LexGAMBHIR SINGH versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1508 : 2025 INSC 164 Gambhir Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No(s). 850-851 of 2019) 28 January 2025 [Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the sustainability of the order passed by the High Court upholding the order of conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 34 – Murder – Death sentence – Appellant convicted for the ghastly incident involving murder of his real brother, sister-in-law, and their four children and awarded death sentence – Acquittal of the co-accused by giving her the benefit of the doubt – Appeal thereagainst by the State, dismissed – Also, dismissal of the appeal filed by the appellant, upholding the order of conviction and death sentence – Sustainability: Held: Not sustainable – Prosecution failed to prove even one of the three so-called incriminating circumstances, ‘motive’, ‘last seen’ and ‘recoveries’ in its quest to bring home the guilt of the appellant – Prosecution failed to lead even an iota of evidence to show that the appellant was deprived of the plot of land owned by him so as to connect such transaction with the theory of motive – Evidence of some prosecution witnesses conjectural and hearsay in nature – Two prosecution witnesses created by the prosecution and their testimony totally unworthy of credence – Inherent infirmities in the testimony of the Investigating Officer completely discredits the prosecution’s case regarding the so-called incriminating recoveries – Substratum of the prosecution case regarding the disclosure statements rendered by the appellant and the recoveries allegedly made in furtherance thereof remains unproved for want of proper evidence – Utter lackadaisical approach on part of the Investigating Agency as well as the prosecution – Investigation of a case involving gruesome murders of six innocent persons carried out in a most casual and negligent manner contributing * Author [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1509 Gambhir Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh significantly to the failure of the prosecution’s case as against the appellant – Public Prosecutor conducting the trial and as also the Presiding Officer of the trial court totally remiss while conducting the trial – Evidence of the material prosecution witness recorded without adhering to the mandatory procedural requirements of the Evidence Act – High Court failed to advert to the inherent improbabilities and infirmities in the prosecution case – Impugned judgments quashed and the conviction of the appellant set aside – Evidence Act, 1872. [Paras 20-22, 26, 27, 32, 34-38] Case Law Cited Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra [1985] 1 SCR 88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [1974] 1 SCR 489 : (1973) 2 SCC 793 – referred to. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Evidence Act, 1872; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Circumstantial evidence; Death penalty/sentence; Confirmation of death sentence; Beyond reasonable doubt; Incriminating circumstances; Hearsay; Conjectural evidence; Last seen; Theory of motive; Recoveries; Want of proper evidence; Lackadaisical approach on part of investigating agency; Negligence in conducting investigation. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s). 850-851 of 2019 From the Judgment and Order dated 09.01.2019 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CCN No. 1900 of 2017 and RN No. 07 of 2017 Appearances for Parties Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, Ms. Aarti U. Mishra, Harsh Som, Advs. for the Appellant. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Sushil Kumar Tomar, Shaurya Krishna, Advs. for the Respondents. 1510 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Mehta, J. 1. Heard. 2. The law is well-settled that in a criminal case irrespective of the gravity and nature of charges, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove the guilt of the accused by leading evidence which is convincing and links the accused with the crime beyond all manner of reasonable doubt. In a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, the onus is upon the prosecution to prove the chain of circumstances beyond all manner of doubt. The law in respect of the same has been crystallized in Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra1 wherein it was held that:- “153. A close analysis of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.