New Delhi: Citing severe procedural infirmities, the Supreme Court has overturned the conviction of a man in a child sexual abuse case, and released him from jail but only after he had already served nearly 13 years. In the significant ruling, the SC highlighted the critical need for vigilance against “investigative apathy”, and issued nationwide guidelines for standardising criminal judgments.
A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside the conviction of Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar, who was sentenced to life in 2015, saying the previous handling of the criminal case was so flawed that it risked undermining “public faith” in the justice system.
In the strongly worded 68-page judgement, they called the investigation “hopelessly botched” and the trial conducted with a “pedantic rigidity that obscured, rather than unveiled, the truth”.
It noted that the FIR, “despite the informant’s professed complete knowledge of the incident, is bereft of even the most rudimentary details”, as it doesn’t mention the name of the accused nor those of the purported witnesses.
Before delivering its verdict on the conviction itself, the court addressed the need for greater clarity in judicial proceedings, stating that a “more structured and uniform practice must be adopted to enhance the legibility of criminal judgments”.
The court Monday issued a detailed set of directions to all trial courts across the country, requiring the institutionalisation of a standardised format for cataloguing evidence.
Specifically, all criminal judgments must now conclude with tabulated charts summarising three key areas: witnesses examined, documents exhibited, and material objects (muddamal) produced.
As part of the guidelines, the court detailed the minimum columns required for these charts. The Standardized Chart of Witnesses must include the serial number, name of the witness, and a brief description/role of the witness, such as the informant, eye-witness, or investigating officer (I.O.). This description should be succinct but sufficient to indicate the evidentiary character of the witness.
A separate Standardized Chart of Exhibited Documents must be prepared detailing the exhibit number, description of the document (e.g., FIR, panchnamas), and, crucially, “the Witness who proved or attested the document”. This requirement ensures traceability of proof and helps the court appreciate compliance with evidentiary laws.
The third required chart covers material objects/muddamals, including the material object (M.O.) number, description of the object (e.g., weapon, clothing), and the witness who proved its relevance. For complex cases involving voluminous evidence, courts may prepare charts only for “the material, relevant, and relied-upon witnesses and documents” to ensure they remain functional reference tools.
The court directed that these guidelines apply equally to all witnesses and evidence cited by the defense. The Registry has been instructed to transmit the judgment to all high courts to ensure due compliance.
Also Read: POCSO vs teen romance: As SC reviews age of consent, NCRB data shows 9 out of 10 youth get acquitted
Conviction overturned in POCSO trial
These directions came when the Supreme Court examined the case of Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) arising from a “grave and distressing case of brutal sexual assault” upon a four-year-old girl.
The FIR in the case was registered in June 2013. Parmar, the accused-appellant, was convicted by the trial court in November 2015, and sentenced to life under charges including sections of the Indian Penal Code and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). He remained behind bars for nearly 13 years.
The court ultimately set aside the conviction, finding the case enveloped in “layers of investigative apathy and procedural infirmities”. It noted that when trials “become mechanical exercises divorced from the quest for truth”, the outcome risks becoming “an instrument of unintended cruelty”.
The prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, specifically the “last seen together” circumstance, incriminating recoveries, and medical evidence of sexual assault on the girl . However, the court dismantled the credibility of the primary prosecution witnesses and the subsequent investigation.
The court cited judicial precedent affirming that the absence of essential facts—such as the FIR not mentioning the name of the accused and purported witnesses—creates “suspicion that the crime itself may be staged”.
The SC found the conduct of both the complainant and a journalist, named Vivekbhai, who helped the family lodge the complaint, to be “highly unnatural, suspicious, full of improbabilities, and self-contradictions”.
The court concluded that it seems “highly probable that both connived together to protect and cover up” for four boys—who, according to the case details, took the nude, bleeding victim to nearby Nayak Faliya village instead of immediately reporting the matter or providing her clothes—by “putting the blame on the head of the accused-appellant”.
Two of the four boys later became hostile, reinforcing the court’s suspicion on the quality of investigation. The SC said these boys were found to have shown “rank indifference” in their conduct.
The boys suspected the child belonged to the Nayak community and may have gone missing. They said they were taking her back to the village.
Investigative negligence & tainted recoveries
The Supreme Court also heavily criticised the investigation conducted by the police officers, finding their conduct “highly pedantic and gravely negligent”.
The investigating officers admitted they failed to ask the complainant for the names of the four key eyewitnesses mentioned in the complaint. They further admitted that no effort was made to collect the “documentary evidence regarding ownership of the house” from which incriminating items were allegedly recovered.
On the alleged recoveries of blood-stained articles—including a bedsheet and clothing—from the accused’s house, the court found the evidence unreliable. The witnesses contradicted the prosecution by admitting that no articles were seized in his presence, and that the police entered the house on their own.
Furthermore, the investigating officers failed to provide any evidence regarding the safekeeping of these incriminating materials from the time of seizure until they reached the forensic laboratory, meaning the vital “chain of evidence” required to establish the sanctity of the seized material was never provided.
Additionally, the child victim, when examined during the trial, “could not give any evidence whatsoever to connect the accused with the crime” and stated that “she was tutored by her mother”.
Finding that the prosecution’s case failed to establish the “complete and unbroken chain of incriminating circumstances” required for conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the trial court and the High Court.
Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released immediately.
(Edited by Sugita katyal)
Also Read: SC convicted POCSO accused, then set him free—it factored in lived realities & systemic failures