2026 Supreme(SC) 625

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, VIJAY BISHNOI, JJ.
Mehtab – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1342-1343 of 2018 With Criminal Appeal No.(s) 1340-1341 of 2018
Decided On : 27-05-2026

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Gang rape and murder – Mere recovery of a bloodstained article, in absence of reliable evidence connecting the same with commission of offence, cannot constitute a determinative incriminating circumstance against accused.
(2) Where accused are strangers to witnesses, TIP assumes considerable significance in providing assurance as to sanctity of dock identification.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 and 376(2)(g) – Gang rape and murder – Common intention – Death sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Last-seen together evidence – Where accused are strangers to witnesses, TIP assumes considerable significance in providing assurance as to sanctity of dock identification – Rank failure of investigating agency to hold TIP, materially undermines credibility of prosecution version insofar as identification of appellants is concerned – Prosecution has failed to establish authenticity and reliability of sketches on the basis whereof appellants are alleged to have been identified – Place where dead body of deceased-victim was eventually recovered was situated deep inside forest and possibility of ingress and egress by several other persons cannot be ruled out – Prosecution has miserably failed to establish circumstance of “last seen together” in a cogent and reliable manner. (Paras 55, 57, 59, 62 and 63)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 and 376(2)(g) – Gang rape and murder – Common intention – Death sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Prosecution has failed to furnish any plausible or satisfactory explanation for inordinate and unexplained delay in forwarding incriminating articles for forensic examination – Possibility that articles allegedly recovered pursuant to alleged disclosure statement of appellants were withheld during investigation so as to be subsequently planted upon appellants cannot be ruled out – Since blood group ‘O’ is a common blood group, mere presence of blood of that group on recovered articles cannot, by itself, be treated as an incriminating circumstance against accused – Mere recovery of a bloodstained article, in absence of reliable evidence connecting the same with commission of offence, cannot constitute a determinative incriminating circumstance against accused – FSL report merely records presence of semen traces in vaginal swab collected during post-mortem examination and does not, in absence of any corroborative material, establish appellants' complicity in alleged offence – Evidence on record is replete with material omissions, procedural irregularities and unexplained deficiencies – Appellants acquitted of all charges levelled against them. (Paras 78, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 and 93)

(C) Criminal Law – Circumstantial evidence – In a case resting solely on circumstantial evidence, prosecution carries onerous burden of establishing each incriminating circumstance beyond reasonable doubt – Unlike a case founded on direct ocular testimony, where commission of offence is spoken to by eyewitnesses, case based on circumstantial evidence requires Court to carefully evaluate whether circumstances relied upon by prosecution have been firmly and cogently proved and that circumstances so proved form complete chain pointing unerringly towards guilt of accused person – Each circumstance forming part of chain must stand independently established and cumulative effect thereof must be such as to lead only to irresistible conclusion that accused alone is perpetrator of crime – Mere suspicion, however grave, cannot take place of legal proof, and circumstances proved must be incompatible with innocence of accused. (Paras 40 and 41)

Facts of the case:

Division Bench of High Court, vide common judgment dated 27th April, 2018, partly allowed appeals preferred by appellants by acquitting them of charge under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, while maintaining their conviction and sentences for remaining offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 376(2)(g) of IPC. High Court also answered death reference in affirmative and confirmed sentence of death awarded to appellants by the trial Court.

Findings of Court:

Impugned judgment of conviction dated 23rd January, 2014 and order of sentence dated 27th January, 2014 passed by the trial Court and the common judgment dated 27th April, 2018 passed by High Court are hereby set aside. Conviction of the appellants and the sentences awarded to them, by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court are also set aside.

Result : Criminal Appeal allowed.