Previous 16 / 47 Next

30. After some time, PW1 admitted during further cross examination the following: “Zalim Khan had come at the spot. Zalim Khan had told to get lodged the FIR against Chotkau.” 31. In contradistinction to what PW1 said, PW3 stated that the “information had been given to police station over telephone, then police man had come”. During crossexamination also PW3 stated that police reached the spot upon getting a phone call and that he did not know who made the call. 32. PW4, the Head Constable said in Chief Examination: “On 08.03.2012, I was posted as H.C. at Police StationIkauna, DistrictShrawasti. On that day a written Hindi Tahrir had been submitted by complainant of the case Shri Kishun Bahadur s/o Chintaram, resident of Semgarha, Police StationIkauna, District Shrawasti.” During crossexamination PW4 reiterated: “The complainant of the case had given me a written application. The complainant of the case had given the Tehrir on 08.03.2012 at 20:10 hrs..”. 16

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Chotkau

CASE BRIEF

Jurisdiction

India

Nationalities

Indian

Case Title: Chotkau v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Age at Offence: 23

Age Group at Offence: Adult (18 to 59)

Gender: Male

Religious Group at Offence: Hindu

Vulnerable/ Marginalised Group

Socio-economic Status

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: 2014

Rights Allegedly Violated

Fair Trial and Due Process: Fair investigation & fair disclosure
Fair Trial and Due Process: Right to adequate legal representation at all stages
Fair Trial and Due Process: Right to fair hearing by impartial, independent tribunal

Nature of Offences for Death Penalty

Sexual Violence: Rape
Murder: Single Victim

Case Background (300 words max)

The Appellant was charged for the commission of the offences of raping the minor girl and murdering her. During questioning under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Appellant denied the charges and claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the case. Holding that the guilt of the Appellant stood established beyond reasonable doubt by circumstantial evidence and also holding that it is one of the rarest of rare cases where a six year old girl had been raped and murdered, the Sessions Court and High Court convicted the Appellant and gave death penalty.

The key circumstances against the Appellant were as follows:

PWs 1 and 2 had observed the victim being taken towards the sugarcane field.
PW-3 had witnessed the Appellant taking the victim from her house and also leaving the sugarcane field half an hour later.
When a search was conducted for the missing girl, her dead body was discovered in the sugarcane field, and the Appellant was found to be absconding.

The Court while acquitting the Appellant held:

In the evidence tendered by PWs 1 to 3, on crucial aspects such as, (i) the mode of Lodging of the FIR; (ii) the place where the dead body was first seen by the police, persons took the body from the place of occurrence and where it was taken to; (iii) the Place, Date and Time of conduct of the inquest; and (iv) the clothes on the body of the victim, recovered by the police. These contradictions make the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 completely untrustworthy. Unfortunately, the Sessions Court as well as the High Court have trivialized these major contradictions to hold that the chain of circumstances have been established unbroken.
In cases where the victim of rape is alive and is in a position to testify in court, it may be possible for the prosecution to take a chance by not medically examining the Accused. But in cases where the victim is dead and the offence is sought to be established only by circumstantial evidence, medical evidence assumes great importance. The failure of the prosecution to produce such evidence, despite there being no obstacle from the Accused or anyone, will certainly create a gaping hole in the case of the prosecution and give rise to a serious doubt on the case of the prosecution. The failure of the prosecution in this case to subject the Appellant to medical examination is certainly fatal to the prosecution case especially when the ocular evidence is found to be not trustworthy.
Their failure to obtain the report of the Forensic Sciences Laboratory on the blood/semen stain on the salwar worn by the victim, compounds the failure of the prosecution.
In fact this is a case where the Appellant is so poor that he could not afford to engage a lawyer even in the Sessions Court. After his repeated requests to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, the service of an advocate was provided as amicus. In cases of such nature, the responsibility of the Court becomes more onerous.
By not conducting the investigation properly, the prosecution has done injustice to the family of the victim. By fixing culpability upon the Appellant without any shred of evidence which will stand the scrutiny, the prosecution has done injustice to the Appellant. Court cannot make someone, a victim of injustice, to compensate for the injustice to the victim of a crime.

The Judgment was selected because it showed how poor investigation led to injustice for both the victim and the accused.

Defence Arguments (200 words max.)

Material Contradiction in PW 1-3 testimonies wrt (i) the mode of Lodging of the FIR; (ii) the place where the dead body was first seen by the police, persons took the body from the place of occurrence and where it was taken to; (iii) the Place, Date and Time of conduct of the inquest; and (iv) the clothes on the body of the victim, recovered by the police.
Unexplained FIR Delay: There was a five-day delay in forwarding the FIR to the jurisdictional Court without explanation.
Insufficient Last Seen Theory Evidence: The evidence supporting the last seen theory was inadequate to convict the Appellant. 4.Lack of Forensic/Medical Evidence: The Investigating Officer did not produce any forensic or medical evidence, reflecting a serious lapse in duty.
Non-compliance with Section 313: the defense challenged the manner in which the Accused's statement was recorded under Section 313 of the Code, arguing that the Court had failed to fully comply with the requirements of Section 313(1)(b). They contended that this non-compliance undermined the procedural fairness of the trial and impacted the overall integrity of the judicial process, thereby affecting the credibility of the prosecution's case and the Accused’s right to a fair trial.

Judgement with Headnotes (200 words max): The Judgment was selected the Supreme Court emphasized that an individual cannot be made a victim of injustice to compensate for the injustice suffered by the victim of a crime. The case also highlighted that the Appellant was so poor he could not afford to hire a lawyer in the Sessions Court, which underscores the Court’s responsibility to ensure fair treatment and proper legal representation for all, regardless of their financial situation.

Legal Representation Received

Appeal: Pro bono
Second Appeal: Pro bono
Trial: State Legal Aid
Pre-trial: Unknown

Special Procedures Used

Amicus Curiae / "Watching Brief"

Case Brief Entry Status: Entry in Progress

Language of Case Materials

English

Primary Documents

Chotkkau v. State of UP
English
Download View

Death Penalty Defence - Asia

Select target paragraph3

Chotkau

Primary Documents

Notifications