In a scathing indictment of investigative and prosecutorial lapses, the Supreme Court of India has overturned the conviction and death sentence of Gambhir Singh, accused of the brutal murder of six family members. The Court found that the case against Singh was riddled with inconsistencies, unproven allegations, and fabricated evidence, stating that “the fabric of the prosecution case is full of holes and holes which are impossible to mend.”
The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta, ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove the three key incriminating circumstances—motive, last-seen evidence, and recoveries of weapons—beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment underscores the principle that a conviction cannot rest on assumptions and unsubstantiated evidence.
Background of the Case
The case pertains to a gruesome multiple homicide that took place in village Turkiya, Uttar Pradesh, on the night of May 8-9, 2012. The victims included Gambhir Singh’s brother, sister-in-law, and their four children. The crime scene presented a horrific picture, with the victims having been hacked to death with sharp-edged weapons.
The prosecution’s case rested on the allegations that Gambhir Singh, driven by a land dispute, murdered his family members with the help of two accomplices—Abhishek and Gayatri. A complaint was lodged by Mahaveer Singh (PW-1), the brother of deceased Pushpa, leading to an FIR (No. 105 of 2012, Case Crime No. 329 of 2012) under Section 302 IPC at Achhnera Police Station, Agra.
The trial court convicted Gambhir Singh and sentenced him to death on March 20, 2017, while co-accused Gayatri was acquitted due to lack of evidence. The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction and confirmed the death penalty on January 9, 2019. The case then reached the Supreme Court in a special leave petition.
Key Legal Issues and Supreme Court’s Observations
1. Failure to Establish Motive
The prosecution claimed that Gambhir Singh killed his family due to a land dispute arising from the sale of his property to his brother’s wife, Pushpa, to cover legal expenses in a prior case involving the murder of their own mother. However, the Supreme Court found no documentary or substantive evidence to support this claim.
“The prosecution failed to lead even an iota of evidence to show that the appellant-accused was deprived of the plot of land so as to connect such transaction with the theory of motive,” the Court noted.
2. Flawed ‘Last Seen’ Evidence
Witnesses claimed to have seen Gambhir Singh, Abhishek, and Gayatri near the crime scene on the evening of May 8, 2012, hours before the murder. However, the Supreme Court dismissed this testimony as unreliable.
“The distance between Achhnera and Turkiya is about 7-10 km. The probability of the accused traversing this long distance wearing blood-stained clothes after committing six murders is virtually impossible and unbelievable,” the Court observed.
3. Questionable Recovery of Weapons
The prosecution alleged that the accused led the police to the crime scene, where weapons used in the murders—a kulhari (axe) and katari (dagger)—were recovered. However, the Supreme Court found serious procedural flaws in these recoveries:
- The investigating officer (PW-12) failed to prove or exhibit the disclosure statement of the accused.
- The police failed to record the accused’s signatures on the recovery memos.
- The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report confirmed the presence of human blood on some items but failed to ascertain the blood group, making the evidence inconclusive.
“Even if the recovery of weapons is accepted, the FSL report does not indicate the grouping of the blood found on the weapons, rendering the evidence worthless,” the Court remarked.
4. Criticism of the Investigation and Trial
The Supreme Court lambasted the police investigation as shoddy, negligent, and full of loopholes, stating that:
“The investigation of a case involving gruesome murders of six innocent persons was carried out in a most casual and negligent manner. No effort whatsoever was made to collect proper evidence of motive. The investigating officer failed to collect any evidence regarding the safe keeping of the recovered articles till they reached the Forensic Science Laboratory.”
The Court also pointed fingers at the trial court and prosecution, stating that the case was built on fabricated evidence and lacked proper scrutiny.
“The Public Prosecutor and the Presiding Officer of the trial court were totally remiss. The evidence of the material prosecution witness was recorded in a most casual and lackadaisical manner, without adhering to the mandatory procedural requirements of the Evidence Act.”
Verdict: Supreme Court Acquits Gambhir Singh
Given these glaring lapses, the Supreme Court concluded that the conviction and death sentence could not stand.
“The fabric of the prosecution case is full of holes and holes which are impossible to mend. Thus, the impugned judgments do not stand to scrutiny and deserve to be set aside,” the Court declared.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court quashed the convictions of Gambhir Singh and ordered his immediate release from custody, stating:
“The appellant, Gambhir Singh, is acquitted of all charges. He shall be released from prison forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.”
With this verdict, the Supreme Court reinforced the fundamental principle that a conviction must be based on solid evidence, not assumptions, conjectures, or procedural lapses.
