'Strong Inference Of Evidence Planting' : Supreme Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Death In Child Rape-Murder Case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday acquitted and set aside death penalty of one Akthar Ali convicted for rape causing death of a 7-year-old girl in 2014. The Court also acquitted co-accused Prem Pal Verma who was convicted for harbouring the offender.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed the criminal appeals filed by the two accused against the Uttarakhand High Court's October 18, 2019 judgment that upheld the conviction and death penalty.

“The law is well settled that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be firmly and conclusively established, leaving no room for doubt. Where two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted. In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to prove motive, the last seen theory stands contradicted, and the alleged scientific evidence is marred by inconsistencies and serious loopholes. In such circumstances, it would be wholly unsafe to uphold a conviction, much less the extreme penalty of death”, the Court observed.

The Court reiterated that death penalty can only be imposed in the rarest of rare cases on unimpeachable evidence and found that the trial court had not properly evaluated mitigating circumstances before awarding it.

The case arose when the victim girl went missing from the venue of a family wedding in Haldwani on November 20, 2014. The police found her body four days later in the forest of Gaula river near Sheeshmahal – the wedding venue, after the SHO got a call from the girl's cousin informing him about the same.

According to the prosecution, the accused took the victim to the forest area, sexually assaulted her and left her covered with leaves. Akhtar Ali allegedly led police to the crime scene for recovery of the victim's hairband.

The Special POCSO Court in Haldwani on March 11, 2016 convicted Akhtar Ali under Sections 376A, 363, 201 of the IPC; Sections 3 read with 4, 5 read with 6 and 7 read with 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and Section 66C of the IT Act. He was sentenced to death under Section 376A IPC and Sections 16 and 17 read with Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the POCSO Act, besides rigorous imprisonment of seven years each under Sections 363 and 201 IPC.

Prem Pal Verma was convicted under Section 212 IPC and Section 66C of the IT Act but acquitted of other charges including Sections 363, 201, 120-B, 376A IPC and POCSO provisions. The trial court acquitted a third accused.

The High Court upheld the convictions and the death sentence of Akhtar Ali while acquitting both accused of the IT Act charge. Thus, they approached the Supreme Court challenging the convictions and sentences.

The Supreme Court noted that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence as no one saw the incident. The prosecution relied on three circumstances – motive, last-seen theory, and scientific/forensic evidence (including DNA). While it was not disputed that the victim girl had suffered a homicidal death, the Court said that this did not automatically link the accused with the crime and each link had to be proved independently.

On motive, the prosecution had alleged that accused acted out of sexual lust after seeing the minor victim leave a wedding pandal. However, the Court said that the prosecution failed to show any depraved motive corroborated by evidence.

On the 'last seen theory', witnesses claimed they saw the accused near the location of the wedding on November 20, 2014, but the Court noted that their statements were recorded only on November 25 – after the body was found. Further, none of them placed the victim girl with the accused.

The Court said this belated evidence appeared manufactured. It also noted that the body's location was first disclosed by the victim's cousin, Nikhil Chand. Despite his pivotal role, he was never interrogated by the investigating officers or presented in court.

The Supreme Court said this omission deprived the trial court of the most vital link in the chain of circumstances because it was never explained how he knew where the body was lying when police teams had been frantically searching for days without success.

“This intentional and calculated omission not only undermines the 'last seen theory' but also causes serious prejudice, as it deprives the Court and the defence of the opportunity to test whether the knowledge of Nikhil Chand was innocent or otherwise. In the absence of this crucial testimony, 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”, the Court observed.

The Supreme Court noted that the credibility of DNA samples depended on lawful arrest and collection of samples. It found grave discrepancies in the arrest of Akhtar Ali. The prosecution claimed that the police traced Ali to Ludhiana on November 27 using tip by a “secret informer” and also two mobile numbers linked to him, and arrested him there.

The Court noted there was no General Diary entry showing the police team's departure to Ludhiana and no authorisation to arrest. Further, the call records were only obtained in January 2015 – after his arrest, and the numbers were not in Ali's name. There was no evidence linking Akhtar Ali to the SIM numbers cited.

Allegedly, the local people refused to stand witness to the arrest and search process, and therefore, the arresting officer had his companion police officials witness.

Further, the “secret informer” was never identified, produced, or examined, and the Court found it implausible that an unidentified person in Ludhiana could recognise Akhtar Ali, a driver from Bihar who was allegedly in Ludhiana for the first time.

The Court held these factors cast doubt on the legality of the arrest and the credibility of samples taken from him. “The story which has been projected in the evidence of the witness (arresting officer) is something out of fiction and is ex facie unbelievable”, the Court observed.

The Court highlighted major discrepancies in the DNA evidence: semen of Akhtar Ali allegedly found in the cervical swab was missing from the cervical smear prepared from the same source, and absent from the vaginal swab and vaginal wash. The semen of the other two alleged perpetrators was not detected on any exhibit.

The Court opined that this supported the defence argument that DNA was planted after illegal detention.

“These circumstances, starting from the so called arrest of accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali from Ludhiana (Punjab) taken cumulatively, are sufficient to give rise to a strong inference of tampering with the forensic samples and planting of semen of the accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali on these samples, i.e., cervical swab, undershirt, and underwear of the victim girl, so as to establish his involvement in the crime. In our opinion, the entire process of collection and examination of samples and the consequent matching of the DNA becomes suspicious and wholly unreliable”, the Court held.

The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances against Akhtar Ali and that the derivative case against Prem Pal Verma based on Akhtar Ali's alleged confession also fell apart. It ruled that the conviction of both accused could not be sustained.

“Trial Courts, as well as High Courts, are required to exercise the highest degree of circumspection before awarding the death penalty. The irreversible nature of capital punishment demands that it be imposed only in the “rarest of rare” cases…Even the slightest doubt or infirmity in the prosecution's case must weigh against the imposition of such a sentence. Any hasty or mechanical application of the death penalty, without ensuring the highest standards of proof and procedural fairness, not only undermines the rule of law but risks the gravest miscarriage of justice by extinguishing a human life irretrievably”, the Court observed, concluding that the prosecution failed to establish the complete and unbroken chain of circumstances necessary to bring home the guilt of the accused.

Case no. – SLP (Criminal) No. 14-15 of 2020

Case Title – Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v. State of Uttarakhand

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 890