Supreme Court | Death Penalty in 2014 Child Rape-Murder Case Set Aside | Accused Acquitted as Circumstantial and Forensic Evidence Failed to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Three-Judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta on Wednesday set aside the death penalty imposed on a man convicted for the rape and death of a seven-year-old child in 2014. The Court further acquitted co-accused who had been convicted for harbouring the offender. Deciding criminal appeals filed by both accused, the Bench set aside the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court dated 18 October 2019, which had affirmed the trial court’s order of conviction and capital punishment. The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution evidence, comprising circumstantial and forensic material, did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and therefore directed that both appellants stand acquitted of the charges for which they had been sentenced.
The case originated on 21 November 2014 when the father of a minor girl lodged a report under Section 365 IPC at Kathgodam Police Station. The family had travelled from Pithoragarh to Haldwani to attend a wedding at Sheeshmahal, Ramlila Maidan. During the evening ceremony, the child went missing. Initial searches by the police and local residents yielded no results. Four days later, the body of the victim was discovered near the Gaula River forest and identified by relatives. The post-mortem examination conducted by Dr. C.P. Bhaisora confirmed sexual assault, blunt force trauma, and death due to shock and haemorrhage.
Subsequent investigation was assigned to Inspector Vipin Chandra Pant. Witnesses reported seeing one of the accused, Prem Pal Verma, in the company of another man on the night of the incident. Surveillance of mobile numbers linked the suspects to different locations, eventually leading to the arrest of Akhtar Ali in Ludhiana on 27 November 2014. Police alleged recovery of items including a blanket and a hairband at his instance. Soon thereafter, Prem Pal Verma and another individual, Junior Masih alias Foxy, were also arrested.
A charge sheet was filed against Akhtar Ali under Sections 363, 376, 302, 201, and 120B IPC; Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the POCSO Act; and Section 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). Prem Pal Verma was charge-sheeted for similar offences including Section 212 IPC for harbouring an offender, while Junior Masih was charged under Section 212 IPC and the IT Act.
The trial court convicted Akhtar Ali under IPC, POCSO Act, and IT Act provisions, awarding the death penalty under Section 376A. Prem Pal Verma was convicted under Section 212 IPC and Section 66C IT Act. Junior Masih was acquitted. Appeals were filed before the High Court under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), while the State and the victim’s father challenged acquittals. The High Court of Uttarakhand in October 2019 upheld the death penalty for Akhtar Ali, confirmed convictions of Prem Pal Verma, and dismissed the appeals seeking further convictions.
The Court recorded: “There is no dispute that the case of the prosecution is based purely on circumstantial evidence in the form of motive, the theory of last seen together, and scientific/forensic evidence, since no witness claims to have seen the alleged incident….”
On the governing standard, the Bench stated: “It is a well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence that a conviction may be based purely on circumstantial evidence, provided that such evidence is deemed credible and trustworthy… The chain of incriminating circumstances must be conclusive and should exclude any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused.”
Assessing the “last seen” evidence, the judgment recorded: “the belated introduction of these witnesses, all purporting to speak to the same fact after a lapse of five days, gives rise to a legitimate apprehension that the ‘last seen’ circumstance was subsequently manufactured to bolster the prosecution’s case… At best, it places the accused-appellants in the general vicinity, which by itself is insufficient to sustain the ‘last seen theory’.”
The Court addressed the non-examination of the person who informed police about the location of the body, noting: “the last seen circumstance must be held to have completely collapsed. Non-examination of Nikhil Chand compels the Court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution.”
Turning to the arrest and related seizure narrative, the Bench observed: “the entire procedure of arrest and search of the person of the accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali by Yogesh Kumar Chand (PW-10) comes under a grave cloud of doubt. The story which has been projected in the evidence of the witness is something out of fiction and is ex facie unbelievable.”
On the chain of custody and forensic materials, the Court recorded: “there is no record of where the samples were kept between 26th November 2014 and 27th November 2014… Such glaring lapses make the scientific/forensic evidence inadmissible and incapable of sustaining a conviction, much less the imposition of the death penalty.”
The Bench set out the capital sentencing threshold: “The irreversible nature of capital punishment demands that it be imposed only in the ‘rarest of rare’ cases… unless the prosecution’s evidence forms an unbroken and reliable chain of circumstances pointing only to the guilt of the accused, the extreme penalty cannot be justified.”
Concluding on proof, the Court stated: “Given the above infirmities, the so-called links in the chain of circumstances stand broken. The prosecution has, therefore, failed to prove the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The Bench directed: “The impugned common judgment dated 18th October, 2019, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2016 and Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 2016 and the judgment dated 11th March, 2016 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO)/ Fast Track Court/ Additional District & Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in Session Trial No. 09 of 2015, do not stand to scrutiny and the same are hereby set aside.”
“The accused-appellants are acquitted of all charges. They shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Bail bonds are discharged.”
“The appeals are, accordingly, allowed. Pending Applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Case Title: Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v. State of Uttarakhand with Prem Pal Verma v. State of Uttarakhand
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1097
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 14-15 of 2020 and SLP (Crl.) No. 6573 of 2020)
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta
