'Serious Infirmities In Prosecution' : Supreme Court Acquits 2 Death Row Convicts In Rape-Murder Case

The Supreme Court has 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 establish a complete and reliable chain of circumstances connecting them with the crime.

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi allowed the appeals filed by the murder convicts, setting aside the judgments of the trial court and the Uttarakhand High Court, which had convicted them under Sections 302 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and imposed the death penalty.

The Court held that the investigation suffered from serious procedural irregularities, unreliable recoveries, absence of scientific evidence, flawed identification procedures, and a broken chain of custody, making it unsafe to sustain the conviction.

As per the prosecution's case, on December 29, 2012, the two accused allegedly approached three girls collecting grass in a forest area near Dehradun and enquired about an “elderly woman grazing goats.” The deceased woman was later found dead in a partially denuded condition with injuries and bite marks on her body.

The prosecution sought to establish guilt primarily through two circumstances, the “last seen” theory and alleged recoveries made during the investigation.

The “last seen” evidence relied upon the testimony of two witnesses who claimed to have seen the accused proceeding towards the area where the deceased had gone. The prosecution also relied upon a torn shirt pocket allegedly found near the body, said to match the shirt of one of the accused, and a salwar and ornaments worn by the deceased, allegedly recovered at the instance of the second accused.

Rejecting the prosecution's reliance on the last seen theory and alleged recoveries, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta found that the prosecution's case was marred by serious infirmities as regards the complete absence of DNA examination or scientific profiling linking the biological evidence with the accused persons.

Since the prosecution relied on semen traces detected in the vaginal swab collected during post-mortem examination. However, the Court found that no effort had been made to scientifically establish whose semen it was.

“The FSL report merely records the presence of semen traces in the vaginal swab collected during the postmortem examination and does not, in the absence of any corroborative material, establish the appellants' complicity in the alleged offence.”, the court observed.

“A careful scrutiny of the material placed on record makes it evident that no DNA examination or scientific profiling was undertaken in order to establish the identity of the source of semen or to connect the same with either of the appellants. The prosecution also failed to lead any evidence regarding the probable age or duration of the semen traces detected in the vaginal swab. In the absence of such scientific evidence, no definite inference could be drawn that the deceased-victim had been subjected to sexual intercourse proximate to the time of her death or that the semen detected in the vaginal swab belonged to either of the appellants.”, the court added.

The prosecution also relied upon the FSL report showing that blood group “O” was detected on the shirt and torn pocket allegedly connected with the accused. The deceased, too had blood group “O”.

However, the Court noted that the prosecution never even established the blood group of the accused persons. Further, blood group “O” is one of the most common blood groups in India.

Relying on the earlier judgment in Allarakha Habib Memon v. State of Gujarat 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 562, the Court reiterated that blood group matching alone cannot constitute decisive incriminating evidence.

“…the mere recovery of a bloodstained article, in absence of reliable evidence connecting the same with the commission of the offence, cannot constitute a determinative incriminating circumstance against the accused.”, the court observed.

The Court also referred to the testimony of the doctor who medically examined accused. The doctor had categorically stated that due to a medical condition, the accused was incapable of engaging in sexual intercourse. The Court held that this evidence directly weakened the prosecution's theory regarding the alleged offence.

“It is well settled that in a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, each incriminating circumstance must be firmly proved, and the chain of circumstances must be so complete as to unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused and rule out every hypothesis consistent with innocence. In the present case, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish any of the so-called incriminating circumstances so as to connect the appellants with the crime in question. The evidence led by the prosecution suffers from material inconsistencies, procedural irregularities and serious infirmities which strike at the very root of the prosecution case. Consequently, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt.”, the Court held.

The appeals were allowed and they were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.

Cause Title: MEHTAB VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (with connected matter)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 560

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv. Mr. Davies, Adv. Ms. Pinky Behra, Adv. Ms. N. Annapoorani, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Sanjeev Uniyal, A.A.G. (VC) Mr. Akshat Kumar, AOR Mr. Dhawal Uniyal, Adv. Ms. Anubha Dhulia, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Menon, Adv. Mr. Udit Choudhary, Adv.