Acquitted After Noose : Supreme Court Upheld No Death Sentence In 2025, But Acquittals Came After Years On Death Row

Koli's case was not the only case which ended up in an acquittal this year. LiveLaw covered as many as 15 matters relating to the death penalty awarded in the 'rarest of rare' gruesome murder and rape cases. In none of the cases, the Supreme Court this year affirmed the death penalty.

In this article, we take a look at all 15 judgments to study the percentage of conviction v. acquittal, and the minimum period of incarceration, including on death row. 

To state it briefly, our analysis reveals a grim and unfortunate but not unexpected picture of the criminal justice system. In 15 death penalty cases reported by us, the average period of incarceration spent by convicts is more than 11 years, and the average period of time spent as a death row convict is 8 years. Out of the 15 cases, acquittals have been awarded in 12 cases on grounds of faulty investigation and prosecution, a hurried and overzealous attempt by the subordinate Courts to arrive at a conviction and failure to give a fair trial to the accused person.

In 3 cases, where convictions were affirmed, the death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment without remission, considering that the mitigating circumstances were not considered by the subordinate Courts. 

Shoddy investigation /gaping holes in prosecution story

1. SURENDRA KOLI versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR, the Supreme Court acquitted Surendra Koli for charges of rape, abduction and murder, after it was found that on the same piece of alleged confession which led to the recoveries, his conviction in one case was sustained in 2011, but in 12 other cases, it were set aside as unreliable by the Allahabad High Court in 2023. The Court held that upholding a conviction based on evidence already declared involuntary or inadmissible in identical cases would violate both Article 21 (right to life and fair procedure) and Article 14 (equality before law).

It attributed negligence, procedural lapses, and delay to the prosecution, which “corroded the fact-finding process” and foreclosed avenues that might have led to the real perpetrator. The Court expressed “deep regret” that despite a prolonged probe, the actual identity of the offender had not been established in a manner that met legal standards. By this judgment, it allowed a curative petition filed by Koli against the 2011 judgment of the Supreme Court, which had confirmed his conviction in one of the cases. He challenged his conviction, arguing that the same evidence used to convict him was later found unreliable in the other cases where he has since been acquitted.

The incident dates back to 2006, in which the Trial Court sentenced him to death in 2007, which the High Court affirmed in 2009 and the Supreme Court in 2011. He was to be executed in September 2014 but Supreme Court stayed the execution to allow him to file a review. In 2014, the Court dismissed his review petition. Again it was stayed by the High Court to hear the writ petition filed by him. In 2015, the High Court commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment due to an inordinate delay in deciding mercy petition, and the SLP against this remained pending in the Supreme Court.

From 2010 to 2021, he was tried for 12 cases arising from the same circumstances, and the trials proceeded on the same evidentiary grounds. In 2023, the Allahabad High Court acquitted the appellant in all cases on the grounds that the confession, which led to the recovery, was unreliable because he was kept for 60 days in police custody with no access to legal aid etc. Against these, the State preferred appeals, but they were dismissed.

2. GAMBHIR SINGH VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH is a case where a person was convicted on charges of murder of his six family members, including 4 children and a brother.  The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence on the grounds of faulty investigation and flawed recovery of evidence. It said that the prosecution could not prove even one of the incriminating circumstances-the motive, last seen theory, and recoveries. It called out the lackadaisical approach of the police and the prosecution because no examination of nearby neighbours to establish the guilt was done. The police failed to safekeep the collected recoveries.

The FIR dates back to 2012, and the Trial Court awarded death punishment in 2017, which was affirmed in 2019.

Overzealous approach of lower courts to arrive at a conviction

3. In BALJINDER KUMAR@KALA v. STATE OF PUNJAB, the Supreme Court acquitted a person on death row, convicted for his four family members, on the grounds that there were major contradictions in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses marred with glaring investigating defects. The Court remarked that since the matter had garnered some sensation, the investigating agencies tried to quickly find the culprit, leading to a shoddy investigation. It equally blamed the Trial Court and the High Court for their hasty decisions in delivering justice, because of which a man, against whom there is no sufficient evidence, ended up on death row.

The incident dates back to 2013. The accused was tried by the Trial Court in 2020, which was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2024. 

4. RAMKIRAT MUNILAL GOUD VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, in this, a three-judge bench acquitted a death row convict for the rape and murder of a 3-year-old as there were “grave loopholes” in the prosecution's case. It was observed that the investigation was based on conjectures and surmises, and despite that, the subordinate courts showed an overzealous approach to imparting justice.

One key factor was the accused's remark to his supervisor that he was “tensed up” when questioned about his absence from work, which was treated as an extra-judicial confession during trial, even though the witness had not mentioned it in his Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement. The Court observed that despite hardly any reliable evidence on record, the accused was convicted and sentenced and has suffered 12 years of incarceration, of which 6 years, under the Damocles sword of death penalty.

The FIR was registered in 2013, and the person was convicted and sentenced to death in 2019 by the Trial Court under POCSO as well. This was affirmed in 2021 by the Bombay High Court.

Beyond a reasonable doubt

5. In SANJAY Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, the Supreme Court acquitted a death row convict who was sentenced to death for the murder and rape of a 4-year-old girl because the prosecution could not establish the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It was a case where the convict had allegedly made an extra-judicial confession to the victim's family that he committed the offences and offered to show the location of the body. Based on the accused's confession, the prosecution claimed the body was recovered, and the case against the accused was established.

While the accused's extra-judicial confession was the direct link between the accused and the crime, there was no independent, reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon such extra-judicial confession.

The man was arrested in 2004, and sentenced in the same year and his death sentence was confirmed by the Allahabad High Court in 2005. He spent 21 years in incarceration.

6. In CHANDRABHAN SUDAM SANAP v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, the Supreme Court acquitted a death row convict for the offence of rape and murder of a 23-year-old, which took place in 2014, on grounds that there are gaping holes in the prosecution's story and it could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

The FIR was registered in 2014, and the Trial Court convicted in the same year, which was confirmed by the Bombay High Court in 2018.

Mitigating circumstances

7. In AKHTAR ALI @ ALI AKHTAR @ SHAMIM @ RAJA USTAD, the Supreme Court set aside the death penalty and conviction of a man convicted for the rape and murder of a 7-year-old, observing that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstances against the appellant and the Trial Court failed to evaluate mitigating circumstances properly. It also observed that the circumstances give rise to a strong inference of tampering with the forensic evidence and planting of evidence which made the DNA samples wholly unreliable.

The Court cautioned that the case involves the imposition of the death penalty, which is irreversible. Therefore, Trial Courts and High Courts are required to exercise the highest degree of circumspection before awarding death penalty.

The incident happened in 2014, and was convicted and sentenced by the POCSO Court in 2016. This was confirmed by the Uttarakhand High Court in 2019.

8. In RAMESH A. NAIKA VERSUS THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of a father convicted of killing his two minor children. It considered the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, such as lack of criminal antecedents, good behaviour in custody, and the possibility of reformation, as grounds for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment without remission.

He was arrested in 2010, sentenced to death in 2013, which was confirmed by the Karnataka High Court in 2017, against which he filed an appeal in 2020.

9. JAI PRAKASH v STATE OF UTTARAKHAND, the Supreme Court commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment without remission of a convict who raped and strangled to death a 10-year-old girl.

It reasoned that the subordinate Courts had only considered the brutality of the crime as the sole criterion for awarding such punishment and did not consider factors like mitigating circumstances for determining that the case fell in the 'rarest of rare' category. The mitigating circumstances found were that the convict belonged to a very socio-economic background, did not attend school, had good relations with inmates and suffered no psychological disturbance.

The incident dates back to 2018, and the Special POCSO Court awarded death sentence in 2019, which was affirmed in 2020 by the Uttarakhand High Court.

These cases have been decided pursuant to Manoj v. State of M.P.(2023) wherein the Court, recognising that there is a huge disparity in the application of rarest of rare, reiterated two-step criteria for the uniform application of this doctrine. That is, in the first step, the courts have to determine the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Upon identifying these circumstances, in the second step, the Court has to consider whether the option of awarding life imprisonment has been completely foreclosed or not.

10. While upholding the conviction of a man sentenced for the rape and murder of a 4 year old girl, the Supreme Court set aside the death penalty as the procedural safeguard of mitigating circumstances was not considered in VASANTA SAMPAT DUPARE Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. In this case, an Article 32 petition was filed seeking to apply Manoj guidelines retrospectively.

The case dates back to 2008, in which the Trial Court awarded a death sentence in 2010. In confirmation proceedings, the Bombay High Court set aside the conviction and sentence on grounds that the convict was denied an effective defence and remanded the matter in 2011. In 2012, the Trial Court again convicted the petitioner and re-imposed death, which was confirmed by the High Court in the same year. In 2014, the Supreme Court also affirmed the same.

A review petition was then dismissed in 2017, and the Governor and President rejected his mercy petition in 2022 and 2023, respectively. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition praying that the 2022 guidelines be made applicable to his case, which was allowed. The matter has now been placed before the CJI for appropriate directions on sentencing.

Procedural fairness

11.  In SOVARAN SINGH PRAJAPATI VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, the Supreme Court set aside the death sentence of a man accused of killing his wife and 12-year-old daughter, after noting that he was denied a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In this case, the accused's counsel was changed frequently, and when a new counsel was appointed, the trial Court had reserved judgment that very day, giving no time for the defence counsel to fairly argue the case.

The incident dates back to 2014 and Trial Court had awarded death sentence in 2017, which was affirmed by the High Court in October 2018.

12. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and death sentence of a man convicted for rape and murder of a minor in KARANDEEP SHARMA @ RAZIA @ RAJU VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on the grounds that the trial conducted was flawed for not admitting the DNA evidence properly. It observed that the trial judge had improperly allowed the investigating officer to narrate the accused's confessional statements during his examination-in-chief and admitted those statements as evidence.

The incident occurred in 2016, and the Special POCSO Court convicted him in 2017, which was confirmed by the Uttarakhand High Court in 2018.

13. Similar to this, in KATTAVELLAI @ DEVAKAR VERSUS STATE OF TAMILNADU, the Supreme Court acquitted a man for the offence of murder of a couple, including the rape of a woman victim, on grounds that there were grave procedural lapses in handling the DNA evidence. The Court issued binding nationwide guidelines to ensure proper collection, preservation and processing of DNA and other biological materials in criminal investigations. It also expressed the need to enact a law for awarding compensation in case of wrongful incarceration.

The incident dates back to 2011, and was sentenced by the Trial Court in 2018, which was affirmed by the Madras High Court in 2019.

14. In another case, PUTAI VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of two men for the rape and murder of a 12-year-old on the grounds of shabby investigation and laconic trial procedure. It found that no document pertaining to the collection of blood samples from the appellant was produced, rendering DNA report to be a piece of trash.

The incident happened in 2012, and the Trial Court convicted in 2014, which was affirmed by the Allahabad High Court in 2018.

15. In DASHWANTH Versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, the Supreme Court acquitted a man convicted for the rape and murder a 7 year old on grounds that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the vital circumstances.

It held that the man was made a scapegoat by the police by planting evidence and the mandatory requirements of a fair trial were violated as he was not given a defence counsel when charges were framed against him. Moreover, the subordinate Courts did not undertake the mandatory exercise of seeking a report of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, and the psychological examination of the appellant.

The case pertains to 2017, in which the Trial Court awarded death sentence in 2018, and Madras High Court confirmed in 2018.

Analysis:

Combining the 15 cases, the average period of incarceration is 11.5 years, with the minimum period of imprisonment to 6 years and the maximum to 21 years.

In SANJAY's case, 21 years of incarceration and mostly on death row. He was acquitted because the evidence was not clear as the prosecution relied on an extrajudicial confession, but it wasn't corroborated with independent facts, showing not just the failure of prosecution but also the subordinate Courts.

While in this case, the subordinate Courts hurried to punish the accused as the Trial Court convicted him in the same year the incident happened, in 2004, and the Allahabad High Court confirmed the conviction and death sentence the next year, it took more than 19 years to approach the Supreme Court.

On death row, the minimum time spent is 4 years, and the maximum time is 19 years, which comes down to an average of more than 8 years spent on death row.

In 15 cases, 12 resulted in acquittal, while in 3 cases, Ramesh, Jai Prakash and Vasanta, the convictions were upheld, but the punishment was commuted mostly for not applying mitigating circumstances.While death sentencing remains mostly subjective, the sentencing guidelines evolved over a period of time to try to ensure that the element of arbitrariness is balanced. However, the continued failure of subordinate Courts in strictly applying these guidelines brings us back to square one.

In the 12 cases, the majority of the acquittals have been led primarily by lapses in handling forensic evidence and by the prosecution's inability to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. These are mostly cases where the chain of custody for evidence has not been established, extra-judicial confessions remain uncorroborated, and where the police themselves planted evidence.