Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Two Death Row Convicts in Murder Case

The Uttarakhand High Court has acquitted two individuals who were sentenced to death by a lower court for the murder of a woman during a robbery at her house. The court emphasized the importance of distinguishing between “vague estimates” and “definite conclusions” in criminal trials.

A division bench, headed by Chief Justice Ritu Bahri and comprising Justice Alok Kumar Verma, admonished the lower court for relying on suspicion rather than concrete proof. “Suspicion, however strong it might be, can never take the place of proof. It is the duty of the court to ensure that mere conjecture or suspicion does not take the place of legal proof before convicting an accused,” the bench stated in its order passed on Tuesday.

The judges highlighted the crucial distinction between what “could be” and what “should be” proven in a trial. “Vague estimates and definite conclusions in a criminal case must be distinguished during a trial,” they added, stressing that the gap between possibility and certainty must always be maintained in legal proceedings.

The case originated from a complaint filed by the victim’s son in June 2017. According to the FIR, the accused, identified as Kumar and Thapliyal, robbed the house of Sarojini Devi in Liswalata Patti Kot Bangar village, Rudraprayag district, killed her, and concealed her body behind the house. Although there were no eyewitnesses to the crime, some of the stolen jewellery and money were recovered from the accused.

Despite these recoveries, the high court found that the evidence presented was insufficient to uphold the death sentences. The judges underscored that the presence of recovered items alone could not conclusively prove the accused’s guilt in the murder without substantial and direct evidence linking them to the crime.

Also Read

• Suspicion Itself Cannot Take Place of Proof-Chhattisgarh HC Acquits Murder Accused
• Bail Granted to Accused of Causing Hurt During Robbery on Condition of Returning Robbed Amount
• Man walks free in rape case after Delhi court says suspicion not grave enough for trial
• To Frame Charge There Must be Grave Suspicion, Mere Suspicion Entitles Accused to be Discharged: Allahabad HC
• On Mere Suspicion, a Person Cannot Be Arrested Against Whom the Commission of Cognizable or Non-Bailable Offence Is Not Made Out and He Cannot Be Remanded to Judicial Custody: Chhattisgarh HC

This verdict underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that convictions in criminal cases are based on solid evidence and not merely on suspicion. The acquittal serves as a reminder of the high standards of proof required in criminal law, especially in cases involving capital punishment.