LexAKHTAR ALI @ ALI AKHTAR @ SHAMIM @ RAJA USTAD versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 585 : 2025 INSC 1097 Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v. State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No(s). 3955-3956 of 2025) 10 September 2025 [Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the conviction of the appellants, as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court, deserves to be upheld or whether they are entitled to acquittal. Headnotes† Circumstantial evidence – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – ss.3 r/w 4, 5 r/w 6, 7 r/w 8 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.376A, 363, 212, 120-B and 201 – Case of the prosecution that the deceased-minor girl was raped and sodomised and the accused-appellants were seen in close proximity to her shortly before she went missing from a wedding function and was later found dead – Prosecution relied upon motive of lust; the last seen theory and the alleged scientific evidence – Appellant No.1 was convicted u/ss.376A, IPC and ss.16, 17 3 r/w 4-7, POCSO Act and ss.363, and 201, IPC and was awarded death sentence – While, the appellant No.2 was convicted additionally u/s.212, IPC also and was sentenced accordingly – Guilt of the appellants, if was proved beyond reasonable doubt: Held: 1.1 No – The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt – In cases resting on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be firmly and conclusively established, leaving no room for doubt – Where two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted. [Paras 53, 56] 1.2 As regards ‘motive’, the prosecution has merely alleged that the appellants were driven by lust – However, no independent or credible evidence has been adduced to substantiate such a motive – A bald assertion without corroboration cannot by itself form a safe basis for conviction. [Para 52] * Author 586 [2025] 9 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports 1.3 The ‘last seen theory’ relied upon by the prosecution suffers from serious infirmities – The prosecution has failed to prove the proximity of time and place so as to shift the burden onto the accused – The entire prosecution case linking the accused-appellants to the crime through the ‘last seen theory’ rests upon the belated introduction of interested witnesses after the body was recovered, upon the information given by ‘NC’ (deceased victim’s cousin) – Despite being a close relative who first disclosed the situs of the victim girl’s dead body, he was never examined or interrogated by the investigating officers – This omission is of grave significance. [Paras 31, 32, 52] 1.4 The utter failure of the Investigating Officer to question him so as to find out the source of his knowledge about the dead body of the victim girl depicts gravely tainted and suspicious actions of the Investigating agencies – The Investigating Officer’s failure to record a statement of ‘NC’ during the investigation and the omission of the prosecution to present him for deposition at the trial deprived the Court of the most vital link in the chain of circumstances – This intentional and calculated omission not only undermines the ‘last seen theory’ but also causes serious prejudice, as it deprives the Court and the defence of the opportunity to test whether the knowledge of ‘NC’ was innocent or otherwise – In the absence of this crucial testimony, the last seen circumstance collapses completely – Non-examination of ‘NC’ compels the Court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution. [Para 32] 1.5 Furthermore, the scientific evidence also is itself riddled with deficiencies – The alleged theory of DNA found on the body of the victim girl matching with the DNA of appellant No. 1, is ex facie doubtful and unworthy of credence – Also, the prosecution’s claim that the appellant No.1’s location was traced through mobile surveillance is falsified by its own record, as the call detail records were procured much later and no evidence exists to link the appellant No.1 with the sim numbers in question – Likewise, the omission to examine crucial witnesses, including the subscribers of the relevant mobile numbers and most importantly ‘NC’ further weakens the case of the prosecution. [Para 52] 2.1 Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove motive, the last seen theory stands contradicted, and the alleged scientific evidence is marred by inconsistencies and serious loopholes – It is wholly unsafe to uphold a conviction,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.