A tense silence hung in Court No. __ as the Supreme Court read out a judgment that cut deep into the way a horrific crime had been investigated in Gujarat. The case involved the sexual assault of a four-year-old girl-an offence that naturally evokes outrage. Yet, the bench made it clear that outrage cannot replace proof. After nearly 13 years behind bars, the accused walked free, not because the crime was trivial, but because the investigation and trial, the court said, failed the very idea of justice.
Background
The case arose from a June 2013 incident in Kalol town. A local resident claimed he saw a naked, bleeding child being carried late at night by four boys. The child was taken to hospital, where doctors confirmed sexual assault. An FIR was lodged against “unknown persons”.
Days later, Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar was arrested and charged under kidnapping, rape, destruction of evidence provisions of the IPC, and the POCSO Act. The trial court convicted him in 2015, awarding life imprisonment. The Gujarat High Court upheld the conviction in 2016.
By the time the appeal reached the Supreme Court, the appellant had already spent almost thirteen years in jail.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court did not mince words. Calling it a “grave and distressing case,” the bench observed that the investigation was “hopelessly botched” and the trial was conducted with a mechanical mindset.
A key issue was the FIR itself. Despite the informant claiming full knowledge of events, the complaint did not name the accused or even the four boys who allegedly last saw the child. “Had there been any iota of truth,” the bench noted, “such vital facts would not have been missing.”
The so-called “last seen together” witnesses were introduced only the next day. Two of them later turned hostile. The remaining witnesses, the court said, gave contradictory timelines and behaved in a manner that was “highly unnatural”, including not informing police immediately or even providing clothes to the injured child.
The bench remarked that criminal cases cannot be decided on assumptions. “The mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ guilty,” it observed, “is long and cannot be bridged by conjecture.”
The court also expressed concern that investigative lapses in sensitive cases scar not just the accused, but the justice system itself.
Decision
Holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and reliable chain of circumstances, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence. The appellant was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released forthwith, bringing the case to a close at the stage of the court’s final order.
Case Title: Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) vs State of Gujarat
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2973 of 2023
Case Type: Criminal Appeal (Against Conviction under IPC & POCSO Act)
Decision Date: 2025 (Reported as 2025 INSC 1433)