1. Murder of six family members — Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 404, IPC — Appeal against conviction and death sentence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 11 , 12 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 285
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Gambhir Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(S). 850-851 of 2019
Decided on : 28-01-2025
Important Points
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, especially those based on circumstantial evidence, failing which the accused must be acquitted.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.313, S.366
EVIDENCE ACT : S.27
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.302, S.34, S.404
EVIDENCE ACT : S.27
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.302, S.34, S.404
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Indian Evidence Act - Section 27 - Criminal law - Conviction and death sentence of appellant-accused for the murder of six family members, including four children, was challenged - Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, lacking credible evidence on motive, last seen theory, and recoveries - The court emphasized that the prosecution must establish a clear chain of circumstances linking the accused to the crime. (Paras 2, 36)
(B) Burden of Proof - In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence - The court reiterated that mere suspicion or conjecture is insufficient for conviction. (Paras 2, 36)
Facts of the case:
The appellant-accused was convicted for the murder of his brother, sister-in-law, and their four children, with the incident occurring on the night of May 8-9, 2012. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including alleged motive and recoveries. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish any incriminating circumstances against the appellant-accused, leading to the conclusion that the conviction was unsustainable. (Paras 36, 38)
Issues: The main issues included whether the prosecution proved the motive, the last seen theory, and the recoveries made from the accused. (Paras 36)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's failure to provide credible evidence on key aspects of the case, including motive and the reliability of witness testimonies, warranted the acquittal of the appellant-accused. (Paras 36, 38)
Result: The conviction and death sentence of the appellant-accused were quashed, and he was acquitted of all charges. (Paras 38, 39)
(B) Burden of Proof - In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence - The court reiterated that mere suspicion or conjecture is insufficient for conviction. (Paras 2, 36)
Facts of the case:
The appellant-accused was convicted for the murder of his brother, sister-in-law, and their four children, with the incident occurring on the night of May 8-9, 2012. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including alleged motive and recoveries. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish any incriminating circumstances against the appellant-accused, leading to the conclusion that the conviction was unsustainable. (Paras 36, 38)
Issues: The main issues included whether the prosecution proved the motive, the last seen theory, and the recoveries made from the accused. (Paras 36)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's failure to provide credible evidence on key aspects of the case, including motive and the reliability of witness testimonies, warranted the acquittal of the appellant-accused. (Paras 36, 38)
Result: The conviction and death sentence of the appellant-accused were quashed, and he was acquitted of all charges. (Paras 38, 39)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
-
practice and procedure
- evidence
- criminal procedure
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, AOR Ms. Aarti U. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Harsh Som, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR Mr. Sushil Kumar Tomar, Adv. Mr. Shaurya Krishna, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, AOR Ms. Aarti U. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Harsh Som, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR Mr. Sushil Kumar Tomar, Adv. Mr. Shaurya Krishna, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Appellant claims fabricated evidence and failure to prove motive, last seen, and recoveries — State contends these circumstances are proved and crime is gruesome. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 )
3. Prosecution failed to establish motive, last seen theory, and recoveries; investigation was negligent; FSL report was inconclusive regarding blood grouping. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 )
4. In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete, excluding every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. (Para 2 )
5. Conviction and death sentence set aside — Appellant acquitted and ordered to be released. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 )
6. What conditions must be fulfilled to establish guilt in a criminal case based purely on circumstantial evidence?
The circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, conclusive in nature, exclude every other possible hypothesis, and form a complete chain of evidence leaving no reasonable ground for innocence. (Para 2 )
7. When is a theory of motive considered unproved in a criminal trial?
When the prosecution relies on bald aspersions or hearsay without producing plausible evidence, such as documentary proof of land disputes or records of previous criminal cases. (Para 20 , 21 )
8. How does the court evaluate the credibility of last seen evidence?
The court examines the timing of the sighting relative to the crime and the physical probability of the accused's movements; contradictory timings or improbable distances can render such testimony unworthy of credence. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 )
9. What evidentiary failures can invalidate recoveries made based on disclosure statements?
Failure to prove or exhibit disclosure statements, lack of distinct identification of the accused associated with specific recoveries, and absence of signatures on recovery memos. (Para 32 )
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. The law is well-settled that in a criminal case irrespective of the gravity and nature of charges, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove the guilt of the accused by leading evidence which is convincing and links the accused with the crime beyond all manner of reasonable doubt. In a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, the onus is upon the prosecution to prove the chain of circumstances beyond all manner of doubt. The law in respect of the same has been crystallized in Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116. wherein it was held that:-
“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047]
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. (emphasis supplied)
3. Keeping in view the above principles, we shall now advert to the facts of the case at hand. The appellant i.e., Gambhir Singh2[Hereinafter, referred to as ‘appellant-accused’.] has been convicted and sentenced to death in relation to a ghastly incident involving murder of his own brother3[The brother, namely “Satyabhan”.], sister-in-law4[The sister-in-law, namely “Pushpa”.] and their four innocent children5[The children, namely Aarti, Mahla, Gudia and Kanhaiya.]. The incident took place in the house of the deceased persons at village Turkiya on the intervening night of 8th and 9th May, 2012.
4. The case of prosecution in a nutshell is that on 9th May, 2012 at about 6:30 am, Mahaveer Singh (PW-1), being the brother of deceased Pushpa, received shocking information that his sister, brother-in-law, nephew and nieces had been hacked to death. On receiving this information, Mahaveer Singh (PW-1), his family members, along with other villagers reached village Turkiya, where his sister used to reside along with her husband and four children. They proceeded to the house and saw that all the six members of the family had been killed in a heinous manner with blows of sharp and blunt weapons.
5. Mahaveer Singh (PW-1), the informant lodged a written report6[Exhibit Ka- 1.] with Station House Officer, Police Station Achhnera, District Agra alleging inter alia that the marriage of his sister Pushpa had been solemnized about 12 years ago with Satyabhan, son of Shiv Singh, resident of village Turkiya. From their wedlock a son and three daughters were born. The appellant-accused, younger brother of Satyabhan, bore enmity with them due to a land dispute. On 8th May, 2012, the appellant-accused was staying with his friend Abhishek at the house of the informant’s sister. On 9th May, 2012 Mahaveer Singh (PW-1) received information that
