Supreme Court Acquits Two Death Row Convicts, Finds Prosecution Case Built on Planted Evidence and Broken Chain of Custody
A three-judge bench set aside death sentences awarded to two men convicted of rape and murder, finding the entire prosecution case rested on unreliable identification, doubtful recoveries, and absent forensic chain of custody.
The Supreme Court on 27 May 2026 acquitted two men who had been sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a 55-year-old woman in Uttarakhand in December 2012. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and Vijay Bishnoi set aside concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Dehradun, and confirmed by the Uttarakhand High Court, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish either of its two principal incriminating circumstances. The Court found that the “last seen together” evidence was riddled with procedural infirmities and that the physical recoveries and forensic reports were too doubtful to sustain a conviction, let alone a sentence of death. The appellants, Mehtab and Sushil @ Bhura, were directed to be released forthwith.
How the Case Reached the Supreme Court
On 29 December 2012, Munni Devi, a 55-year-old woman, went to a forest near Dehradun to graze goats and did not return. Her son, Anil Chauhan (PW-1), began searching for her around 5:30 p.m. Her dead body was discovered in bushes near a water channel at about 8:00 p.m. The body was found partially denuded, with bite marks and blood on the face and body. An FIR bearing Crime No. 255 of 2012 was registered against unknown persons for offences under Sections 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The investigation centred on two witnesses — Anusuiya (PW-2) and Alka Chauhan (PW-4) — who stated that on the afternoon of the incident, two unknown youths had approached them in the forest and enquired about the whereabouts of an elderly woman grazing goats. Sketches of the suspects were allegedly prepared on the basis of PW-2's description, circulated in the locality, and published in newspapers. On 3 January 2013, Mehtab and Sushil @ Bhura were apprehended near a forest road. Pursuant to their alleged disclosure statements, a shirt was seized from Mehtab and a salwar, earrings, and nose pin were recovered from bushes near the crime scene at the instance of Sushil @ Bhura.
The Special Judge convicted both appellants on 23 January 2014 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 376(2)(g) IPC, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. By a separate order dated 27 January 2014, both were sentenced to death for the murder conviction, and to life imprisonment for the rape and SC/ST Act offences. The trial Court also forwarded a reference under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for confirmation of the death sentence.
The Uttarakhand High Court, by a common judgment dated 27 April 2018, partly allowed the appeals by acquitting both men of the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, but affirmed their conviction and sentences for the remaining offences and confirmed the death sentence. The Supreme Court granted leave on 29 October 2018 and stayed execution of the death sentence pending further orders.
The Two Pillars of the Prosecution Case
The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. The Court identified two clusters of circumstances: first, the “last seen together” evidence based on the identification of the appellants by PW-2 and PW-4; and second, the disclosure statements of the appellants, the recoveries made pursuant thereto, and the forensic examination of the recovered articles.
Senior counsel for the appellants, Mr. A. Sirajudeen, attacked both clusters. He argued that no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted, that the sketch artist was never examined and his identity was withheld, that the torn shirt pocket appeared to have been carefully unpicked rather than torn in a struggle, that the salwar was inexplicably missed during multiple earlier searches of the crime scene, and that the chain of custody of all forensic samples was wholly unestablished. The State countered that the witnesses were credible, the forensic reports corroborated the prosecution case, and that the concurrent findings of two courts warranted no interference.
Why the Identification Evidence Failed
The Court examined the identification evidence in detail and found it unreliable on multiple grounds.
PW-2 and PW-4 had not previously known the appellants. The entire identification process depended on sketches allegedly prepared on the basis of PW-2's description. The Court found serious inconsistencies: PW-2 stated the sketches were prepared at her residence on 30 December 2012, while Station Officer (PW-16) deposed that witness statements were recorded only on 31 December 2012 and the sketch expert was summoned thereafter. The original sketches were never produced before the Court. The photocopies exhibited bore no signatures of PW-2, the Investigating Officers, or the sketch artist, and carried no date or time of preparation. The identity of the sketch artist was withheld, with the Station Officer offering what the Court described as a “flimsy and wholly unconvincing explanation” that anonymity was maintained for security reasons.
The Court also found a material inconsistency between PW-2's description of the suspects — she stated Mehtab had a slight moustache and both had long hair — and the Circle Officer's (PW-19) admission in cross-examination that neither of the persons depicted in the exhibited sketches had a moustache or long hair.
No TIP was conducted. After their arrest on 3 January 2013, the appellants were shown to PW-2 while in police custody, wearing the same clothes they had allegedly worn on the day of the incident. The dock identification that followed was, in the Court's view, substantially diminished in value. The arrest memo (Exhibit Ka-39) recorded that PW-2 identified Mehtab at the time of arrest but did not record any identification of Sushil @ Bhura — a significant omission given the prosecution's case that both men had jointly approached the witnesses.
A further infirmity arose from the prosecution's failure to examine Neha, the granddaughter of the deceased-victim, who was present with PW-2 and PW-4 in the forest at the relevant time and whose statement had been recorded during investigation. The Court held that withholding this material witness, without explanation, amounted to suppression of the best available evidence and cast substantial doubt on the integrity of the investigation.
Even accepting the evidence of PW-2 and PW-4 in its entirety, the Court found that it established only that two individuals had enquired about an elderly woman and proceeded in the general direction of the forest. Neither witness claimed to have seen the appellants in the company of the deceased-victim. The place of recovery was deep inside the forest with multiple access routes. The Court held that no conclusive inference could be drawn that the appellants alone were the perpetrators.
Why the Recoveries and Forensic Evidence Were Discarded
The Court turned next to the recoveries and found them equally unreliable.
The torn shirt pocket recovered from the crime scene on 30 December 2012 was allegedly matched with the shirt seized from Mehtab on 3 January 2013. Both articles were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory only on 24 January 2013, while other seized articles had already been sent on 2 January 2013. No explanation was offered for this delay. The Court found this gap significant, particularly given the defence allegation that the pocket had been planted.
The FSL expert (PW-11) admitted in cross-examination that the shirt pocket did not appear to have been forcibly torn — the shirt itself was not torn from any place and the stitching at both corners was intact. The Court accepted this as lending credence to the defence contention that the pocket had been carefully removed rather than detached during a violent struggle. The Court concluded that the alleged recovery and matching of the shirt pocket was “nothing but a padded and created circumstance.”
The recovery of the salwar, earrings, and nose pin at the instance of Sushil @ Bhura was found equally unconvincing. The dead body had been found in a partially denuded condition, yet police officers who had repeatedly inspected the crime scene and surrounding area failed to notice the salwar, which was allegedly lying only about 25 metres from the body. The Court found it difficult to accept that a comparatively large article would remain unnoticed while a small shirt pocket was recovered. The salwar was not sent for forensic examination at all.
The Court found the chain of custody of all seized articles to be wholly unestablished. Sub-Inspector Pramod Sah (PW-10) admitted that none of the sealed bundles bore dates beneath signatures or thumb impressions, that the accused's signatures did not appear on the seizure memo despite being recorded as obtained, and that identifying features of the shirt were omitted from the seizure memo. Neither the Station Officer nor the Head Moharrir gave any evidence about the deposit of articles in the malkhana or their transmission to the FSL. The two constables who carried articles to the FSL merely proved forwarding memos without establishing the procedure of handing over sealed articles.
Relying on Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 16 SCC 357, the Court reiterated that where the uncompromised nature of forensic samples cannot be established, the scientific reports based thereon lose their evidentiary value.
On the blood group evidence, the FSL report showed blood group ‘O’ on the shirt and shirt pocket, matching the deceased-victim's blood group. However, the prosecution never determined the blood groups of the appellants. The Court, relying on Allarakha Habib Memon v. State of Gujarat, (2024) 9 SCC 546, held that the mere presence of a common blood group on a recovered article cannot, in isolation, constitute an incriminating circumstance.
On the rape charge, no DNA examination was conducted to identify the source of semen traces found in the vaginal swab. No evidence was led regarding the probable age of the semen. The Court held that without such scientific evidence, no inference could be drawn that the deceased-victim had been subjected to sexual intercourse proximate to the time of death or that the semen belonged to either appellant. The prosecution's theory of motive was further undermined by the evidence of Dr. B.S. Aswal (PW-12), who had medically examined Mehtab and deposed that owing to a medical condition, it was not possible for him to engage in sexual intercourse.
The Court's Findings on the Concurrent Convictions
The Court acknowledged that both the trial Court and the High Court had returned concurrent findings of guilt. It held, however, that both courts had “glossed over the patent infirmities and loopholes in the prosecution case,” particularly in relation to the last seen together circumstance and the recoveries. Where vital incriminating circumstances have not been proved beyond all manner of doubt, the Court held, it would not be safe to sustain the conviction or the sentence of death.
The Court restated the settled position that in a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be firmly proved, the chain must be complete and unbroken, and the cumulative effect must be incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. In the present case, the prosecution had failed to establish any of the incriminating circumstances relied upon.
Order
The Supreme Court allowed both sets of criminal appeals. The judgment of conviction dated 23 January 2014 and the order of sentence dated 27 January 2014 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Dehradun, and the common judgment dated 27 April 2018 passed by the Uttarakhand High Court, were set aside. The appellants were acquitted of all charges. Both men were directed to be released from custody forthwith, if not required in any other case. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.