registry shall forthwith transmit a copy of this

judgment to the Registrar General of all the High

Courts to ensure due compliance with the directions

issued by this Court in paragraph Nos. 81-90 (supra).

….……………………J.

(VIKRAM NATH)

...…………………….J.

(SANDEEP MEHTA)

NEW DELHI;

DECEMBER 15, 2025.

Print Page

Pages

Sunday, 11 January 2026

Supreme court guidelines for Preparation of Tabulated Charts in all the judgments of Criminal cases

No comments:

Post a Comment