Shikha Mukesh Meena Roll No.

1239

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Order XVI Rule 4(1) (a)]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO 2453-2454 OF 2019

(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)

(Arising From the Impugned Judgment and Final Order Dated 03.03.2016 Passed By the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, In Criminal Reference No 5 of 2015 & Criminal
Appeal No. 2203 of 2015)

(With Prayer for Interim Relief)

BETWEEN POSITION OF
PARTIES

In trial court In the High Court In this

Court

Sachin Kumar Singhraha, Accused Appellant

Appellant

S/o Shri Sajjan Prasad Singhraha,

Aged-33 years, R/o Ward No.1,

Dasaipur, Machali Paalan Vibhaag,

Police Station-Maihar,

District-Satna (Madhya Pradesh).

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh Prosecution Agency Respondent

Respondent

IN THE MATTER OF

1
 Shikha Mukesh Meena Roll No. 1239

Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the Impugned
Judgment and Final Order Dated 03.03.2016 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
Jabalpur in Criminal Reference No. 5 of 2015 and Criminal Appeal No. 2203 of 2015.

To,

The Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India

And His Companion Judges of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

The Special Leave Petition of the Petitioner abovenamed most respectfully showeth:-

1. The present Special Leave Petition is being filed under Article 136 constitution of India
against the impugned final judgement and order dated 03.03.2016 passed by the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, in Criminal Reference No 5 of 2015 & Criminal
Appeal No. 2203 of 2015 whereby the Hon’ble High Court confirmed the judgment of
Trial Court wherein the petitioner was convicted for offences punishable under Sections
363, 376(A), 302 and 201(II) of the Indian Penal Code (“the IPC”) and Section 5(i) (m)
read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and
sentenced to death.
2. QUESTION OF LAW

The following questions of the law arises for consideration by this Hon’ble Court:

I. Whether the High Court of Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur was justified in
concluding that the offence which the accused/appellant was charged with was proven
beyond reasonable doubt by the Prosecution?
II. Whether High Court has failed to appreciate that last seen circumstance relied upon
by the prosecution has not been duly proved?
III. Whether the Hon’ble High Court has fallen into error in ignoring the discrepancies
committed by the investigating officers during the course of investigation?
IV. Whether the high court was justified in ignoring the procedural lapses committed by
the investigating officers during the course of investigation and placing the reliance
on the on the confession of the accused/appellant that led to the recovery of the dead
body?

2
 Shikha Mukesh Meena Roll No. 1239

V. Whether Hon’ble High Court was justified in imposing the death sentence on
the accused/appellant and Whether the High Court has ignored the rule of “Rarest of
rare” while imposing death sentence on the accused?
3. The briefly stated facts giving rise to present SLP are as follows:

The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 23.02.2015, the victim’s uncle (father’s elder
brother “PW-4”) came over from his village to drop the victim child to school in a vehicle
bearing Registration No. MP 19 T 2374, owned and driven by the accused/petitioner. PW-4,
on the assurance of the accused/petitioner that he would go along with the victim child to her
school, as he had to pay his own daughter’s fees alighted from the vehicle near the Sabzi
Mandi.

The child went along with the Accused/Petitioner towards her school in the vehicle, but did
not return home that day. Despite a frantic search by her parents, relatives and the villagers,
the victim child could not be traced. The father of the deceased suspected that the
accused/petitioner had left his daughter somewhere else, however, the first information report
(Exhibit “A”) came to be lodged against an unknown offender and the accused/petitioner was
apprehended after two days. After the trial, as mentioned above, the accused/petitioner was
convicted by the Trial Court and the order of conviction was confirmed by the High Court.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4 (2)

The Petitioner states that no other petition seeking leave to Appeal has been filed by the
petitioner against the impugned final judgment and order. No writ appeal lies against
impugned judgment.

5. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6

The annexures produced along with the SLP are true copies of the pleadings/documents
which formed part of the records of the case in the Court/Tribunal below against whose order
the leave to appeal is sought for in this petition.

6. GROUNDS

Leave to appeal is sought for on the following grounds

A. Because the impugned order dated 3.3.2018 passed by the Hon’ble High Court is
patently illegal and erroneous and the same deserves to be set-aside.

3
 Shikha Mukesh Meena Roll No. 1239

B. Because the Hon’ble High Court has failed to appreciate that the Petitioner has an
extremely good prima facie case and there is every likelihood of the Appeal filed by
the Petitioner against his conviction being allowed.
C. Because the case of the prosecution mainly rests on the last seen circumstance, but the
said circumstance has not been duly proved. This is because grave suspicion arises
against PW4 also, having regard to the evidence on record.
D. Because evidence given by PW-5 (Mr. Shukla who witnessed the victim sitting in the
backseat of the accused/petitioner’s car) was contradictory as the victim was sitting at
the front seat of the car. And this shouldn’t be dismissed as easily by stating that there
could have been memory loss. And if this is accepted it would amount to gross
violation of the petitioners right, as there’s probable cause to believe the testimony by
PW-5 may not be accurate and hence more investigation need to be done before
concluding anything.
E. Because the evidence that led to the recovery of the dead body based on the
confession of the accused/petitioner is liable to be rejected on the ground that the
panchnama was drawn at the police station and not on the spot of recovery of the dead
body; and that the Investigating Officer deliberately tried to conceal the main offender
and framed the accused/petitioner, and such lapse in the course of investigation would
tilt the balance of justice against the accused/petitioner.
F. Because the Hon’ble High has failed to appreciate that the circumstances from which
the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn were not fully established and were not
conclusive in this case, and the he cumulative effect of all the facts established were
not consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused as circumstantial
evidences relied upon did not exclude the possibility of innocence of the accused and
the framing of the accused by PW4.
G. Because the chain of circumstantial evidence was not complete, and two inferences
can be drawn from evidence as from the testimony of PW5, the suspicion towards
PW4 also occurs PW5 has deposed that he saw the accused/appellant, the
deceased and PW4 together in the vehicle of the accused/appellant, at a
point near the Sabzi Mandi. However if PW4 had alighted from the vehicle at the
Sabzi Mandi, he could not have been seen by PW5 at the said point. Therefore the
evidence of PW4 cannot be believed.

4
 Shikha Mukesh Meena Roll No. 1239

H. Because the Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate that the conviction of the
petitioner is based solely on the basis of the testimony of highly interested and
partisan witness and the conviction of the petitioner is wholly unfounded.
I. Because the Hon’ble High Court ought to have considered that PW-5 was not an eye
witness at all. It has come on record that he was not even present at the time of
alleged incident (Exhibit “B”). Despite this fact the trial court has proceeded to
convict the accused/ petitioner.
J. Because the high court has failed to take into account material discrepancies and the
omissions between PW4 deposition and his case dairy statement and errored in
holding that hold the discrepancies and omissions are minor in nature which do not
impinge upon the trustworthiness of his evidence.
K. Because the Hon’ble High Court has failed to take into account the provisions of
admissibility of the evidences as per Indian Evidence Act, because as per the evidence
of PW-5, it is crystal clear that the accused-appellant was arrested after the recording
of disclosure statement and drawing aforesaid memos. This means that the accused-
appellant was not in police custody when they were prepared and therefore the
disclosure statement and the recovery memos are inadmissible in evidence.
L. Because there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the version of
prosecution witnesses (PW4 and PW5) despite which the Trial Court has erred in
placing reliance on the same and has wrongly convicted the Petitioner and High Court
affirming the conviction.
M. Because High Court was not justified in confirming the death penalty because the
present matter does not fall within Rarest of Rare case.
7. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF

I. Because the High Court failed in appreciating that there cannot be any dispute as to
the well settled proposition, of criminal law, that the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or “should be” and not merely “may be”
fully established. That, the circumstances should be conclusive in nature. There must
be a chain of evidence so complete so as to not leave any reasonable ground for a
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused, and must show that in all
human probability, the offence was committed by the accused. Which isn’t the
situation in present case, as there are reasonable questions raised which show that
the accused/ petitioner may be innocent.

5
 Shikha Mukesh Meena Roll No. 1239

II. Because this is the mater of the accused/petitioners life, therefore the appreciation of
evidence should not be taken lightly and the investigators need to consider all
possibilities, which they have not done in present case, and just pinned the whole
thing on accused/ petitioner.
8. MAIN PRAYER

In aforesaid facts & circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that YOUR LORDSHIPS
may graciously be pleased to:-

1. Grant Special Leave to Appeal against the final order dated 03.03.2016 passed by
the High Court Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, in Criminal Reference No 5 of 2015
& Criminal Appeal No. 2203 of 2015; and
2. Pass such other order or orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may
deem fit.
9. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF
i. Grant ad-interim stay on the portion of impugned judgment and final order
which sentences the accused/ petitioner to death, and
ii. Pass such other order or orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may
deem fit.

And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall ever pray as duty bound

Drawn By Filed By

Shikha Mukesh Meena Anushka Kadiresan

[Advocate] Advocate for petitioner

Drawn on: 14.03.2019 Filed on: 19.03.2019