Previous 1 / 71 Next

2025 INSC 702 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1954-1955 OF 2022 RAMKIRAT MUNILAL GOUD ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC. ..RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Mehta, J. 1. Heard. 2. The instant case is yet another classic example of shabby and perfunctory investigation leading to failure of the prosecution case involving a gruesome Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by JAGDISH KUMAR Date: 2025.05.15 16:50:32 IST Reason: 1

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Ramkirat Munilal Goud

CASE BRIEF

Jurisdiction

India

Nationalities

Indian

Case Title: Ramkirat Munilal Goud v State of Maharashtra

Age at Offence: 25

Age Group at Offence: Adult (18 to 59)

Gender: Male

Religious Group at Offence: Hindu

Jurisdiction - Geolocation

Latitude: 20.5937

Longitude: 78.9629

Jurisdiction - Geolocation (linked CASE BRIEF): India

Contributing TRP Partner

The Square Circle Clinic (India)

Latest Country's Death Penalty Status

Retentionist

Case Current Status: Closed: Acquitted

Year when sentenced to Death Row: 2010s: 2019

Method of Execution: Hanging

Rights Allegedly Violated

Torture: Death row phenomenon
Torture: Torture/Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CIDT)
Fair Trial and Due Process: Fair investigation & fair disclosure
Fair Trial and Due Process: Right against arbitrary or illegal detention

Nature of Offences for Death Penalty

Sexual Violence: Rape
Murder: Single Victim

Expert Evidence

Forensic/Medical evidence: Autopsy/Post mortem
Forensic/Medical evidence: Blood pattern analysis
Forensic/Medical evidence: DNA/Serology/Biology
Forensic/Medical evidence: Fingerprint/palmprint/footprint
Forensic/Medical evidence: Impression evidence (bitemark, shoeprint, tire tracks etc)
Forensic/Medical evidence: Medical examination (victim/accused, age determination etc)

Defence Arguments (200 words max.): The prosecution has failed to prove any of the incriminating evidence presented by them against the accused. The last seen witness did not disclose the police that they saw the deceased and the accused together. Thus there is a belief that the last seen witnesses were created by the prosecution. There is no proof that an extra-judicial confession was provided by the accused and the confession presented is vague and contradictory. The forensic report on the samples collected from different watchmen where the accused resided were not The forensic report on whether the mud/soil sample where the deceased was found matched the mud/soil found on the accused's footwear were merely suggestive , vague and not conclusive to incriminate the accused. Thus the prosecution failed to establish chain of circumstances with reliable evidence.

Legal Representation Received

Second Appeal: Pro bono
Pre-trial: Unknown
Trial: Unknown
Appeal: Unknown

Legislation Related to the Offence(s): Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 161, 164; Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 302, 363, 376(2)(i) and 201; Protection of Children against Sexual Offences, 2012 (POCSO) - Section 4 and 8; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27