SC Sets Aside Death Penalty in POCSO Case: When Does the “Rarest of Rare” Doctrine Truly Apply?

The Supreme Court on September 10, 2025 acquitted a man who had been sentenced to death for the sexual assault and murder of a minor girl in Uttarakhand in 2014, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence. 

The ruling raises the central legal question of when the “rarest of rare” doctrine, which governs the imposition of capital punishment in India, can be invoked.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta set free Akhtar Ali, who was convicted by a Nainital court under Section 376A of the IPC and relevant provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and sentenced to capital punishment. The court also acquitted co-accused Prem Pal Verma, convicted under Section 212 IPC and sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment.

The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution failed to prove motive, that the last seen theory was contradicted, and that the scientific and DNA evidence was inconsistent and riddled with loopholes. It held that in such circumstances it was unsafe to uphold a conviction, let alone the death penalty.

The Court set aside the Uttarakhand High Court’s October 18, 2019 judgment which had upheld the Special Judge’s March 11, 2016 order convicting Ali and imposing the death penalty. The bench emphasised that capital punishment is irreversible and must only be imposed in the “rarest of rare” cases, citing the landmark rulings in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983).

The judgment points out that that where a case rests on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be firmly and conclusively established. The court said, “In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to prove motive, the last seen theory stands contradicted, and the alleged scientific evidence is marred by inconsistencies and serious loopholes. In such circumstances, it would be wholly unsafe to uphold a conviction, much less the extreme penalty of death.”

The bench highlighted that even the slightest doubt must weigh in favour of the accused when the question involves the death penalty. Referring to Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), the Court recalled that trial courts and high courts must conduct detailed sentencing hearings, consider mitigating circumstances, and ensure unimpeachable evidence before awarding capital punishment.

In this case, the prosecution alleged that Ali and Verma, along with a third accused, kidnapped the minor girl from a wedding function in Kathgodam, sexually assaulted her and caused her death. The victim’s body was found five days later. While the third accused was acquitted at trial, Ali was sentenced to death and Verma to seven years.

The defence argued that the prosecution’s case was inconsistent and tailored to fit investigative gaps. It pointed out that no credible evidence supported the claim of kidnapping at gunpoint, that the key witness who discovered the body was never examined, and that no forensic traces matched the alleged crime scene. It also alleged that the arrest of Ali was fabricated to facilitate planting of DNA evidence.

The Supreme Court found merit in these concerns. It noted that the prosecution’s version of motive was speculative, that mobile surveillance records did not conclusively link Ali to the crime, and that crucial witnesses were not examined. It also found the DNA evidence unreliable.

The bench concluded that since the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances against Ali, the conviction of Verma, which rested primarily on an alleged extra-judicial confession, also collapsed. The Court ordered the immediate release of both appellants unless required in any other case.

By acquitting the accused, the Supreme Court said that the “rarest of rare” doctrine is not a matter of the gravity of the crime alone, but of the certainty and reliability of proof. Unless the evidence leaves no room for alternative explanations, the extreme penalty of death cannot be justified.

Case Title: Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v. State of Uttarakhand

Judgment Date: September 10, 2025

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta