The Supreme Court of India has set aside the conviction and death sentences of two men accused of the gang rape and murder of a 55-year-old woman in Uttarakhand. A three-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi ruled that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence or maintain the integrity and safe custody of forensic samples. Determining that the prosecution’s case was riddled with material contradictions, severe investigative lapses, and likely fabricated evidence, the apex court allowed the appeals and ordered the immediate release of the appellants.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to December 29, 2012, when Munni Devi, a resident of Sabhawala in Dehradun, went to the forest to graze goats at around 2:00 p.m. When she did not return by 5:00 p.m. and her goats returned unattended, her son Anil Chauhan (PW-1) and other relatives launched a search. At approximately 8:00 p.m., a local resident named Sanjay Bharadwaj discovered her dead body lying partially denuded in the bushes near a water channel. The victim bore multiple bite marks and blunt injuries.
The prosecution alleged that around 3:00 p.m. that afternoon, three young girls, including Anusuiya (PW-2) and Alka Chauhan (PW-4), were collecting grass when they were approached by two intoxicated youths who inquired about the whereabouts of a “Pahadan” (hill woman). Believing they were looking for Munni Devi to procure liquor, the girls pointed in her direction.
Following the discovery of the body, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered at Police Station Sahaspur. On December 30, 2012, the police inspected the crime scene and recovered a torn piece of shirt pocket. Sketches of the suspects were subsequently prepared based on descriptions provided by Anusuiya. On January 3, 2013, the appellants, Mehtab and Sushil @ Bhura, were apprehended. Following their arrest, the police claimed that Mehtab was wearing a shirt with a missing pocket that perfectly matched the piece recovered from the crime scene. Furthermore, the police alleged that pursuant to a disclosure statement made by Sushil, the victim’s salwar, white-metal earrings, and a broken nose pin were recovered from nearby bushes.
On January 23, 2014, the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Dehradun, convicted both men under Section 302 read with Section 34, Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. By an order dated January 27, 2014, both were sentenced to death for murder and life imprisonment for gang rape. On April 27, 2018, the High Court of Uttarakhand partially allowed their appeals by acquitting them under the SC/ST Act, but affirmed their convictions and death sentences for rape and murder. The execution of the death sentence was stayed by the Supreme Court on October 29, 2018, pending the final disposal of these appeals.
Arguments of the Parties
Submissions on Behalf of the Appellants
Senior Counsel Mr. A. Sirajudeen, appearing for the appellants, argued that the entire case was fabricated, resting on circumstantial evidence that failed to form an unbroken chain. Key arguments raised by the defense included:
- No Proof of Sexual Assault and Medical Impossibility: The defense argued that there was no conclusive medical opinion that the victim was raped. Crucially, Dr. B.S. Aswal (PW-12), who medically examined Mehtab, testified that due to a specific medical condition, it was physically impossible for Mehtab to engage in sexual intercourse.
- Absence of DNA Evidence: Despite semen being detected on the vaginal swab, no DNA profiling was conducted to match the samples with the appellants.
- Fabricated and Planted Evidence: The recovery of the shirt pocket was heavily contested. The defense highlighted that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) expert, Mr. Bhakt Darshan (PW-11), admitted the pocket was carefully unpicked stitch-by-stitch and not violently torn off during a scuffle, suggesting it was planted.
- Unreliable Blood Group Matching: While the victim had blood group “O” and blood of the same group was found on the recovered pocket, the blood groups of the appellants were never determined. Since “O” is a common blood group, this was not a determinative link.
- Failure to Conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP): The appellants were strangers to the eyewitnesses. The defense argued that the failure to conduct a TIP was fatal, especially since the suspects were shown to the witnesses while in police custody before identifying them in court.
- Suppression of Witnesses and Earliest Information: The defense argued that the prosecution withheld Neha, the victim’s granddaughter who was present during the initial encounter, and Sanjay Bharadwaj, the first person to find the body and call the police. The telephonic call by Bharadwaj, which constituted the earliest information, was also suppressed.
- Broken Chain of Custody: There was an unexplained delay in sending the shirt and the pocket to the FSL (recovered Dec 30 / Jan 3, but sent only on Jan 24), and the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody of the articles in the police malkhana.
Submissions on Behalf of the Respondent-State
The state counsel vehemently opposed the appeals, arguing that the circumstantial chain was robust and fully established the appellants’ guilt:
- Last Seen Circumstance: The victim went to the forest, and shortly thereafter, the appellants—who were under the influence of alcohol—specifically inquired about her and went in her direction.
- Corroborating Medical and Forensic Evidence: Dr. Mahavir Singh (PW-3) proved that the victim had ten ante-mortem injuries, some of which were caused by physical assault and teeth bites. The FSL report scientifically matched the torn pocket with Mehtab’s shirt, and blood of group “O” was found on Mehtab’s shirt.
- Exclusive Knowledge of Hidden Items: The state argued that the salwar, nose pin, and earrings of the deceased were recovered from the bushes based on the voluntary disclosure statement of Sushil, pointing to his exclusive knowledge of the crime scene.
- Valid Identification: Although no TIP was conducted, the appellants were apprehended because their faces matched the sketches drawn based on Anusuiya’s descriptions, and they were later identified in open court.
Court’s Analysis and Precedents
The Supreme Court examined the evidence under the established principles of circumstantial criminal jurisprudence, noting that the prosecution bears the onerous burden of proving every incriminating circumstance beyond reasonable doubt.
1. The “Last Seen Together” and Identification Lapses
The Court identified severe contradictions regarding the sketches used to arrest the appellants. While Anusuiya claimed the sketches were made on December 30, 2012, at her house, Station Officer Surya Bhushan Negi (PW-16) testified they were made on December 31. The sketch artist was never examined, and the prosecution offered a “flimsy and unconvincing” safety excuse to keep the artist’s identity anonymous. The Court noted that the sketches produced were unsigned photocopies and did not depict a moustache or long hair, which directly contradicted Anusuiya’s description of the suspects.
Furthermore, the Court took a grim view of the prosecution’s decision to withhold Neha, the granddaughter of the deceased, from testifying:
“The withholding of such a crucial witness, without any explanation, gives rise to a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and casts a substantial doubt on the integrity and fairness of the investigation as well as on the reliability of the prosecution’s version of events.”
The Court also highlighted the total failure to hold a TIP, stating that showing the accused to the witness while in custody before their dock identification completely diminished its evidentiary value. It added that merely seeing the appellants walk towards a large forest with multiple access routes did not prove they were the sole perpetrators.
2. Doubts Over the Recoveries and Fabricated Shirt Pocket
The Court raised serious questions about how multiple police searches initially missed a large salwar and ornaments lying just 25 meters from the body, only to find them later via a disclosure statement. The Court also found it highly improbable that the accused would meticulously tie the ornaments inside the salwar and hide them near the crime scene.
Reviewing the seizure of Mehtab’s shirt and the matching pocket, the Court observed that the seizure memos lacked dates and Mehtab’s signatures. Crucially, FSL expert Bhakt Darshan (PW-11) admitted the pocket was carefully unstitched, with the stitching on the corners remaining intact:
“We are of the considered view that the alleged recovery and matching of the shirt pocket is nothing but a padded and created circumstance introduced by the investigating agency in an attempt to lend support to the prosecution case.”
3. Compromised Chain of Custody of Forensic Samples
The Supreme Court noted that the prosecution failed to prove how the forensic samples were preserved and handled between their seizure and their arrival at the FSL. Citing its own precedent in Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of Maharashtra (2023), the Court emphasized the necessity of a documented “chain of custody”:
“Chain of custody implies that right from the time of taking of the sample, to the time its role in the investigation and processes subsequent, is complete, each person handling said piece of evidence must duly be acknowledged in the documentation, so as to ensure that the integrity is uncompromised.”
Because the prosecution failed to establish this unbroken chain, the Court held that the forensic reports lost their scientific and legal sanctity.
4. Relevance of Blood Group Matching and Lack of Motive
Addressing the prosecution’s reliance on the matching “O” blood group, the Court referred to Allarakha Habib Memon v. State of Gujarat (2024), which cited Mustkeem v. State of Rajasthan (2011), reiterating:
“this circumstance in isolation, cannot be considered sufficient so as to link the accused with the crime.”
Finally, the Court pointed out that the medical testimony of Dr. B.S. Aswal (PW-12) proving Mehtab’s physical inability to engage in intercourse completely shattered the prosecution’s theory of motive based on “carnal desire.”
The Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the judgments of the trial court and the High Court of Uttarakhand had glossed over patent infirmities and loopholes in the investigation. Delivering its final determination, the Court held:
“As these vital incriminating circumstances have not been proved beyond all manner of doubt, it would not be safe to sustain the conviction of the appellants or the sentence of death awarded to them.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments of conviction and sentences passed by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court, and acquitted both Mehtab and Sushil @ Bhura of all charges. The Court directed their immediate release from custody.
Case Details
Case Title: Mehtab v. State of Uttarakhand
Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1342-1343 of 2018 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 1340-1341 of 2018
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Justice Vijay Bishnoi
Date: May 27, 2026
