Back
Sahab Singh alias Sat Pal: Supreme Court acquits, holds weak evidence
The , in a significant ruling on , acquitted Sahab Singh alias Sat Pal, who had spent over 16 years in prison for the murder of a six-year-old boy. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva found the prosecution's case riddled with and held that the relied upon was too weak to sustain a conviction. The Court granted the appellant the and ordered his immediate release.
The case dates back to , when six-year-old Gaurav went missing from his village in Ambala after attending a marriage. His body was recovered from a well the next morning, with the post-mortem attributing death to smothering and a cervical spinal injury. The prosecution alleged that Sahab Singh was the last person seen with the child, had purchased a packet of namkeen and cold tablets, committed an unnatural sexual assault, smothered the boy, and threw his body into the well. Two days later, he was said to have confessed to the village sarpanch, Shiv Chand, leading to his arrest and conviction by the trial court in . The upheld the conviction in .
The appellant's counsel argued that the case was based entirely on and failed to establish a complete chain. They highlighted that the "last seen" theory was unsupported by witness testimony, the was unreliable, and the did not lead to any new discovery since the body had already been recovered. The State, however, defended the conviction, pointing to the confession, the recovery of the namkeen packet, and forensic evidence of semen on the victim's and accused's underwear.
The Supreme Court meticulously examined the evidence and identified several gaps. On the "last seen" theory, the Court noted that prosecution witnesses did not clearly state that the child was with the accused. The High Court itself had observed that the testimony did not establish the accused and deceased being seen together, yet it still upheld the conviction based on a suggestion in cross-examination—a reasoning the Supreme Court found flawed.
Regarding the packet of namkeen, the Court questioned its evidentiary value, noting it was a common item sold in thousands. The seizure on , two days before the alleged confession, appeared designed to create a link rather than arising from genuine discovery. The before the sarpanch, who had a friendly relationship with the police, was also viewed skeptically. The Court reiterated that an is a and cannot form the sole basis for conviction without independent corroboration.
The Court also rejected the , pointing out that no new fact was discovered—the body had been recovered and a site plan prepared before the statement. Similarly, the forensic evidence of semen was not backed by DNA testing to link the samples to the accused, and the burden could not be shifted onto him without such proof.
Key observations from the judgment include:
-
"
is a
and
without any independent and cogent corroborative circumstance or evidence cannot be made the sole basis for conviction."
-
"There does not appear to be any reasonable explanation as to why the packet of namkeen, which was allegedly found at the site, was also seized."
-
"The High Court has erred in repeatedly holding that the
led to the discovery of the body, which is clearly incorrect—the body was discovered two days prior to the
."
-
"There are several
in the chain of the prosecution case which, in our view, do not establish
that the accused was the person who committed the offence."
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence. It extended the to Sahab Singh alias Sat Pal and reaffirmed the order for his immediate release, unless his custody was required in another case. The ruling underscores the fundamental principle that the prosecution must prove its case , and weak or incomplete cannot justify a conviction.
