Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals Against Acquittal in Murder Case, Orders Inquiry Into Custodial Assault
Safiya Malik
The Supreme Court dismissed appeals filed by the State of Uttarakhand challenging the High Court's acquittal of two individuals previously convicted of murder. The court found no basis to overturn the High Court’s decision and directed a District Magistrate-led inquiry into allegations of custodial assault on one of the respondents during police custody.
The appeals were filed against the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court, dated May 8, 2013, which had overturned the trial court’s conviction of the respondents under Sections 302 (murder), 364 (kidnapping or abducting with intent to murder), and 261 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial court had found the respondents guilty, but the High Court acquitted them based on lack of credible evidence.
The prosecution’s case relied on circumstantial evidence, particularly the "last seen together" theory. The deceased was allegedly last seen with the respondents. The primary witness for this claim, PW1, stated during the examination-in-chief that the deceased had left with two individuals but admitted that he could not identify the respondents as the persons seen with the deceased.
The High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of evidence necessary to support the convictions, noting inconsistencies in the testimonies and the lack of corroboration.
The Supreme Court examined the evidence presented in the case, agreeing with the High Court’s findings. It stated: “The view taken by the High Court is certainly a plausible view which could have been taken on the basis of evidence on record. In fact, this is a case where no other view was possible.”
The bench noted that the State’s appeal was devoid of merit, stating: “We wonder why the State has preferred these appeals against acquittal in such a case.”
The court also addressed a significant issue raised during the proceedings—allegations of custodial assault against one of the respondents, Nanku @ Pappu. The High Court’s judgment referenced claims made by the respondents under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), wherein they alleged that Nanku had sustained a fractured leg due to police beating while in custody.
The Supreme Court noted the findings of the High Court, which relied on the testimony of Dr. Dayal Sharan, a doctor attached to the jail at the time. The doctor testified that the injuries were not the result of an accidental fall but were inflicted by a heavy object.
The Supreme Court issued specific directives concerning the allegations of custodial assault:
- Inquiry into Custodial Assault: The court directed the jurisdictional District Magistrate to conduct an inquiry into the injuries sustained by Nanku @ Pappu during custody.
- Submission of Inquiry Report: The District Magistrate was instructed to submit a report to the Supreme Court by March 31, 2025.
- Accountability of Erring Officials: The court ordered the initiation of appropriate proceedings against the officials responsible for the assault, based on the findings of the inquiry.
- Further Hearing: The matter was listed for directions on April 4, 2025, for further consideration of the inquiry report.
The court concluded its order by dismissing the appeals, stating: “Though the appeals are dismissed, for considering the said report, the same shall be listed for directions on 4th April, 2025.”
Case Title: State of Uttarakhand v. Nanku @ Pappu & Anr.
Case Numbers: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1189-1190 of 2015
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
[Read/Download order]
