Supreme Court: In a criminal appeal filed by the convicts against the judgment of the Uttaranchal High Court, which had partially upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the Special Judge (POCSO), a Three Judge Bench comprising Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ., held that, upon considering the evidence in its entirety and bearing in mind the principles governing cases resting purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution had failed to establish the complete and unbroken chain of circumstances necessary to bring home the guilt of the convicts.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction and death penalty imposed on the man convicted for the rape and murder of a 7-year-old girl in 2014. The co-accused, who had been convicted for harbouring the offender, was also acquitted.
Background
The case traces back to 20-11-2014, when a young girl went missing from a family wedding in Haldwani. Four days later, her body was discovered in the Gaula river forest near Sheeshmahal, close to the wedding venue, after the local SHO received a call from her cousin. According to the prosecution, the accused had lured the victim into the forest, sexually assaulted her, and left her body concealed under leaves. During the investigation, the convict 1 allegedly led the police to the crime scene, where the victim’s hairband was recovered. He was charged for offences under Sections 376-A, 363, and 201 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) ; under Sections 3 read with 4, 5 read with 6, and 7 read with 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’); and Section 66-C of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The second accused, faced charges under Sections 363, 201, 120-B, 376A, and 212 of the IPC, along with provisions of the POCSO Act and the IT Act, while a third accused was booked under Sections 363, 376A, 201, and 120-B of the IPC, as well as corresponding provisions of the POCSO Act and IT Act. On 11-03-2016, the Special Judge (POCSO) convicted convict 1 on all counts, sentencing him to death under Section 376A IPC and the POCSO charges, in addition to rigorous imprisonment for kidnapping and destruction of evidence. Convict 2 was convicted only under Section 212 IPC and Section 66C IT Act, and acquitted of the remaining charges, while accused 3 was acquitted entirely. The High Court later upheld convict 1 conviction and death sentence, and maintained convict 2’s conviction under Section 212 IPC, though it set aside the conviction of both accused under Section 66C IT Act. Dissatisfied with the judgment, both the convicts approached the Court challenging their convictions and sentences.
Analysis and Decision
The Court observed that the prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, relying on motive, the theory of last seen together, and scientific and forensic findings, since no eyewitness had seen the incident in which the victim was subjected to sexual assault and violence. The homicidal nature of the victim’s death was firmly established through medical evidence. The Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination, confirmed multiple injuries on the victim’s body, particularly in the vaginal and perianal regions. He opined that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage resulting from sexual assault and blunt force trauma, injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
Reiterating settled principles of criminal law, the Court emphasised that a conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence, provided such evidence is credible and trustworthy. In cases of this nature, it must be ensured that the circumstances leading to guilt are fully established and that every link in the chain of evidence points conclusively to the accused, ruling out any hypothesis of innocence. In other words, the chain of incriminating circumstances must be so complete that it leaves no reasonable doubt that it was the accused, and no one else who committed the offence.
The Court recorded that the prosecution had relied on three key circumstances to connect the convicts to the offence: first, the alleged motive—that the accused intended to satisfy their lust upon the young victim, which formed the basis of the assault leading to her death; second, the last seen theory—that the accused were seen in close proximity to the victim shortly before she went missing, thereby shifting the burden on them to explain her fate; and third, scientific and forensic evidence—including DNA and FSL reports which matched samples collected from the victim with the DNA profile of accused1, thereby directly implicating him.
The Court noted that the investigation involved collection of forensic material, recovery of CCTV footage, call detail and caller-ID records, all of which were detailed in earlier portions of the record. To assess the alleged motive, the Court first examined how the convicts came under suspicion. The earliest link emerged from the testimony of the owner of a dumper used for transporting sand and gravel. He deposed that on 20-11-2014, convict 2 introduced convict 1 to him as a driver. As he was in need of one, he hired convict 1 without verification and handed him the keys of his vehicle. The following day convict 1 sought Rs.3,000 on the pretext of renting a room and making purchases, after which he could not be contacted, and his mobile phone was switched off. The owner then became suspicious when the newly hired driver could not be traced.
However, upon close scrutiny of his evidence, the Court found several inconsistencies. The owner admitted that his statement was recorded only 2—3 days after the incident, despite his participation in the search for the missing girl on November 21. The Court found it improbable that such a crucial fact, that his newly hired driver had suddenly gone missing, would not have been disclosed earlier.
In view of these contradictions, the Court held that the owner had no prior acquaintance with convict 1 and it was highly unlikely that he would entrust an expensive vehicle to a complete stranger merely on another driver’s recommendation. Equally doubtful was his claim of casually advancing Rs.3,000 without noticing any unusual behaviour. These circumstances, the Court remarked, cast serious doubt on the credibility of his testimony. Since his statement was recorded belatedly, there was initially no reliable material connecting convict 1 to the crime.
The Court observed that the prosecution had utterly failed to attribute any clear or convincing motive to accused1. The evidence of the owner, even if taken at its highest, merely showed that convict 1 was a temporary driver who disappeared the day after his engagement, which by itself could not establish the depraved motive alleged by the prosecution.
The Court further noted that the name of convict 2 surfaced in the evidence of an individual, who stated that the said accused had been driving his dumper for the last 10—12 years. Although this witness did not attend the marriage ceremony, he admitted that he participated in the search for the missing child. In his cross-examination, he admitted that there was widespread discontent over the incident and considerable pressure on the administration to apprehend the culprits. His statement, however, was recorded by the Investigating Officer 8—10 days after the incident. His evidence further showed that convict 2 continued to drive his dumper even after the incident. When the S.O.G. team contacted the individual to ascertain convict 2’s whereabouts, the witness called him to his house and handed him over to the team. On 20-11-2014, i.e., the date on which the victim girl went missing, convict 2 had parked the dumper, handed over the keys to the witness, and returned to his home. There was, therefore, nothing in his conduct to raise suspicion against him.
The Court said that it thus became apparent from the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses, that the prosecution was unable to lay any convincing foundation so far as motive was concerned. In a case resting purely on circumstantial evidence, the establishment of motive assumed significance, as it formed the psychological link in the chain of circumstances.
Having found that the prosecution had failed to establish motive, the Court next turned to examine the subsequent circumstance relied upon the ‘last seen theory’.
The Court held that the entire prosecution case linking the convicts to the crime through the ‘last seen theory’ rested not on any consistent testimony, but upon the belated introduction of interested witnesses after the recovery of the body, based on information given by the victim’s close relative.
The Court noted that despite being a close relative who first disclosed the situs of the victim girl’s dead body, he was never examined or interrogated by the investigating officers. This omission was of grave significance. The utter failure of the Investigating Officer to question him so as to ascertain the source of his knowledge about the dead body depicted gravely tainted and suspicious actions on the part of the investigating agencies. It was noteworthy that the victim girl could not be traced despite the frantic efforts of numerous police teams, and, therefore, it became imperative to determine the manner in which the close relative came to know about the location of the victim’s body. Had the Investigating Officer acted bona fide, his immediate attention would have focused upon the close relative to discover how he had gained such knowledge. If this exercise had been undertaken, the Court could have ascertained whether the information stemmed from innocent circumstances or from direct involvement in the events of the fateful night.
The Court highlighted that the failure of the Investigating Officer to record the statement of the close relative during the investigation, coupled with the prosecution’s omission to present him for deposition at trial, deprived the Court of the most vital link in the chain of circumstances. This intentional and calculated omission not only undermined the ‘last seen theory’ but also caused serious prejudice, as it deprived both the Court and the defence of the opportunity to test whether the close relative’s knowledge was innocent or otherwise. In the absence of this crucial testimony, the ‘last seen’ circumstance completely collapsed. The non-examination of Nikhil Chand compelled the Court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution.
The Court stressed that, despite his pivotal role, neither the Trial Court nor the High Court had considered it necessary to examine why the close relative’s statement was not recorded or why he was not interrogated, thereby overlooking a material circumstance that directly impacted the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
The Court concluded that, having considered the evidence in its entirety and bearing in mind the principles governing cases resting purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution had failed to establish the complete and unbroken chain of circumstances necessary to bring home the guilt of the convicts.
Firstly, as regards motive, the prosecution had merely alleged that the convicts were driven by lust. However, no independent or credible evidence had been adduced to substantiate such a motive. A bald assertion without corroboration could not by itself form a safe basis for conviction. Secondly, the ‘last seen theory’ relied upon by the prosecution suffered from serious infirmities, as the prosecution failed to prove the proximity of time and place so as to shift the burden onto the accused. Thirdly, the scientific evidence itself was riddled with deficiencies. The alleged DNA match between the body of the victim girl and convict 1, was found to be doubtful and unworthy of credence. Further, the prosecution’s claim that convict 1 location was traced through mobile surveillance was falsified by its own record, as the call detail records were procured much later and no evidence existed to link him with the SIM numbers in question. Likewise, the omission to examine crucial witnesses, including the subscribers of the relevant mobile numbers and, most importantly, the close rleative, who first informed the police about the location of the victim’s body, further weakened the prosecution’s case.
The Court underscored that, since the case involved the imposition of the death penalty, the law required the highest degree of circumspection. In cases based on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain had to be firmly and conclusively established, leaving no room for doubt. Where two views were possible, the one favourable to the accused had to be adopted. In the instant case, the prosecution failed to prove motive, the ‘last seen theory’ stood contradicted, and the scientific evidence was marred by inconsistencies and loopholes. In such circumstances, it was held wholly unsafe to uphold the conviction, much less the extreme penalty of death.
The Court further emphasised that Trial Courts as well as High Courts were required to exercise the highest caution before awarding the death penalty. The irreversible nature of capital punishment demanded that it be imposed only in the “rarest of rare” cases. Even the slightest doubt or infirmity in the prosecution’s case had to weigh against the imposition of such a sentence. Any hasty or mechanical application of the death penalty, without ensuring the highest standards of proof and procedural fairness, risked a grave miscarriage of justice by irretrievably extinguishing a human life.
The Court held that, since the prosecution had failed to establish the chain of circumstances against convict1, the very foundation of the case against convict 2 also collapsed. The prosecution had primarily rested its case against convict 2 on the alleged extra-judicial confession of convict1. Once the case against Convict No. 1 was disbelieved, the derivative case sought to be built against convict 2 lost all credibility. Consequently, the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against him beyond reasonable doubt, and his conviction could not be sustained.
Accordingly, the impugned common judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, as well as the judgment passed by the Special Judge, did not stand to scrutiny and were set aside. The convicts were acquitted of all charges and directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
[Akhtar Ali v State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal No. 003955-003956 of 2025, decided on 10-09-2025]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice Sandeep Mehta
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Appellant(s): Ms. Manisha Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Omkar Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Divyadeep Chaturvedi, AOR Mr. Shashwat Sidhant, Adv. Mr. Ayush Kumar Dubey, Adv. Ms. Ishita Dhaila, Adv. Mr. Pritish Arya, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
For Respondent(s): Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR Ms. Ankeeta Appanna, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ajay Bahuguna, Adv.
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
