'Case based on circumstantial evidence': Supreme Court acquits rape-murder accused men on death sentence

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has acquitted two men who were sentenced to death by the trial court and had their conviction upheld by the Uttarakhand High Court in the rape and murder of a 55-year-old woman in 2012.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the concurrent findings of guilt, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that both the trial court and the High Court had overlooked serious infirmities in the evidence.

The court allowed the appeals filed by Mehtab and Sushil alias Bhura, ordering their immediate release from jail. The court had stayed their execution in 2018.

The incident occurred on December 29, 2012, when the victim, a mother of the complainant, had gone to the forest in Uttarakhand to graze goats around 2 pm. Her body was later found with the lower part of her body unclothed and bite marks on her face and other parts.

The prosecution alleged she was sexually assaulted and murdered. The two men were arrested on January 3, 2013. The case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the “last seen together” theory and recoveries made at the instance of the accused.

In its May 27, 2026 judgment, the court noted several critical gaps in the prosecution’s case, including the “last seen together” circumstance was not established beyond doubt.

The bench highlighted the non-examination of Neha, a key witness who was with other girls in the forest and was the granddaughter of the deceased. Her statement had been recorded during investigation, but she was not produced in court, which the court termed as suppression of the best available evidence.

It also pointed out the Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted despite the accused being strangers to the eyewitnesses. The court said this undermined the credibility of the identification.

The bench also noted the recoveries, including a shirt pocket allegedly belonging to Mehtab and ornaments of the victim, were doubtful. The bench described some of these as “padded and created” circumstances.

It also noted the forensic evidence was inconclusive. No DNA profiling was done to link the semen or bloodstains to the accused. Significantly, medical examination revealed that Mehtab suffered from a condition that made sexual intercourse impossible, casting serious doubt on the prosecution’s theory of motive.

The bench observed that the evidence suffered from material inconsistencies, procedural irregularities and serious infirmities that struck at the root of the prosecution case.

“The prosecution has miserably failed to establish any of the so-called incriminating circumstances so as to connect the appellants with the crime in question,” the court said.

It added that in a case based solely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of circumstances pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused, which was not done here.

The trial court had convicted the duo on January 23, 2014, under Sections 302 read with 34 and 376 (2) (g) of the IPC, besides charges under the SC/ST Act.

The High Court acquitted them of the SC/ST charges in 2018 but upheld the death sentence for the other offences. The Supreme Court held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt and directed their forthwith release.