The Supreme Court has acquitted two men who had been sentenced to death in a 2012 rape and murder case from Uttarakhand, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and reliable chain of circumstantial evidence.
A Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta , Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Vijay Bishnoi set aside the judgments of the trial court and the Uttarakhand High Court in the case concerning the death of a 55-year-old woman in Dehradun district. The Court found serious flaws in the investigation, including the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP), doubtful recovery evidence, and inconsistencies surrounding the sketches allegedly used to identify the accused.
Background of the Case
The prosecution alleged that on December 29, 2012, the deceased woman had gone into a forest area to graze goats and never returned home. Her body was later found in bushes near a water channel. Police alleged that the two accused had sexually assaulted and murdered her.
The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and awarded the death penalty for murder. The Uttarakhand High Court later confirmed the death sentence while acquitting them of charges under the SC/ST Act.
The accused then approached the Supreme Court challenging their conviction.
The Supreme Court noted that the prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and there was no eyewitness to the alleged crime. The Bench reiterated that in such cases, every link in the chain of circumstances must be firmly established.
The Court observed, “Mere suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of legal proof.”
According to the Bench, the prosecution relied mainly on two circumstances - the “last seen together” theory and the alleged recoveries made during investigation. However, the Court found both sets of evidence unreliable.
A major issue before the Court was the identification of the accused persons by witnesses who had allegedly seen two unknown men in the forest shortly before the incident.
The Bench pointed out that the accused were not previously known to the witnesses and yet no Test Identification Parade was conducted. Instead, the prosecution relied on sketches allegedly prepared on the basis of witness descriptions.
The Court noted several inconsistencies regarding the preparation of those sketches. It observed that the sketch artist was neither identified nor examined during trial, and even the original sketches were never produced before the Court.
The Bench further found that the witnesses first identified the accused only after they had already been shown to them in police custody.
“Failure of the investigating agency to hold a TIP materially undermines the credibility of the prosecution version,” the Court said.
The Supreme Court also questioned why the prosecution failed to examine a crucial witness named Neha, who was allegedly present with the two other witnesses when the suspects approached them in the forest.
The Court observed that her non-examination amounted to withholding important evidence and created a serious gap in the prosecution story.
The prosecution had claimed that a torn shirt pocket recovered from the crime scene matched the shirt of one accused. It also relied on the recovery of certain ornaments and clothing allegedly belonging to the deceased.
However, the Supreme Court found significant weaknesses in the recovery evidence. The Bench noted inconsistencies in forensic handling, unexplained delays in sending articles for examination, and doubts about whether the recoveries were genuine.
The Court also observed that the prosecution failed to establish a proper chain of custody for the seized materials.
After examining the entire record, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
The Bench concluded that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and incapable of conclusively pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and death sentence imposed on the appellants, and acquitted them of all charges.
Case Details
Case Title: Mehtab v. State of Uttarakhand
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1342-1343 of 2018 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 1340-1341 of 2018
Judge: Justice Sandeep Mehta , Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
Decision Date: May 27, 2026
