Supreme Court Sets Aside Convictions and Death Sentence in Child Murder Case, Acquits Accused for Lack of Unbroken Circumstantial Chain

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta heard appeals arising from convictions in a high-profile child abduction, sexual assault and murder matter from Uttarakhand, challenging the judgment of the Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court which had partly affirmed trial convictions and confirmed a death sentence. The appeals by special leave arose from Session Trial No. 09 of 2015 and the High Court’s common judgment dated 18 October 2019; the complainant, the State and the accused contested factual findings and the reliability of forensic evidence.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments of the trial Court and the High Court and acquitted the accused-appellants of all charges. The Court found that the prosecution’s case rested purely on circumstantial evidence and that the chain of incriminating circumstances was neither complete nor free from reasonable hypotheses of innocence. The Court emphasised established principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence and held that the forensic material and its provenance were tainted by investigative lapses. The Bench noted that the scientific evidence, particularly the DNA profiling upon which conviction primarily rested, was “ex facie doubtful and unworthy of credence” and that critical witnesses and sources of information were not examined, compelling an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further noted that capital punishment could be imposed only in the “rarest of rare” cases and that, on the evidence before it, such an irreversible sentence was unsustainable.

Background The prosecution case arose after a seven-year-old girl went missing from a wedding pandal at Sheeshmahal, Kathgodam, on 20 November 2014; her dead body was recovered from the Gaula river forest on 25 November 2014. The trial Court convicted accused Akhtar Ali for multiple offences including Section 376A, Section 363 and offences under the POCSO Act and sentenced him to death; another accused was convicted under Section 212 IPC; other accused were acquitted of several counts. The High Court in its 2019 common judgment upheld convictions in part and confirmed the death sentence. The State and the victim’s father had also filed appeals and references.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, defence counsel challenged the convictions primarily on grounds of (i) an incomplete and “shattered” chain of circumstantial evidence, (ii) non-examination of critical witnesses — notably Nikhil Chand, who first informed the police about the body’s location, (iii) suspicious circumstances of arrest and alleged manufacturing of recovery and forensic material, and (iv) material inconsistencies and procedural lacunae in the DNA and forensic reports and the qualifications of the reporting officer. The State relied on the last-seen evidence, motive, CDR/caller-location material and DNA reports matching the accused with semen found on certain exhibits.

The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, applied the Sharad Birdhichand Sharda principles on circumstantial proof, and examined the provenance and trustworthiness of forensic material in the factual matrix. The Court found material omissions in investigation (notably failure to interrogate or examine Nikhil Chand), contradictions in witness timings, doubtful circumstances surrounding the Ludhiana arrest and recovery memos, discrepancies in CDR procurement timings, and unexplained anomalies in forensic samples (for example, presence of semen in a cervical swab but not in contemporaneous cervical smear slides). The Court held that, once the DNA report was excluded for being unreliable in the given context, there remained no dependable evidence to connect the accused to the crime. Applying the settled test for death sentences, the Bench concluded that the evidentiary infirmities precluded imposition of capital punishment.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1097 (Criminal Appeal Nos. arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 14-15/2020 and 6573/2020) Case Title: Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v. State of Uttarakhand Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Manisha Bhandari, Advocate (for accused-appellants) For the Respondent(s): Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Advocate (for the State)

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals on 10 September 2025, set aside the judgments of the trial Court and the High Court, acquitted the accused-appellants of all charges, directed their release if not required in any other case, and discharged bail bonds.