Supreme Court Frees Two Death Row Convicts, Flags Major Gaps in Rape-Murder Probe
Supreme Court acquits two death row convicts in Uttarakhand rape-murder case.
The Supreme Court recently acquitted two men who had been sentenced to death for the alleged rape and murder of a 55-year-old woman in Uttarakhand, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the concurrent findings of the trial court and the Uttarakhand High Court, observing that both courts overlooked serious infirmities and loopholes in the prosecution case, particularly regarding the "last seen together" theory and the recoveries allegedly made at the instance of the accused.
"As these vital incriminating circumstances have not been proved beyond all manner of doubt, it would not be safe to sustain the conviction of the appellants or the sentence of death awarded to them," the Bench said.
Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish any of the circumstances relied upon to connect the appellants with the crime. It found material inconsistencies, procedural irregularities and serious infirmities in the evidence that struck at the root of the prosecution case.
The execution of the death sentence had been stayed by the Supreme Court in 2018 pending further orders.
What Was the Prosecution's Case in the Rape-Murder Matter?
According to the prosecution, on December 29, 2012, the 55-year-old victim had gone to a forest to graze goats. About an hour later, three girls collecting grass in the area were allegedly approached by two unknown youths who asked about the whereabouts of a "Pahadan".
The victim's body was later found in the forest. It was alleged that the lower part of her body was unclothed and that there were blood-smeared bite marks on her face and body.
On January 3, 2013, the appellants, Mehtab and Sushil alias Bhura, were arrested near the forest area. The prosecution claimed that a shirt was recovered at the instance of Mehtab, while a salwar, earrings and a nose pin allegedly belonging to the victim were recovered pursuant to a disclosure statement made by Sushil.
Also Read| Last seen theory can't be proved by mere presence of accused with weapon near scene of crime: SC
In January 2014, the trial court convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 376(2)(g) of the IPC [corresponding to Section 103(1) and Section 64 of the BNS] and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, awarding them the death penalty.
In April 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court acquitted them of the SC/ST Act charge but upheld their conviction and death sentence for the remaining offences.
Why Did the Supreme Court Reject the 'Last Seen Together' Theory?
The prosecution argued that the appellants were last seen following the victim towards the forest shortly before she was allegedly raped and murdered.
To establish this circumstance, the prosecution mainly relied on the testimonies of two witnesses, Anusuiya and Alka Chauhan.
However, the Supreme Court noted that another key witness, Neha, who was allegedly present with them and was also the victim's granddaughter, was not examined during the trial despite her statement having been recorded during investigation.
The Bench said Neha was a natural and material witness to the events preceding the incident. Yet the prosecution offered no explanation for withholding her testimony.
Also Read| Supreme Court Refuses To Restore Death Penalty, Upholds Acquittal In Murder Case
"This assumes the character of suppression of best available evidence," Court observed.
According to the Bench, the failure to examine such a crucial witness cast serious doubt on both the prosecution's version and the fairness of the investigation.
As a result, Court said it was difficult to accept that the "last seen together" circumstance had been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
How Did Identification of the Accused Become a Weak Link?
The Supreme Court found serious inconsistencies in the prosecution's claim that the accused had been identified based on sketches prepared from witness descriptions.
More importantly, it noted that the investigating agency never conducted a Test Identification Parade (TIP), even though the accused were strangers to the witnesses.
Calling this a serious infirmity, the Bench observed that a TIP assumes considerable significance where accused persons are not previously known to witnesses.
Court held that the failure to conduct a TIP materially undermined the credibility of the prosecution's case regarding identification of the appellants.
It also found significant embellishments and improvements in the testimony of the investigating officer, further weakening the prosecution's version.
Also Read| Why Did Supreme Court Overturn Conviction In 1998 Gang Rape Case?
Consequently, Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the "last seen together" circumstance in a cogent and reliable manner.
Why Did the Supreme Court Doubt the Recoveries and Forensic Evidence?
The Bench also expressed serious reservations about the recoveries allegedly made during the investigation.
Particularly, it found the prosecution's claim regarding recovery of a torn shirt pocket from the crime scene and its alleged matching with Mehtab's shirt to be highly doubtful.
"We are constrained to observe that the prosecution story regarding the recovery of the torn shirt pocket from the place of occurrence and its alleged matching with the shirt purportedly worn by accused No.1-Mehtab appears highly doubtful and unworthy of credence," Court said.
The Bench went on to hold that the alleged recovery and matching of the shirt pocket appeared to be a "padded and created circumstance" introduced to strengthen the prosecution case.
Court further observed that the forensic evidence did not support the prosecution's theory. Even if the recoveries and forensic reports were accepted in their entirety, they did not materially advance the prosecution's case.
Significantly, no DNA examination or scientific profiling was conducted to establish the source of semen allegedly detected on samples recovered during investigation or to connect it with either of the accused.
The Bench also found that the forensic evidence relating to semen and blood stains did not inspire sufficient confidence to conclusively link the appellants to the crime.
What Did the Court Say About the Alleged Motive?
The prosecution claimed that the accused raped the victim to satisfy their sexual desires and murdered her when she resisted.
However, the Supreme Court noted that no credible evidence had been produced to support this theory.
The Bench highlighted that one of the doctors who medically examined Mehtab had categorically stated that owing to a medical condition, he was incapable of engaging in sexual intercourse.
Also Read| Rape Conviction Cannot Rest on Suspicion; Break in Forensic Chain Leads to Acquittal: Uttarakhand HC
Since the prosecution's case was built around the allegation of sexual assault as the genesis of the crime, this aspect assumed considerable significance, Court said.
"The prosecution theory that the appellants committed the offence for satisfaction of their carnal desires becomes highly doubtful and does not inspire confidence," the bench observed.
Supreme Court Grants Benefit of Doubt
Summing up its findings, the Supreme Court held that neither the evidence regarding the alleged "last seen together" circumstance nor the identification of the accused inspired confidence. Similarly, the recoveries and the forensic evidence flowing from them could not be accepted as genuine and reliable.
On the contrary, the material on record raised serious doubts about the fairness of the investigation and the credibility of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution.
Holding that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt, Court allowed their appeals, set aside their convictions and death sentences, and ordered their immediate release from jail.
Case Title: Mehtab Vs The State of Uttarakhand
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi
Date of Judgment: May 27, 2026