Holding

The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances and reliable forensic evidence, so the convictions and death sentence were set aside, resulting in acquittal of the appellants.

Summary

The appellants were convicted for the rape and murder of a minor girl based on circumstantial evidence, a disputed 'last seen' theory, alleged motive of lust, and DNA forensic reports. The Supreme Court examined the credibility of the motive, the reliability of the last seen testimony, and the integrity of the forensic evidence, noting serious investigative lapses, non‑examination of a key witness, and doubts about the legality of the arrests. It held that the chain of circumstances was broken, the DNA evidence was unreliable, and the prosecution had not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court found the death penalty unjustifiable under the 'rarest of rare' doctrine. The convictions and death sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. The appeals were allowed and the appellants were ordered to be released.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of circumstantial evidence, motive, last seen theory, and DNA forensic evidence.
Whether the alleged motive of lust and the 'last seen' theory constitute a reliable link in the chain of circumstances.
Whether the DNA evidence and forensic samples were collected and analyzed in a lawful and reliable manner.
Whether the death penalty can be imposed in the present case under the 'rarest of rare' principle.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 201, s. 212, s. 302, s. 363, s. 365, s. 376, s. 376A
Information Technology Act, 2000s. 66C
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012s. 16, s. 17 r/w 4-7, s. 3 r/w 4, s. 5 r/w 6, s. 7 r/w 8

Headnote

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 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

Subjects

RapeCircumstantial evidenceMotiveLast seen theoryScientific evidenceDNA evidenceForensic sample tamperingDeath penaltyRarest of rareInvestigation lapsesArrest legalityPOCSO ActIPCIT ActAcquittal

Judgment

[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, much less the extreme penalty of death –
Since the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstances
against appellant No.1, the very foundation of the case against
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 587

Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v.
State of Uttarakhand

appellant No. 2 is also destroyed as the same rests primarily on the
alleged extra-judicial confession of accused-appellant No.1 inter alia
stating that upon seeing the victim girl coming out of the wedding
Pandal, he and his companions (appellant No.2 and the other
accused) minds got vitiated by lust and thus decided to engage in
carnal acts – Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges
against appellant No. 2 also, beyond a reasonable doubt and his
conviction also cannot be sustained. [Paras 38, 53, 55]
2.2 Impugned common judgment passed by the Division Bench of
the High Court and the judgment of the Trial Court are set aside –
Appellants acquitted. [Paras 57, 58]

Criminal Law – Award of death penalty – Duty of courts:
Held: Trial Courts, as well as High Courts, are required to exercise
the highest degree of circumspection before awarding the death
penalty – The irreversible nature of capital punishment demands
that it be imposed only in the “rarest of rare” cases and only when
the prosecution has led unimpeachable, cogent, and convincing
evidence that excludes every hypothesis of innocence – Even
the slightest doubt or infirmity in the prosecution’s case must
weigh against the imposition of such a sentence – Any hasty or
mechanical application of the death penalty, without ensuring
the highest standards of proof and procedural fairness, not only
undermines the rule of law but risks the gravest miscarriage of
justice by extinguishing a human life irretrievably – It is the duty of
courts to consider mitigating circumstances and conduct a detailed
sentence hearing before awarding the death penalty – Therefore,
unless the prosecution’s evidence forms an unbroken and reliable
chain of circumstances pointing only to the guilt of the accused,
the extreme penalty cannot be justified. [Para 54]

Evidence – Scientific/forensic evidence – DNA evidence –
Reliance upon, when not justified – Circumstances surrounding
the arrest of appellant No. 1 also examined, as the credibility of
the DNA samples collected by the IOs was directly dependent
upon the legality and authenticity of the arrest and subsequent
seizure proceedings:
Held: On facts, in view of the various contradictions, omissions,
and investigative lapses, the entire procedure of arrest and search
of the person of the appellant No. 1 by PW-10 is gravely doubtful –
The story projected in the evidence of the witness is something
588 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

out of fiction and is ex facie unbelievable – Thus, there are many
suspicious circumstances surrounding the theory of apprehension
and arrest of the appellant No.1 – The very theory advanced by
the prosecution, that accused was traced based on his mobile
location, is false and without foundation – The manner in which
the arrest of the appellant No.2 was projected by the prosecution
is also seriously dubious – Thus, the very foundation on which the
DNA evidence is sought to be projected is gravely compromised,
for if the arrest itself was illegal and stage-managed, the process of
drawing samples from the accused-appellants cannot be regarded
as either voluntary or reliable. [Paras 35, 40, 41, 44, 45]
1.2 Various circumstances, starting from the so-called arrest of the
appellant No. 1 from Ludhiana (Punjab) taken cumulatively, give
rise to a strong inference of tampering with the forensic samples
and planting of semen of the appellant No.1 on the samples, i.e.,
cervical swab, undershirt, and underwear of the victim girl, so as
to establish his involvement in the crime – The entire process
of collection and examination of samples and the consequent
matching of the DNA is suspicious and wholly unreliable – The
DNA report cannot be treated as a reliable piece of evidence – In
absence thereof, there is no evidence on record to connect the
appellant No.1 with the crime – Also, credentials and qualifications
of the Doctor (PW-34), who conducted the DNA examination and
issued the DNA Report are also highly doubtful to place him in
the category of a DNA expert. [Paras 48, 49]
Circumstantial evidence – Conviction based purely on
circumstantial evidence – Golden principles laid down in
Sharad Birdhichand Sharda, stated. [Para 10]

Case Law Cited
Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2022] 9 SCR 452 :
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 677; Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State
of Maharashtra [1985] 1 SCR 88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116; Mukesh
& Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors. [2017] 6 SCR 1 : (2017)
6 SCC 1; Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684;
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab [1983] 3 SCR 413 : (1983) 3
SCC 470 – relied on.

List of Acts
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Penal
Code, 1860; Information Technology Act, 2000.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 589

Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v.
State of Uttarakhand

List of Keywords
Rape; Circumstantial evidence; Motive, Last seen theory; Alleged
scientific evidence; Tampering with forensic samples; Semen of
accused planted; Semen planted on the samples; Cervical swab;
Undershirt; Underwear; Chain of circumstances not established;
Process of collection and examination of samples suspicious;
Matching of the DNA is suspicious; DNA report not reliable; Mobile
location; Alleged extra-judicial confession; Theory of apprehension
and arrest; Suspicious circumstances; Arrest illegal; Arrest stage-
managed, Procedure of arrest and search; Procedure of arrest
and search doubtful; Forensic evidence; Forensic samples;
Process of drawing samples not reliable; DNA examination; DNA
Report; Credentials of the Doctor doubtful; Not a DNA expert; No
bloodstains; Jacket; Death penalty; Capital punishment; “Rarest
of rare” cases; Highest degree of circumspection; Mitigating
circumstances; Pithoragarh; Haldwani; Victim girl; Missing; Wedding
function; Wedding Pandal; Lust; Sodomised; Victim girl’s hairband;
Authenticity of the recovery proceedings doubtful; Alleged recovery
manipulated; Guilt not proved beyond reasonable doubt; Acquittal.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
3955-3956 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.10.2019 of the High Court
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in CRLR Nos. 1 and 104 of 2016
With
Criminal Appeal No. 3957 of 2025

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Ms. Manisha Bhandari, Omkar Shrivastava, Divyadeep Chaturvedi,
Ayush Jain, Shashwat Sidhant, Ayush Kumar Dubey, Ms. Ishita
Dhaila, Pritish Arya, Saurabh Pandey, Dhruv Chandra, Ms. Manisha
Bhandari, Omkar Shrivastava, Divyadeep Chaturvedi, Shashwat
Sidhant, Ms. Ishita Dhaila, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Ms. Ankeeta Appanna, Siddhant Yadav,
Ajay Bahuguna.
590 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeals by special leave are preferred on behalf of
appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali alias Ali Akhtar alias Shamim alias Raja
Ustad1 and appellant No. 2-Prem Pal Verma2, assailing the common
judgment dated 18th October 2019, passed by the Division Bench of
the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital3 in Criminal Appeals4, partially
upholding the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants by
the Special Judge (POCSO)/ Fast Track Court/ Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital5 vide judgment and order
of sentence dated 11th March, 2016 in Session Trial Case6, whereby
accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali was convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 376A, 363, and 201 of the Indian Penal
Code, 18607; under Section 3 read with Section 4, Section 5 read
with Section 6 and Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20128; and Section 66C of the
Information Technology Act, 20009. Accused-appellant No. 2-Prem
Pal Verma was convicted under Sections 212 of the IPC and Section
66C of the IT Act; however, he was acquitted of the charges under
Sections 363, 201, 120-B, 376A of the IPC and Sections 16/17 read
with Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 of the POCSO Act. The accused-appellants
were sentenced as under:

1 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali’; appellant in Criminal Appeals @
SLP(Crl.) No(s). 14-15 of 2020.
2 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘accused-appellant No.2-Prem Pal Verma’; appellant in Criminal Appeal
@ SLP(Crl.) No(s). 6573 of 2020.
3 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘High Court’.
4 Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 2016 along with Criminal Reference No.1. of 2016 and others.
5 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘the trial Court’.
6 Session Trial No. 09 of 2015.
7 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘the IPC.’
8 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘the POCSO Act.’
9 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘IT Act’.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 591

Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v.
State of Uttarakhand

Accused/ Provision under Sentence awarded by the The High
appellant which convicted trial Court Court

Accused- Section 376A of the Death Sentence Affirmed
Appellant IPC; and Sections
No. 1 - Akhtar 16 and 17 read with
Ali Sections 4, 5, 6, and
7 of the POCSO Act.

Section 363 of the Rigorous imprisonment for seven Affirmed
IPC years and a fine of Rs.5000/-
and in default of payment of
fine, simple imprisonment for
a further period of one month.

Section 201 of the Rigorous imprisonment for seven Affirmed.
IPC years and a fine of Rs.5000/-
and in default of payment of
fine, simple imprisonment for
a further period of one month.

Section 66C of the Rigorous imprisonment for three Acquitted
IT Act years and a fine of Rs.20,000/-
and in default of payment of
fine, simple imprisonment for
a further period of two months.

Section 120B of the Acquitted. Acquitted
IPC

Accused- Section 212 of the Rigorous imprisonment for seven Affirmed
Appellant IPC years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-
No. 2 Prem and in default of payment of
Pal Verma fine, simple imprisonment for
a further period of one month.

Section 66C of the Rigorous imprisonment for three Acquitted
IT Act years and a fine of Rs.20,000/-
and in default of payment of
fine, simple imprisonment for
a further period of two months.

Sections 363, 201, Acquitted. Affirmed
120-B, 376A of the
IPC; and Sections
16, 17 read with
Sections 4, 5, 6, and
7 of the POCSO Act.

Accused- Section 212 of the Acquitted Affirmed.
Junior Masih IPC; Section 66 of the
alias Foxy IT Act; and Sections
16, 17 read with
Sections 4, 5, 6, and
7 of the POCSO Act.
592 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

4. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution, giving rise to the present
appeals, is as under:
4.1 On 21st November, 2014, at 11:30 am, the victim’s father (PW-1)
lodged a report10 under Section 365 of the IPC, at Kathgodam
Police Station, alleging inter alia that he and his family had
travelled from Pithoragarh to Haldwani to attend the wedding
of a relative which was to be solemnized at Sheeshmahal in
Ramlila Maidan, Kathgodam, on 20th November, 2014. During
the said ceremony at around 07:45 pm, his daughter, Ms. K,
along with other children, was playing in the pandal (venue).
When Ms. K was called for a group photograph, she could
not be found and appeared to have gone missing. Ishwar
Singh Sah (PW-36), an attendee at the function, telephonically
registered a missing complaint with Constable Subodh Sharma
(PW-4) about Ms. K’s disappearance. Subodh Sharma (PW-4)
recorded the information in the Police Station’s General Diary
Report No. 5111 and alerted on-duty officers to try and locate
the informant’s daughter, Ms. K. The Police officials questioned
the people who attended the wedding and the individuals in
nearby vehicles and searched the area, but the child, Ms. K,
was nowhere to be found.
4.2 Four days later, i.e., on 25th November, 2014, Rajesh Kumar
Yadav (PW-6), Station House Officer, received a phone call from
an individual, named Nikhil Chand (cousin of the informant’s
daughter, Ms. K), who informed that the dead body of the
victim girl was lying near Gaula River in the Forest in front of
Sheeshmahal. Based on the said information, Sub-Inspector
Shanti Kumar Gangwar (PW-5), along with Constables Mamta
Arya, Devki Bisht, Subodh Sharma (PW-4) and Suresh Chandra,
proceeded to the said location and found the dead body of a
small girl, which was identified and confirmed to be that of the
informant’s daughter, Ms. K, by the public present at the location,
as well as by her relatives. Sub-Inspector Suman Pant (PW-3)
prepared the panchayatnama12 of the body, which was then sent

10 Case Crime No. 73 of 2014. The same is Exhibited as Exhibit Ka-1.
11 Exhibit Ka-17.
12 Exhibit Ka-9.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 593

Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v.
State of Uttarakhand

for autopsy. Dr. C.P. Bhaisora (PW-7) conducted post-mortem
examination and found that all the organs of the victim girl were
pale with early signs of putrefaction. He opined that the cause
of death was shock and haemorrhage resulting from injuries
to the vaginal and perianal region caused by sexual assault
and blunt force trauma, which were sufficient to cause death
in the ordinary course of nature. Consequently, offences under
Sections 363, 376, 302, and 201 of the IPC and Section 4 of
the POCSO Act were added to Case Crime No. 73 of 2014.
4.3 On 25th November, 2014, the investigation of the case was
assigned13 to Vipin Chandra Pant (PW-40), the Investigating
Officer. During the investigation, it was found that on the evening
of 20th November, 2014, the nearby shopkeeper, i.e., Kishan
Singh Bora (PW-16), Bal Krishan (PW-19), and Shahadat Ali
(PW-20) saw the accused-appellant No. 2-Prem Pal Verma, who
is a driver by profession, drinking liquor with another person.
Both were seen buying chocolates and toffees from a nearby
shop. Further inquiries revealed that Shankar Dutt Padalia (PW-
18), owner of a Dumper, which operated in the Gaula River,
had employed a man from Bihar on the recommendation of the
accused-appellant No. 2-Prem Pal Verma. The investigating
agency obtained the mobile phone number of this unidentified
person from Shankar Dutt Padalia (PW-18) and placed it under
surveillance. Similarly, the accused-appellant No. 2-Prem Pal
Verma’s mobile number was retrieved from his employer,
Manish Gaur @ Mannu Gaur (PW-39) and was also placed
under surveillance.
4.4 Two teams from the Special Task Force (STF) were formed to
uncover the details of the crime. One team, led by Sub-Inspector
Yogesh Kumar Chand (PW-10), proceeded to Ludhiana (Punjab),
based on call detail records of the suspected numbers, while
another team, led by Sub-Inspector Naresh Chauhan, headed
to Champaran (Bihar) and Delhi. On 27th November, 2014, at
around 11:00 am, the team led by Sub-Inspector Yogesh Kumar
Chand (PW-10) traced the location of one suspected mobile
number to Guru Amardas Colony in Ludhiana (Punjab). They

13 Vide Order No. 03 of 2014.
594 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

then began searching for the user of the mobile phone and
eventually detained the suspect at Sethi Market, who identified
himself as Akhtar Ali, i.e., accused-appellant No. 1. During a
personal search, the police recovered a railway ticket from
Haldwani to Delhi, an identity card, and a mobile phone from
the possession of accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali. The team
also claimed to have recovered the blanket used in the alleged
crime from the possession of accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar
Ali, who was formally arrested and then was taken to the Police
Station, Kathgodam, Haldwani on 28th November, 2014. Upon
arrival, the Investigating Officer, Vipin Chandra Pant (PW-10),
interrogated accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali, who confessed
that accused-appellant No.2-Prem Pal Verma and a Junior Masih
alias Foxy14, were his accomplices and were also involved in the
crime. He admitted that his friend, accused-appellant No.2-Prem
Pal Verma, had helped him secure a job as a dumper driver with
Shankar Datt Padalia (PW-18) of Sheeshmahal, Kathgodam.
On 20th November, 2014, accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali,
accused-appellant No.2-Prem Pal Verma, and Junior Masih alias
Foxy, consumed whisky (alcohol) together. Around 07:30 pm, a
young girl came out of the wedding Pandal (venue). All three
threatened the victim girl with a Tamancha (a country-made
pistol), took her to a nearby forest, wrapped her in a blanket,
and committed sexual assault on her. When the girl became
unconscious, they abandoned her body, after covering it with
leaves, and left the scene. The accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar
Ali, purportedly led the police to the crime scene and recovered
the victim girl’s hairband. A seizure memo15 was prepared as
proof of the same.
4.5 On 28th November, 2014, Sub-Inspector Shanti Kumar Gangwar
(PW-5) and his team arrested the accused-appellant No. 2-Prem
Pal Verma, and accused No. 3-Junior Masih alias Foxy.
4.6 After recording the statements of witnesses and concluding
the investigation, the Officer-in-charge of the police station
proceeded to file a charge sheet against all three accused

14 Accused No. 3 in Session Trial No. 09 of 2015.
15 Exhibit Ka-16.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 595

Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v.
State of Uttarakhand

persons. The accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali was charge-
sheeted under Sections 363, 376, 302, 201, and 120-B of the
IPC, along with Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the POCSO Act, and
Section 66(C) of the IT Act. The accused-appellant No. 2-Prem
Pal Verma was charge-sheeted under Sections 363, 376, 302,
201, 120-B, and 212 of the IPC, along with Sections 4, 5, and
6 of the POCSO Act and Section 66(C) of the IT Act. Junior
Masih alias Foxy was charge-sheeted under Section 212 of the
IPC and Section 66(C) of the IT Act. On 27th January, 2015,
the trial Court took cognizance of the offences and provided
the accused persons copies of the documents relied upon by
the prosecution in compliance with the provisions of Section
207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.16
4.7 The trial Court then proceeded to frame charges against all the
charge-sheeted accused persons for the above offences, who
abjured their guilt and claimed trial. The prosecution examined
40 witnesses, exhibited 87 documents, and 27 material objects
to prove its case and establish the guilt of the accused persons.
The accused persons were questioned under Section 313 of the
CrPC and were confronted with the circumstances appearing
against them in the prosecution case, which they denied and
claimed to be innocent.
4.8 After hearing the parties and evaluating the evidence, the trial
Court, vide its judgment dated 11th March, 2016, held that
the prosecution had successfully established its case beyond
a reasonable doubt and, therefore, convicted the accused-
appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali, and accused-appellant No. 2-Prem
Pal Verma, as noted above.17 The trial Court acquitted the
accused No. 3-Junior Masih alias Foxy, on the ground of
insufficient evidence against him. Vide an order, passed on
the same day, the accused-appellants were sentenced in the
terms indicated above.18
4.9 Aggrieved by their conviction and sentences, accused-appellant
No. 1-Akhtar Ali, and accused-appellant No. 2-Prem Pal Verma,

16 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘CrPC’.
17 Supra, Para No.3.
18 Ibid.
596 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

preferred an appeal19 under Section 374(2) CrPC to the High
Court. The informant/father (PW-1) of the victim girl also filed
a criminal appeal20 against the acquittal of Junior Masih alias
Foxy, as well as against the acquittal of Prem Pal Verma and
Akhtar Ali for certain offences.21 The State also filed two identical
appeals22 against the acquittal of Junior Masih alias Foxy, as well
as against the acquittal of accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali and
accused-appellant No. 2-Prem Pal Verma, for certain offences.23
A Criminal Reference24 was forwarded by the trial Court to the
High Court under Section 366 of CrPC, for confirmation of the
death sentence awarded to accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar
Ali. The High Court, vide the common impugned judgment
dated 18th October, 2019, upheld the conviction and sentences
awarded to accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali, and accused-
appellant No. 2-Prem Pal Verma for the offences punishable
under the IPC and POCSO Act. However, both were acquitted
of the charge under Section 66C of the IT Act. Consequently,
the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the father of the
victim girl (PW-1) and the State and upheld the acquittal of the
accused-Junior Masih alias Foxy and the partial acquittal of the
accused-appellants. In Criminal Reference, the High Court also
upheld the death sentence awarded to the accused-appellant
No. 1-Akhtar Ali.25
The impugned common judgment of the High Court dated 18th
October 2019, is subjected to challenge by the accused-appellants
in these appeals by special leave.

Submissions on behalf of the appellants: -
5. Ms. Manisha Bhandari, learned counsel for the accused-appellants,
submitted that the entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial
evidence, the chain of which remains incomplete and shattered as

19 Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 2016.
20 Criminal Appeal No. 318 of 2016.
21 Supra, Para No. 3.
22 Government Appeals No. 7 and 8 of 2017.
23 Supra, Para No. 3.
24 Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2016.
25 Supra, Para No. 3.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 597

Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v.
State of Uttarakhand

the material evidence has been fabricated, and gotten up witnesses
were deliberately introduced by the prosecution, to bolster its case.
Learned counsel for the accused-appellants advanced the following
pertinent submissions to urge that the conviction of the accused-
appellants as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High
Court is unsustainable on the face of the record: -
5.1. That the prosecution’s case has, from the very beginning, been
inconsistent and self-contradictory. The original version of the
prosecution alleged that the victim girl, Ms. K, was kidnapped
at gunpoint by the accused-appellants on the evening of 20th
November 2014, and was taken to a secluded forest area,
where she was subjected to brutal sexual assault. However,
during the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer,
Vipin Chandra Pant (PW-40) admitted that no firearm was ever
recovered and even conceded that the accused-appellant No.
1-Akhtar Ali, himself, in his extra-judicial confession, denied the
use of any weapon. The prosecution, in order to fill this glaring
lacuna, abruptly substituted its earlier story with a new version
that the victim girl, Ms. K, was lured away by the accused-
appellant with sweets and toffees. Such a fundamental and
unexplained departure from the original prosecution narrative
cannot be brushed aside, and it goes to the root of the case,
demonstrating that the evidence has been tailored to suit the
needs of the prosecution.
5.2. That the prosecution failed to examine one of the most material
witnesses, namely, the cousin of the victim girl, Nikhil Chand.
It is borne out from the record that Nikhil Chand was the first
person who telephonically informed the Superintendent of Police,
Rajesh Kumar (PW-6) about the location of the dead body of
the victim girl in the Gaula River forest. It is also reflected in
the case diary that Nikhil Chand had claimed to have seen
the victim near a dumper on the date of the incident. In such
circumstances, Nikhil was the only person who had knowledge
both of the victim, Ms. K’s, last known movements and of the
exact location of her dead body, which could not be found
despite the fervent efforts of the other relatives and a number
of police teams. Despite this, he was neither interrogated
during the investigation nor examined during the trial. The
prosecution offered no explanation for this grave omission.
598 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

The deliberate exclusion to examine such a pivotal witness,
whose testimony could have either confirmed or demolished the
prosecution’s version, casts a deep shadow over the fairness
of the investigation and trial, warranting raising of an adverse
inference against the prosecution.
5.3. That the manner of recovery of the victim girl’s body itself is
shrouded in serious doubt. The record shows that immediately
after the disappearance of the girl child on the evening of 20th
November 2014, an extensive search was conducted by the
police and local residents in and around the wedding venue,
the Gas Godam area, and the banks of the Gaula River. The
efforts to search continued for several days without yielding any
results. Yet, on 25th November 2014, the body was suddenly
discovered mere 800 steps away from the venue by none other
than the victim’s cousin, Nikhil Chand. This circumstance is
highly suspicious, for it is inconceivable that despite repeated
searches, the police could not locate the body which was lying
in such close proximity, only for it to be fortuitously found by the
very relative whose own conduct remains under grave doubt
compounded by the medical evidence demonstrating that injuries
on the dead body of the victim girl were concentrated on the
left side of the body suggestive of dragging, which gives rise
to a grave doubt that the situs of the crime was shifted, and
that the body was planted at the spot later shown. The shifting
of the situs irretrievably demolishes the chain of incriminating
circumstances.
5.4. That the condition of the crime scene was wholly inconsistent
with the prosecution’s allegation of repeated sexual assault
on the victim girl by three fully grown men. According to the
prosecution, the victim was raped and sodomised and then left
in the bushes after being covered with leaves. However, the
police did not find any bloodstains or signs of struggle at the
alleged crime scene, although the post-mortem clearly records
that the death was due to excessive bleeding, which occurred
within minutes of the assault. The total absence of blood stains
on the ground at or around the site renders the prosecution’s
version implausible. Equally unexplained is the forensic finding
that blood was detected only on the red jacket found on the dead
body, but not on the blanket or the ground. Such discrepancies
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 599

Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v.
State of Uttarakhand

belie the story that the crime was committed there and suggest
that the crime scene was staged.
5.5. That the alleged recovery of a hair-band at the instance of the
accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali, is another circumstance that
cannot be believed. The FIR itself mentions that the victim girl
had a boy-cut hairstyle, and no reference to any hairband was
ever made at the initial stage. The recovery memo is riddled with
irregularities. It bears overwriting of the time of recovery, does
not mention the date, and has no independent witnesses. Even
the trial Court and the High Court expressed doubt regarding
this recovery. The improbability of the accused-appellant No.
1-Akhtar Ali, recalling the precise spot where such a trivial
item was discarded days earlier, in a dense jungle, adds to
the suspicion of the so-called recovery, which is thus nothing
but planted evidence.
5.6. That the arrest of the accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali, from
Ludhiana on 27th November 2014, is also surrounded by grave
doubt. The prosecution relies upon a “secret source” who, without
any prior familiarity with the accused’s appearance, is alleged
to have identified him in a crowded city. No Ravanagi or Aamad
entry of the arresting team was made at the local police station
at Ludhiana. The only local officer, Inspector K.R. Pandey, who
could have corroborated the arrest and prepared the site map
of the arrest, was withheld from the witness box. The Naksha
Najri of the place of arrest was curiously prepared much later,
on 6th January, 2015, by the Investigating Officer himself, who
was not even part of the team that allegedly apprehended the
accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali. To make matters worse,
the photograph of the accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali, was
published in the newspapers on 28th November, 2014, even
though the prosecution claims he was produced at Haldwani,
only that very morning. These circumstances leave no room
for doubt that the accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali had, in
fact, been picked up earlier from Haldwani (Uttarakhand) and
falsely shown as arrested in Ludhiana (Punjab). The purpose
of this fabricated exercise was clearly to justify the collection
of samples and to facilitate the planting of DNA material of the
accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali, on the forensic samples
collected from the victim girl’s body.
600 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

5.7. That the DNA report, on which the conviction of the accused-
appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali primarily rests, is neither consistent nor
reliable. The prosecution claims that the semen of the accused-
appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali matched the cervical swab, undershirt,
and underwear of the deceased. However, the same semen
was conspicuously absent in the cervical smear prepared from
the very same source, as well as in the vaginal swab, vaginal
wash, and the shirt worn by the victim girl. Such selective
presence of semen of the accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali
is inexplicable unless the samples were tampered with and
the fluids/blood of the accused-appellants were planted onto
the same. The defence case that semen was forcibly obtained
from the accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali after his illegal
detention much before 27th November, 2014, and planted on
certain exhibits, is fully supported and corroborated by these
anomalies. Further, although the prosecution’s case was of gang
rape by three individuals, the semen of the other two alleged
perpetrators was not detected on any forensic exhibit, which
wholly demolishes the allegation of collective assault. The chain
of custody of the exhibits is equally suspect: there is no record
of where the samples were kept between 26th November 2014
and 27th November 2014, discrepancies exist in the forwarding
letters, and several key documents bear no specimen seals at
the time of seizure and sampling. Such glaring lapses make
the scientific/forensic evidence inadmissible and incapable of
sustaining a conviction, much less the imposition of the death
penalty.
5.8. That the trial Court erred in sentencing the accused-appellant
No.1-Akhtar Ali, and passing the conviction order, awarding the
death penalty, on the very same date. It was urged that the trial
Court made no effort whatsoever to consider the aggravating
and mitigating circumstances before awarding the death penalty.
Reliance was placed on the case of Manoj & Ors. v. State of
Madhya Pradesh26, wherein it has been categorically held that
before imposing a sentence of death, the Court is duty-bound to
conduct a careful and meaningful evaluation of both aggravating
and mitigating factors, including the possibility of reform and

26 2022 SCC OnLine SC 677.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 601

Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v.
State of Uttarakhand

rehabilitation of the accused. The omission of the trial Court
to undertake this exercise vitiates the sentencing process and
renders the award of the death penalty unsustainable in law.
On these grounds, learned counsel appearing for the accused-
appellants implored the Court to accept the appeals, set aside the
impugned judgments, and acquit the accused-appellants of the
charges levelled against them.

Submission on behalf of the Respondent/State: -
6. Per contra, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-State, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions
advanced on behalf of the accused-appellants and advanced the
following pertinent submissions imploring this Court to dismiss the
appeals: -
6.1. That the arrest of accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali was based
on meticulous mobile surveillance and investigative findings, as
evidenced by multiple prosecution witnesses. Yogesh Kumar
Chand (PW-10), head of the Special Task Force, testified that
accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali had been missing from
the crime scene since the date of the incident, prompting the
investigation officer to place his mobile number (75xxxxxx90)
under surveillance. The Call Details Records (‘CDR’) confirmed
that on 20th November, 2014, and 21st November, 2014, his
cellphone was active within the tower range of the crime
scene. Furthermore, another number operating from the same
device (both numbers having IMEI Nos. 911352501735790 and
911352501735780) traced his location to Ludhiana, where he
was apprehended by Yogesh Kumar Chand (PW-10) and his
team. The testimony of Amar Chand Sharma (PW-11), Radhey
Shyam Shukla (PW-26), and Arun Kumar (PW-27) corroborates
the same, affirming the accuracy of the mobile location tracking.
Additionally, Ravindra Kumar Yadav (PW-35), in charge of
the Special Operations Group, confirmed that the accused-
appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali, was identified through surveillance.
These findings unequivocally establish that the arrest of the
accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali, was lawful and based on
concrete evidence, which is corroborated by the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses.
602 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

6.2. That the recovery of the victim-girl’s dead body and subsequent
observations made in post-mortem examination provide
irrefutable evidence of a brutal sexual assault and murder. Sabir
Ali (PW-29), who was tending to his horses in the forest, was
the first to locate the deceased’s body and immediately informed
the local residents near Ram Leela Ground, Sheeshmahal,
establishing the discovery as spontaneous and untainted.
Moreover, Suman Pant (PW-3), Sub-Inspector, identified the
dead body and conducted the inquest proceedings, noting visible
injuries to the vaginal region, indicating that the victim girl was
subjected to sexual violence before being done to death. The
post-mortem examination further corroborates this conclusion,
which was proved by Dr. C.P. Bhaisora (PW-7), i.e., the Medical
jurist, who conducted an autopsy upon the victim girl’s dead body.
The post-mortem examination conclusively notes that the cause
of death was shock and haemorrhage due to injuries inflicted
on the vaginal and perianal region associated with grave sexual
assault, caused by blunt force impact, and that these injuries
were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
This medical evidence not only confirms the horrific nature of
the crime but also aligns with the prosecution’s case that the
victim girl was subjected to forcible sexual assault and brutal
violence, thereby directly implicating the accused-appellants
for the heinous and premeditated crime.
6.3. That the scientific and DNA evidence conclusively establishes the
involvement of accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali, in the crime,
leaving no room for doubt. Dr. Sanjeev Kharkwal (PW-13), a
Senior Medical Officer at District Hospital, Nainital, collected the
blood samples of all the accused persons on 30th November,
2014 and ensured that the said samples were properly sealed
and documented before being handed over to Constable
Ashutosh Kumar (PW-15), who deposited them at the Forensic
Science Laboratory (FSL), Dehradun, on 2nd December, 2014.
The forensic analysis conducted by Dr. Manoj Kumar Agarwal
(PW-34) at FSL Dehradun resulted in a DNA profiling report27
that unequivocally confirmed the presence of human semen on

27 DNA Report dated 12th December, 2014 (Exhibit Ka-75) and DNA Report dated 15th December, 2014
(Exhibit Ka-76)
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 603

Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v.
State of Uttarakhand

the cervical swab, undershirt, and underwear of the victim girl.
Crucially, the profile of the DNA extracted from these exhibits
was an exact match with the DNA profile obtained from the
blood sample of accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali, conclusively
proving his physical involvement in the crime. This scientific
evidence, which is objective and beyond human manipulation,
serves as the strongest link connecting the accused-appellant
No.1-Akhtar Ali to the sexual assault and murder of the victim
girl, Ms. K. The DNA report28 provides irrefutable affirmation of
accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali’s role in this heinous crime,
strengthening the prosecution’s case beyond the pale of doubt.
6.4. That the conduct of the accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali
before and after the incident supports the prosecution’s case
and conclusively establishes his involvement in the crime. Prior
to the victim’s disappearance, multiple witnesses, including
Kishan Singh Bora (PW-16), Balkrishna (PW-19), and Sahadat
Ali Hasan (PW-20), saw accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali
near the location of the crime, corroborating that he was in
the vicinity at the relevant time. Vipin Chandra Pant (PW-40),
the Investigating Officer (IO), further confirmed this through the
site plan, which aligns with the testimony of these witnesses.
Additionally, two minor girls who were with the victim girl at the
time were offered toffees by accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar
Ali, and accused-appellant No.2-Prem Pal Verma, suggesting
a deliberate attempt to lure away the victim; however, the
families of these children did not allow them to testify due to
societal ramifications. The accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali’s
suspicious conduct in absconding following the crime further
fortifies the prosecution’s case.
6.5. That the site plan prepared by Vipin Chandra Pant (PW-40)
establishes that the victim girl was kidnapped from about 800
steps away from where her body was later found. Several
witnesses, viz., Veer Bahadur Chand (PW-23, victim’s uncle),
Deepak Sharma (PW-25), and Manoj Singh Dewri (PW-31), saw
accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali near a dumper (No. 8711)

28 Ibid.
604 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

parked close to the crime scene. Shankar Dutt Padalia (PW-18),
the dumper owner, confirmed that accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar
Ali was employed as a driver on 20th November, 2014, but
disappeared soon after the crime. His sudden disappearance, as
testified by Hariom Sharma (PW-24) (a railway employee), who
stated that accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali boarded a train
from Haldwani on 21st November, 2014, and fled to Ludhiana,
further points to accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali’s guilty state
of mind. The CCTV footage handed over by Subhash Singh
(PW-21), Assistant General Manager, IDBI Bank, was reviewed
by the Investigating Officer, Vipin Chandra Pant (PW-40),
confirming that accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali and accused-
appellant No.2-Prem Pal Verma, entered the bank together on
21st November, 2014 at 02:04 pm, just after the crime. Thus,
the chain of circumstances, as noted by the trial Court and
High Court, is complete, leaving no room of doubt about the
involvement of the accused-appellants in the crime. The ocular
testimonies, scientific/forensic (i.e., DNA examination) evidence,
findings of post-mortem examination, and the accused persons’
conduct before and after the incident collectively establish a
consistent and unbroken sequence linking accused-appellant
No. 1-Akhtar Ali and accused-appellant No. 2-Prem Pal Verma
to the crime. Proximity of the accused-appellants to the victim
girl during the wedding function, suspicious absconding, and
corroborative forensic evidence decisively point to the guilt of
accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali.
On these grounds, the learned counsel for the respondent-State
contended that the present appeals should be dismissed, as both
Courts below have applied the law to the facts on record correctly
and reached the only possible conclusion pointing towards the guilt
of the accused-appellants.

Discussion: -
7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced at the bar and have carefully scanned the record with the
assistance of learned counsel representing the accused-appellants
and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State. We
have also analysed and evaluated the evidence available on record.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 605

Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v.
State of Uttarakhand

8. In order to appreciate whether the conviction of the accused-
appellants, as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High
Court, deserves to be upheld or whether the appeals merit acceptance,
thereby entitling the accused-appellants to acquittal, it is necessary
to examine the evidence in greater detail.
9. There is no dispute that the case of the prosecution is based purely
on circumstantial evidence in the form of motive, the theory of last
seen together, and scientific/forensic evidence, since no witness
claims to have seen the alleged incident wherein the victim girl was
subjected to sexual assault and violence. The fact that the death
of the victim girl, Ms. K, was homicidal in nature was duly proved
by the medical evidence on record. Dr. C.P. Bhaisora (PW-7),
who conducted the examination, proved the post-mortem report29
wherein multiple injuries were noted on the dead body of the victim
girl, particularly on the vaginal and perianal regions. He opined that
the cause of death of the victim girl was shock and haemorrhage
as a result of the injuries caused by sexual assault and blunt force
trauma, which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death. Thus, there is no doubt on the aspect that the death
of Ms. K was homicidal in nature.
10. It is a well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence that a
conviction may be based purely on circumstantial evidence, provided
that such evidence is deemed credible and trustworthy. In cases based
purely on circumstantial evidence, it is imperative to ensure that the
facts leading to the conclusion of guilt are fully established and that
all the established facts point irrefutably to the accused person’s guilt.
The chain of incriminating circumstances must be conclusive and
should exclude any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused.
In other words, from the chain of incriminating circumstances, no
reasonable doubt can be entertained about the accused person’s
innocence, demonstrating that it was the accused and none other
who committed the offence. The law with regard to conviction based
on circumstantial evidence has been crystallised by this Court in the
case of Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra30,
wherein the following golden principles, governing cases based on
circumstantial evidence, were laid down:

29 Exhibit No. Ka24.
30 (1984) 4 SCC 116.
606 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that
the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case
against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may
be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a
legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be
or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji
Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC
793] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19,
p. 807]
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must
be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict
and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is
long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that
is to say, they should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused.
(emphasis supplied)

11. Having noted the principles governing a case based purely on
circumstantial evidence, we now proceed to discuss the evidence
led by the prosecution in order to bring home the charges against
the accused-appellants. The prosecution portrayed the following
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 607

Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v.
State of Uttarakhand

circumstance in its endeavour to establish the charge of murder
against the accused-appellants:-
(i) “Motive”, i.e., to say that the accused-appellants harboured an
intention to satisfy their lust upon the young girl, Ms. K, and
that this depraved motive formed the basis of the brutal assault
which ultimately led to her death.
(ii) “Last Seen Theory”, i.e., to say that the accused-appellants
were seen in close proximity to the victim girl, shortly before
the time when she went missing, and that in the absence of
any plausible explanation from the accused-appellants, the
burden lies upon them to account for the fate of the victim girl.
The prosecution, therefore, relies on this circumstance as an
important link in the chain of events connecting the accused-
appellants to the crime.
(iii) Scientific Evidence (including DNA and FSL Reports), i.e.,
to say that the scientific analysis of samples collected from the
body and clothes of the victim girl established a match with the
DNA profile of the accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali, thereby
providing direct forensic corroboration of his involvement in
the offence. The prosecution argues that such evidence, being
objective and scientific in nature, lends strong support to its
case and completes the chain of circumstances.
12. The entire process of apprehension of the accused-appellants,
collection of the forensic material, recovery of the CCTV footage,
call details record, and the Caller-ID records has been delineated in
the above paragraphs31, and thus, the same need not be repeated.
13. To ascertain whether the alleged ‘motive’ attributed to the accused-
appellants has any foundation in fact, it is necessary at the outset
to examine the manner in which the accused-appellants were first
brought into the ambit of suspicion and investigation. Unless the initial
link connecting the accused-appellants with the occurrence is firmly
established, the question of ‘motive’ and its probative value cannot
be appreciated in its proper perspective. We shall, therefore, first
advert to the evidence relied upon by the prosecution to show how
the accused-appellants came into the picture and were associated
with the alleged crime.

31 Supra Note, Para No. 4.
608 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

14. The first suspect to be associated in this case was the accused-
appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali, against whom suspicion cropped up when
the statement of Shankar Datt Padalia (PW-18), the owner of the
dumper, came to be recorded. We, therefore, shall first discuss the
evidence of the aforesaid Shankar Datt Padalia (PW-18). The witness
stated that he was engaged in the work of hauling sand and gravel
from the Gaula River and used his dumper, bearing registration No.
UP02A8711, for the said purpose.
15. Accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali was allegedly introduced to
Shankar Datt Padalia (PW-18) by accused-appellant No. 2-Prem
Pal Verma, the driver of Manish Gaur @ Mannu Gaur’s (PW-39)
dumper, on 20th November, 2014. Accused-appellant No. 2-Prem
Pal Verma, assured Shankar Datt Padalia (PW-18) that Akhtar Ali
knew how to drive a dumper. Since the witness (PW-18) did not
have a driver for his dumper at that time, he hired accused-appellant
No.1-Akhtar Ali, as a driver and handed over the keys of the dumper
to him, without any further verification. At that time, Akhtar Ali was
using mobile number 75xxxxxx90, which he shared with Shankar
Datt Padalia (PW-18). On the following day, i.e., 21st November,
2014, the accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali approached Shankar
Datt Padalia (PW-18) in the afternoon and told him that he had to
take a room on rent and buy some stuff, and required money for this
purpose. The witness (PW-18) gave him Rs. 3,000/- and, thereafter,
the accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali did not meet him again. When
the witness (PW-18) attempted to contact the accused-appellant No.
1-Akhtar Ali, on his mobile number, the same was found to be switched
off. The witness (PW-18) stated that his dumper was parked at Gas
Godam road near Ramlila Ground, and that the accused-appellant
No.1-Akhtar Ali was supposed to sleep in the dumper that night.
Since the accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali did not respond to phone
calls, the witness (PW-18) went to the dumper on 21st November,
2014, at about 06:00 pm, but found the driver missing. Thereupon,
the witness (PW-18) became suspicious that something was wrong.
He came to know from some sources that accused-appellant No.
1-Akhtar Ali, and accused-appellant No. 2-Prem Pal Verma, had
been seen roaming together on 20th November, 2014.
16. In his cross-examination, Shankar Datt Padalia (PW-18) stated that
at the time of the incident, the process of extraction of sand and
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 609

Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v.
State of Uttarakhand

gravel from the Gaula river had not commenced. He further deposed
that the police officials recorded his statement 2-3 days after the
incident. The witness added that he had been operating dumpers
for the extraction of sand and gravel from the Gaula river for the
last 5-6 years prior to the incident and that he owned two dumpers,
which were usually driven by his brothers. However, since one of his
brothers had fallen ill, he felt the need for another driver. He admitted
that he did not previously know the accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar
Ali. At the same time, he also stated that about two years earlier,
accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali had worked with another person
on the Gaula Extraction Gate, and therefore, he was acquainted
with him from that time. He had seen the accused-appellant No.
1-Akhtar Ali, because he used to drive the vehicle of Manish Gaur
@ Mannu Gaur (PW-39). When he engaged the accused-appellant
No. 1-Akhtar Ali on 20th November, 2014, he did not give any money
for expenses, etc.
17. On a minute perusal of the deposition of Shankar Datt Padalia (PW-
18), it emerges that he informed the police for the first time about the
engagement of accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali, for his vehicle,
only 2–3 days after the incident. This aspect assumes significance
in light of the admission made by the witness that he had also
participated in the search for the missing girl on 21st November, 2014.
Had there been an iota of truth in his version, it is difficult to accept
that he would have remained silent about the fact that the driver, he
had newly engaged had suddenly gone missing immediately after
being employed on 20th November, 2014. Such a fact was far too
important to have been ignored altogether.
18. Another significant fact discernible from the statement of Shankar Datt
Padalia (PW-18) is that he attempted to identify the accused-appellant
No. 1-Akhtar Ali by projecting a theory that the said accused used
to drive the vehicle of one Manish Gaur @ Mannu Gaur (PW-39)
two years earlier. However, the said Manish Gaur @ Mannu Gaur
(PW-39), upon being examined, categorically stated that accused-
appellant No. 2-Prem Pal Verma, had been driving his dumper for
the last 10–12 years. He did not utter a single word to support the
theory that accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali had ever worked on
his vehicle.
19. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that Shankar Datt Padalia
(PW-18) did not know the accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali, from
610 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

before. It is highly improbable and palpably doubtful that, on the mere
recommendation of a driver employed on another person’s dumper,
Shankar Datt Padalia would so casually entrust an expensive earth-
moving vehicle to an unknown person without any verification or
assurance. Equally doubtful is the version of the witness that, on the
mere asking of accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali, he gave him a
sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) on 21st November,
2014. The witness did not notice any suspicious conduct or traces
of panic in the demeanour of the accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali
when he came to ask for expense money. This conduct is inconsistent
with the guilt of the said accused. These fishy circumstances cast
a serious doubt on the credibility of the testimony of Shankar Datt
Padalia (PW-18). Since the statement of Shankar Datt Padalia (PW-
18) was recorded only 2-3 days after the incident, there was initially
no material available with the police to raise any suspicion against
the accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali.
20. We are, therefore, of the view that the prosecution utterly failed to
attribute any clear or convincing motive to the accused-appellant No.
1-Akhar Ali. The evidence of Shankar Datt Padalia (PW-18), even if
taken at its highest, merely shows that accused-appellant No. 1-Akhar
Ali was a temporary driver who disappeared on the day next to his
engagement, which by itself cannot establish the depraved motive
alleged by the prosecution.
21. The name of the accused-appellant No. 2-Prem Pal Verma was
introduced in the evidence of Manish Gaur @ Mannu Gaur (PW-
39), who stated that the said accused had been driving his dumper
for the last 10-12 years. Though the witness (PW-39) did not attend
the marriage ceremony, he admitted that he participated in the
search for the missing child. In his cross-examination, he admitted
that there was widespread discontentment over the incident and
considerable pressure on the administration to apprehend the
culprits. His statement, however, was recorded by the Investigating
Officer 8-10 days after the incident. His evidence also shows that
the accused-appellant-No. 2-Prem Pal Verma, continued to drive his
dumper even after the incident. When the S.O.G. team contacted
the witness (PW-39) to ascertain accused-appellant No. 2-Prem
Pal Verma’s whereabouts, the witness called him to his house and
handed him over to the S.O.G. team. On 20th November, 2014, i.e.,
the date on which the victim girl went missing, accused-appellant
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 611

Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v.
State of Uttarakhand

No. 2-Prem Pal Verma had parked the dumper, handed over the
keys to the witness, and returned to his home. Apparently, therefore,
there is nothing in the conduct of accused-appellant No. 2-Prem Pal
Verma, to raise suspicion against him.
22. It thus becomes apparent from the testimony of the material
prosecution witnesses, Shankar Datt Padalia (PW-18) and Manish
Gaur @ Mannu Gaur (PW-39), that the prosecution was unable to
lay any convincing foundation so far as motive is concerned. In a
case resting purely on circumstantial evidence, the establishment
of motive assumes significance, as it forms the psychological link
in the chain of circumstances.
23. Having found that the prosecution has failed to establish ‘motive’,
we now turn to examine the next circumstance relied upon, namely
the ‘last seen theory’. According to the prosecution, the accused-
appellants were seen in close proximity to the victim girl shortly before
she went missing, and this circumstance is projected as a vital link in
the chain of events connecting them with the crime. It is, therefore,
necessary to scrutinise the testimony of the witnesses who have
spoken regarding the presence of the accused-appellants near the
scene of the occurrence and to assess whether such evidence, in the
absence of motive, can safely be accepted to fasten guilt upon them.
24. The first witness pressed into service by the prosecution regarding
the theory of ‘last seen’ is Kishan Singh Bora (PW-16), who runs a
tea stall in the vicinity of the Ramlila Ground. This witness deposed
that on the evening of 20th November 2014, at about 7:00-7:30 pm, he
had seen the accused-appellants in an inebriated condition purchasing
cigarettes and toffees from his stall. While this assertion ostensibly
seeks to establish the presence of the accused-appellants near the
venue, it is significant that in his cross-examination, the witness (PW-
16) admitted that his statement was recorded by the police only on
25th November, 2014, i.e., five days after the disappearance of the
victim girl. The unexplained delay in recording his statement, coupled
with the fact that the witness did not divulge this vital information
to anyone during the period of extensive search operations being
conducted from 20th November 2014 onwards, renders his testimony
unsafe to be relied upon for establishing the last seen circumstance.
Furthermore, the witness doesn’t note the presence of any victim
girl in proximity to the accused-appellants, thereby negating the ‘last
seen theory’.
612 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

25. The next witness relied upon by the prosecution is Balkrishna
(PW-19), a shopkeeper whose establishment is also located near
the Sheeshmahal. He too stated that on the same evening, i.e.,
around 7:00-7:30 pm on 20th November, 2014, he saw the accused-
appellants in a drunken state, moving around in the area and
making small purchases. However, in cross-examination, the witness
(PW-19) admitted that he did not inform anyone, not even the victim’s
family or the police, about this fact until his statement was formally
recorded on 25th November, 2014. Given that by then the body of
the victim girl had already been recovered, the possibility of these
witnesses being a product of subsequent padding cannot be ruled
out. The credibility of the witness (PW-19) is further diminished
by his admission that he could not say with certainty whether the
accused-appellants were accompanied by the victim girl at that time.
26. Sahadat Ali Hasan (PW-20), another resident of the locality,
deposed on similar lines, asserting that he had noticed the accused-
appellants in an inebriated state near the Ramlila Ground on the
contemporaneous evening. His testimony suffers from the same
infirmity as that of Kishan Singh Bora (PW-16) and Balkrishna
(PW-19), namely that it was introduced only on 25th November 2014,
after the recovery of the dead body of the victim girl, Ms. K. The belated
introduction of these witnesses, all purporting to speak to the same
fact after a lapse of five days, gives rise to a legitimate apprehension
that the ‘last seen’ circumstance was subsequently manufactured
to bolster the prosecution’s case. Even otherwise, the evidence of
these witnesses, taken at its highest, does not indicate that the victim
girl was seen in the company of the accused-appellants. At best, it
places the accused-appellants in the general vicinity, which by itself
is insufficient to sustain the ‘last seen theory’ in a case of this gravity.
27. This weakness in the prosecution’s narrative becomes more
pronounced when one turns to the evidence of the key witness,
Constable Naushad Ahmed (PW-2), posted at Police Station
Kathgodam, whose testimony assumes pivotal importance in the
present case. He deposed that on 20th November, 2014, at about
09:10 pm, Ishwar Singh Sah (PW-36) informed Constable Subodh
Sharma (PW-4), who was then on sentry duty at the said police
station, that a minor girl had gone missing from the marriage function
at Sheeshmahal, Ramlila Ground. This information was forthwith
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 613

Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v.
State of Uttarakhand

entered in General Diary No. 5132 at 09:10 pm and was thereafter
communicated to the Station House Officer through the R.T. set on
the same date. The informant (PW-1), the father of the victim girl,
lodged a formal complaint on 21st November, 2014, at 11:30 am
regarding the disappearance of his daughter. On the basis of this
complaint, Case Crime No. 73 of 2014 was registered under Section
365 IPC against unknown persons.
28. The testimony of Constable Naushad Ahmed (PW-2) further
reveals that on 25th November, 2014, while he was on official duty
at the police station at about 02:30 pm, Nikhil Chand (cousin brother
of the missing girl child) informed the Sub-Inspector Rajesh Yadav
(PW-6), Station House Officer from his mobile phone No. 783xxxx001
that the dead body of the victim girl was lying in the forest of
Gaula river near Sheeshmahal, Ramlila Ground. On receiving this
information, the Sub-Inspector Shanti Kumar Gangwar (PW-5) along
with his companion police officials proceeded to the spot. The entry
of this fact was made by the Constable in the general diary33 of the
police station vide Rapat No. 26. The witness (PW-2) further stated
that the Investigating Officer, Inderjeet Singh (PW-33) returned to the
Police Station on 25th November, 2014, after the investigation and
deposited two sealed bundles, one containing plain and blood-stained
soil and the other containing clothes of the victim. The witness also
made a General Diary Entry No. 2834 regarding the departure of the
investigating team, which proceeded to arrest the accused-appellant
No. 2-Prem Pal Verma, and Junior Masih alias Foxy.
29. It is portrayed in the evidence of the witness (PW-2) that both these
accused persons were attempting to abscond but were apprehended
based on prior secret information regarding their whereabouts. It
needs a mention that this version of events, as given out by the
witness, is completely contradicted by the evidence of Manish Gaur
@ Mannu Gaur (PW-39), as mentioned earlier. In cross-examination,
the witness denied the suggestion put forth by the defence regarding
the alleged falsity of the theory concerning the arrest of accused-
appellant No.2-Prem Pal Verma, and Junior Masih alias Foxy.

32 Exhibit Ka-17.
33 Exhibit Ka-3.
34 Exhibit Ka-33.
614 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

30. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the evidence of Sub-Inspector
Rajesh Yadav (PW-6), Station House Officer, who was associated
with the process of recovery of the victim’s body. He stated that
upon receiving the information regarding the missing child on 20th
November, 2014, he intimated the Police Station Kathgodam, to
deploy all available police forces to search for the missing child.
The messages were sent through the control room via wireless as
well as telephone. The witness (PW-6) further stated that he was
engaged in the search for the missing girl on 25th November 2014,
and that at approximately 12:30 pm, he was informed by Nikhil
Chand (cousin of the victim girl) over phone that the dead body of the
victim girl was lying in the forest of the Gaula river at Sheeshmahal.
Upon receiving this information, the witness proceeded to the spot.
In the meantime, he informed the Kathgodam Police Station as well
as higher police officials. Upon reaching the said spot, he saw the
dead body of the victim girl and undertook the requisite investigation,
including drawing up the Panchayatnama, etc. He also claims to
have seized the forensic material from the site. Thus, it is clear as
daylight that the first person who shared the precise location of the
body was none other than Nikhil Chand (cousin of the victim girl).
31. What emerges, therefore, is that the entire prosecution case linking
the accused-appellants to the crime through the ‘last seen theory’ rests
not on any consistent testimony, but upon the belated introduction
of interested witnesses after the body was recovered, upon the
information given by Nikhil Chand.
32. Despite being a close relative who first disclosed the situs of the victim
girl’s dead body, Nikhil Chand was never examined or interrogated
by the investigating officers. This omission is of grave significance.
The utter failure of the Investigating Officer to question Nikhil Chand
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. It needs to be noted that the victim girl
was not being traced out despite the frantic efforts of numerous
police teams, and, therefore, it became imperative to determine the
manner in which Nikhil Chand came to know about the place where
the dead body of the victim was lying. If at all the Investigating
Officer’s actions had been bona fide, his immediate attention would
have focused upon Nikhil Chand to discover the manner in which he
gained information about the location of the victim girl’s dead body.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 615

Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v.
State of Uttarakhand

Had this exercise been undertaken, the Court could have ascertained
whether the information stemmed from innocent circumstances
or from direct involvement in the events of the fateful night. The
Investigating Officer’s failure to record a statement of Nikhil Chand
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 Nikhil Chand was
innocent or otherwise. In the absence of this crucial testimony, the
last seen circumstance must be held to have completely collapsed.
Non-examination of Nikhil Chand compels the Court to draw an
adverse inference against the prosecution.
33. Despite his pivotal role, neither the trial Court nor the High Court
considered it necessary to examine why Nikhil Chand’s statement
was not recorded or why he was not interrogated, thereby overlooking
a material circumstance that directly impacts the credibility of the
prosecution’s case. The High Court, while noticing that Rajesh Kumar
Yadav (PW-6), Station House Officer, had been informed by Nikhil
Chand about the recovery, dismissed the contention by opining that
such knowledge was “natural” and did not affect the prosecution’s
case. The trial Court, on its part, proceeded mechanically by merely
recording that information was received by the police on 25 th
November 2014, regarding the body being found near the Gaula River,
without examining how such information emanated. The omission
of both the Courts below, to scrutinize this significant aspect strikes
at the root of the prosecution’s version of recovery and renders the
investigation vulnerable to serious doubt.
34. Having found that the prosecution has failed to establish ‘motive’
and that the ‘last seen theory’, we now proceed to examine the
third circumstance relied upon by the prosecution, namely, the
alleged scientific and forensic evidence. However, before considering
the scientific/forensic evidence, it is necessary to examine the
circumstances surrounding the arrest of accused-appellant No.
1-Akhtar Ali, for the reason that the credibility of the DNA samples
collected by the Investigating Officers is directly dependent upon
the legality and authenticity of the arrest and subsequent seizure
proceedings. It may be noted that as per the evidence of Dr. Manoj
616 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Kumar Agarwal (PW-34), the forensic samples from the victim girl’s
dead body were drawn on 26th November, 2014. The prosecution
claims that accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali was apprehended in
Ludhiana (Punjab) on 27th November 2014 by Yogesh Chand (PW-10)
on the basis of information supplied by a secret informer. However,
fervent arguments were advanced by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the accused-appellants, regarding the grave discrepancies
in the process of detention and arrest of the accused-appellant
No.1-Akhtar Ali, and it was contended that he was illegally detained
much prior to his formal arrest, which was shown in documents on
27th November, 2014.
35. We have already concluded that the manner in which the arrest of
the accused-appellant No.2-Prem Pal Verma, was projected by the
prosecution is seriously dubious.35 We shall now proceed to analyse
the evidence of the officials associated with the arrest of the accused-
appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali.
36. The accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali was allegedly apprehended
from Ludhiana (Punjab) by Yogesh Kumar Chand, Head of the Special
Task Force (PW-10). The said witness stated that he was instructed
to investigate the said crime on 26th November, 2014. He received
secret information to the effect that a person named Raja Ustaad, a
resident of Bihar, who used to drive a dumper near the crime scene,
had been missing since the incident. His mobile No. 754xxxx390 was
traced and found to belong to one Lakshmi, resident of Haridya East
Champaran, Bihar. The call details records indicated that the mobile
number was in use near the crime scene between 20th November,
2014 and 21st November, 2014, and was connecting with two IMEI
Nos. 911352501735790 and 911352501735780. Both the IMEI Nos.
were scanned, and another mobile no. 753xxxx910 issued in the
name of Md. Iqbal, a resident of West Champaran, Bihar, cropped
up and was found to be in operation. The location of the said mobile
number was found to be in Ludhiana (Punjab). Accordingly, the
witness (PW-10) proceeded to Ludhiana and reached there on 27th
November 2014, at around 11:00 am. Efforts were made to locate
the mobile user operating the mobile No. 753xxxx910, which was
found to be functioning in Guru Amardas Colony, Ludhiana (Punjab).

35 Supra Note, Para No. 22.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 617

Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v.
State of Uttarakhand

37. The witness (PW-10) further claims that some informants were also
engaged to trace out the suspect. One of the informants engaged
for that purpose came and apprised the witness (PW-10) that the
suspect would come to the shop of Deepu Bijliwala (Electrician) in
search of work. Based on the said information, surveillance was
started at the Sethi market, and within five minutes, a man draped in
a red-coloured floral blanket was seen coming. The informer identified
him as the same individual whom the officers were attempting to
locate. The police team approached the said person, who got nervous
and attempted to flee, but was surrounded and apprehended at
around 05:15 pm. On inquiry, he disclosed his name to be Akhtar
Ali (accused-appellant No. 1 herein).
38. On being interrogated, the apprehended suspect, Akhtar Ali,
confessed to the crime. It was stated in the confession that upon
seeing the victim girl coming out of the wedding Pandal, he and
his companions (i.e., accused-appellant No.2-Prem Pal Verma and
accused-Junior Masih alias Foxy) minds got vitiated by lust and thus
decided to engage in carnal acts. Accused-appellant No. 2-Prem
Pal Verma, used a tamancha (a country-made pistol) to scare and
kidnap the victim girl. Thereupon, the victim girl was wrapped up
in a blanket and was forcibly taken into the bushes near the Gaula
river, at around 7:30 pm, where all three accused persons repeatedly
subjected her to sexual assault. Ultimately, the girl fainted because
of profuse bleeding from her genitals. He also confessed that
scratches were caused on his thighs in this process. Thereafter,
they abandoned the place, leaving the unconscious girl covered with
leaves in the bushes. While he came back and slept in the dumper,
the other two accused persons (i.e., accused-appellant No. 2-Prem
Pal Verma and Junior Masih alias Foxy) went back to their homes.
Apprehending his discovery in the crime, he absconded to Delhi via
train, and from there he further went to Ludhiana (Punjab). A mobile
handset with two SIM cards, a railway ticket from Haldwani to Delhi
dated 21st November, 2014, and an identity card in the name of
Shameem, son of Maqsood, were found during the personal search
of accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali. The blanket allegedly used in
the incident was also recovered from the possession of the accused-
appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali, and the same was seized and sealed.
Likewise, the mobile phone, SIM cards, railway ticket, and ID card
were also seized and sealed. The accused-appellant no. 1-Akhtar
618 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Ali was arrested vide memo36 dated 28th November, 2014. Allegedly,
the local people refused to stand witness to the whole process, and
therefore, Yogesh Kumar Chand (PW-10) associated his companion
police officials as the witnesses to the said process.
39. In cross-examination, the witness (PW-10) admitted that the mobile
number 753xxxx910 being used by the accused-appellant No.
1-Akhtar Ali was placed in a different handset from the one being
used earlier. Both the SIMs were earlier used in different handsets
whose location was found to be near the crime scene. The witness
(PW-10) further admitted that there was no recording in the General
Diary regarding the departure of the police team to Ludhiana on
26th November, 2014. He could not say as to who was investigating
the case when he arrived at Haldwani on 26th November, 2014.
Before proceeding to Ludhiana, he did not receive any authorisation
to arrest the accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali. He admitted that
the railway ticket is collected from the passenger by the Railway
Officer/T.T. at the station after completion of the journey. Very crucial
admissions as appearing in the evidence of the witness (PW-10) in
the cross-examination relating to the calls and caller-ID are extracted
hereinbelow: -
“13. The information about the location of the above mobile
number of Raju Ustad was found in the nearby place at
the incident spot on dated 20-11-2014 and 21-11-2014,
was made available to me by the technical team on my
behest. The information of IMEI 911352501735790 and
11352501735780 of the handset on which the above mobile
number was used was also collected by me. I have not
received the information as to who was the owner of the
handset with the above mentioned IMEI. This information
was also compiled by me from the technical team that
the above mentioned IMEI number 911352501735780
was used from phone number 7533079910 on dated 20-
11-2014 and 21-11-2014. On collecting the information
of this mobile number 7533079910, it was found that this
number is the allotted number of Aircel Delhi region. On
the Customer I.D. of the said number was found to be

36 Exhibit Ka-25.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 619

Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v.
State of Uttarakhand

of Md. Iqbaal S/o Shekh Shabbir c/o Rakesh Khands,
Local City Gurgaon, Local State Haryana, Permanent City
Champaran, Permanent State Bihar. The above information
was made available to me by the technical team only on
my behest. No interrogation was made by me from the
said Md. Iqbaal in whose name this customer I.D. was.
14. The Investigating Officer of this case came to Dehradun
and interrogated me on dated 07-01-2015. I have told
the Investigating Officer in my statement that the above
information has been obtained by me, but had not told
from which source the information was obtained. In the
statements given to the Investigating Officer, I have told
about this thing that ‘I have collected information about this
person from the Investigating Officer and other sources’.
But now I cannot say that in the above statements from
which Investigating Officer I had got the information. It is
correct to say that when I attended the proceedings of
this case on dated 26-11-2014, who was the investigation
officer on that day. I don’t know about this.”
40. On a plain reading of the evidence of the witness (PW-10), we
find many suspicious circumstances surrounding the theory of
apprehension and arrest of the accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali. The
so-called source who identified the accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar
Ali could not have had any idea about him because the accused-
appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali was a resident of Bihar and had gone to
Ludhiana (Punjab) for the first time, allegedly in order to escape being
caught in the crime. The witness (PW-10) admitted that he had not
been authorised by anyone to proceed to Ludhiana (Punjab) to arrest
the accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali. There was no note for his
departure to Ludhiana in the General Diary maintained at the police
station. Moreover, he claimed that local people (including the owner
of the shop, in front of whom the accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali
was arrested) refused to witness the process of arrest and search
of the accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali, and thus, only his team
members were associated in the process.
41. The story regarding the Call Details Records is dubious and
suspicious. The Investigating Officer (PW-10) claimed that the location
of accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali, was traced by placing his mobile
620 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

number under surveillance. However, no evidence whatsoever has
been brought on record to substantiate this claim. Vishal Pathak,
Assistant Nodal Officer (PW-28), categorically deposed that the call
detail records of accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali were applied
for and procured only in January 2015, i.e., much after his arrest.
Thus, the very theory advanced by the prosecution, that accused-
appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali was traced based on his mobile location,
is rendered false and without foundation.
42. The prosecution has further sought to connect accused-appellant No.1-
Akhtar Ali with two mobile numbers, 754xxxx390 and 753xxxx910.
However, the subscriber details of these numbers reveal that they
stood in the names of Lakshmi and Md. Iqbal, respectively. Crucially,
neither of these individuals was made to depose by the prosecution.
The failure to establish ownership or use of these mobile numbers
by the accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali fatally undermines the
prosecution’s case. In the absence of such proof, there exists no
admissible evidence linking accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali with
the said mobile phones numbers.
43. Furthermore, the prosecution has alleged that accused-appellant No.
1-Akhtar Ali, after his arrest, made a disclosure statement to Vipin
Chandra Pant (PW-40), pursuant to which the hair band worn by
the victim girl was recovered from the forest. However, this alleged
recovery is ex facie dubious and unworthy of credence and has also
been doubted by the Courts below. Allegedly, accused-appellant
No. 1-Akhtar Ali, and his companions, driven by lust, were carrying
away the victim girl in hot haste at the long hours of the night. It is
inconceivable that in such circumstances, accused-appellant No.
1-Akhtar Ali would have paused deliberately to remove a hair band
from the victim girl. Even otherwise, the possibility that he would later
recall the exact spot in the forest, where he supposedly discarded
the hair band, is almost impossible. Moreover, the testimony of
Superintendent of Police, Suman Pant (PW-3) would show that the
recovery memo of the hair band allegedly prepared by her suffers
from serious infirmities. The memo bears no date of preparation,
yet it is signed by the police personnel who were allegedly present
at the time of recovery, with their signatures bearing the date 28th
November 2014. Such discrepancies not only cast grave doubt on
the authenticity of the recovery proceedings but also reinforce the
inference that the alleged recovery was manipulated to suit the
prosecution’s narrative.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 621

Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v.
State of Uttarakhand

44. In the backdrop of the aforesaid contradictions, omissions, and
investigative lapses, the entire procedure of arrest and search of the
person of the accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali by Yogesh Kumar
Chand (PW-10) comes under a grave cloud of doubt. The story which
has been projected in the evidence of the witness is something out
of fiction and is ex facie unbelievable.
45. In these circumstances, the very foundation on which the DNA
evidence is sought to be projected stands gravely compromised,
for if the arrest itself was illegal and stage-managed, the process of
drawing samples from the accused-appellants cannot be regarded
as either voluntary or reliable. The prosecution, however, urges that
the scientific reports demonstrate a conclusive match for the DNA of
accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali with the forensic material collected
from the dead body of the victim girl. It is, therefore, necessary to
examine the trustworthiness and credibility of the scientific/forensic
evidence. While we examine the scientific/forensic evidence, it is
imperative to remain conscious of the very stark feature of the
scientific evidence in the form of DNA profiling and its matching
report, which bears directly on the adjudication of the matter. This
Court, in the case of Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi &
Ors37, while discussing the statutory and evidentiary significance of
DNA profiling in criminal trials, observed as follows: -
“216. DNA technology as a part of Forensic Science
and scientific discipline not only provides guidance to
investigation but also supplies the court accrued information
about the tending features of identification of criminals.
The recent advancement in modern biological research
has regularised Forensic Science resulting in radical help
in the administration of justice. In our country also like
several other developed and developing countries, DNA
evidence is being increasingly relied upon by courts. After
the amendment in the Criminal Procedure Code by the
insertion of Section 53-A by Act 25 of 2005, DNA profiling
has now become a part of the statutory scheme. Section
53-A relates to the examination of a person accused of
rape by a medical practitioner.
xxx

37 (2017) 6 SCC 1
622 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

457. DNA evidence is now a predominant forensic technique
for identifying criminals when biological tissues are left at
the scene of crime or for identifying the source of blood
found on any articles or clothes, etc. recovered from the
accused or from the witnesses. DNA testing on samples
such as saliva, skin, blood, hair or semen not only helps
to convict the accused but also serves to exonerate. The
sophisticated technology of DNA fingerprinting makes it
possible to obtain conclusive results. Section 53-A CrPC
is added by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment)
Act, 2005. It provides for a detailed medical examination
of accused for an offence of rape or attempt to commit
rape by the registered medical practitioners employed in
a hospital run by the Government or by a local authority
or in the absence of such a practitioner within the radius
of 16 km from the place where the offence has been
committed by any other registered medical practitioner.”
46. The prosecution, as well as the Courts below in the impugned
judgments, placed implicit reliance on the DNA evidence to conclude
the guilt of the accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali. The prosecution
came out with a categoric case that the victim girl was subjected
to rape by all three assailants, i.e., accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar
Ali, accused-appellant No. 2-Prem Pal Verma, and the co-accused,
Junior Masih alias Foxy. In the forensic examination, only the DNA
profile of the accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali, was found to be
matching with that of the cervical swab of the victim girl. It does not
require rocket science to understand that during a penetrative sexual
assault, the semen would ordinarily be first deposited in the vaginal
tract and thereafter reach the cervix. That is a simple conclusion to
be drawn from the structural anatomy of a female Homo Sapien.
The total lack of traces of semen in the vaginal samples makes the
presence of DNA of the accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali, in the
cervical swab suspicious. Further, there is a glaring inconsistency
in the prosecution’s case. While semen was allegedly found in the
cervical swab of the victim girl, no semen was detected on the
glass slides prepared from the cervical smear of the victim girl. It is
inconceivable that semen was found in the swab but was completely
absent in the smear slides, since both the samples were collected
simultaneously from the same anatomical site in the cervix of the
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 623

Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v.
State of Uttarakhand

dead body of the victim girl. The presence in one and absence in
the other defies scientific probability and undermines the credibility of
the prosecution’s reliance on the DNA report. Such an inconsistency
strongly suggests that the presence of DNA of accused-appellant
No. 1-Akhtar Ali in the cervical swab was engineered by the
prosecution, pointing towards the possibility that the sample was
tampered with or planted by the prosecution to falsely implicate the
accused-appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali.
47. The Medical Jurist, Dr. C.P. Bhaisora (PW-7) opined that the cause
of death of the victim girl was excessive bleeding and that the
death must have ensued within a few minutes of the assault. In this
background, the jacket found on the body of the victim girl could not
have remained untouched and would definitely have received blood
stains. However, the FSL report38 does not report the presence of
blood or semen of any of the accused-appellants on the said jacket.
48. These circumstances, starting from the so-called arrest of accused-
appellant No. 1-Akhtar Ali from Ludhiana (Punjab) taken cumulatively,
are sufficient to give rise to a strong inference of tampering with the
forensic samples and planting of semen of the accused-appellant
No.1-Akhtar Ali on these samples, i.e., cervical swab, undershirt, and
underwear of the victim girl, so as to establish his involvement in the
crime. In our opinion, the entire process of collection and examination
of samples and the consequent matching of the DNA becomes
suspicious and wholly unreliable. We are thus convinced that the
DNA report39 cannot be treated as a reliable piece of evidence. Once
the said document is eschewed from consideration, there remains
no evidence whatsoever on record of the case so as to connect the
accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali with the crime.
49. There is yet another reason to discard the DNA report. The credentials
and qualifications of Dr. Manoj Kumar Agarwal (PW-34), who
conducted the DNA examination and issued the DNA Report40, are
highly doubtful to place him in the category of a DNA expert. The
said witness admitted in his cross-examination that his qualifications
are M.Sc. in Botany and Ph.D., which apparently do not equip him

38 Exhibit Ka-15 and Exhibit Ka-16.
39 Exhibit Ka-75.
40 Ibid.
624 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

with expertise in the field of human DNA profiling, which is neither a
core subject nor an ancillary subject in Botany. The witness (PW-34)
denied the suggestion of the defence that human DNA is not part
of the subject of Botany.
50. As per the dictionary meaning, ‘botany’ subject deals with the scientific
study of the physiology, structure, genetics, ecology, distribution,
classification, and economic importance of “plants”. It has nothing
to do with DNA profiling, particularly that of human beings. Upon
examining the curriculum structure of the Chaudhary Charan Singh
University, Meerut, (as available on its website) from where the
witness obtained his degrees in M.Sc. (Botany) and Ph.D., it can be
discerned that the available curriculum does not provide any specific
focus on human DNA profiling. The witness (PW-34) did not claim
to have undertaken any other specialised course in DNA profiling.
Thus, the very qualifications of a witness as a DNA expert are under
grave doubt. However, we are not discarding the DNA report solely
on this ground, as there are several other factors, discussed above,
which convince us that the same is unreliable.

Conclusion: -
51. Having considered the evidence in its entirety and bearing in mind the
principles governing cases resting purely on circumstantial evidence,
we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the
complete and unbroken chain of circumstances necessary to bring
home the guilt of the accused-appellants.
52. Firstly, as regards ‘motive’, the prosecution has merely alleged that the
accused-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. Secondly, 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. Thirdly, the scientific evidence is itself
riddled with deficiencies. The alleged theory of DNA found on the
body of the victim girl matching with the DNA of accused-appellant
No. 1-Akhtar Ali, is ex facie doubtful and unworthy of credence. The
prosecution’s claim that the accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali’s
location was traced through mobile surveillance is falsified by its own
record, as the call detail records were procured much later and no
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 625

Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v.
State of Uttarakhand

evidence exists to link the accused-appellant No.1-Ahktar Ali, with
the sim numbers in question. Likewise, the omission to examine
crucial witnesses, including the subscribers of the relevant mobile
numbers and most importantly Nikhil Chand, who first informed the
police about the location of the dead body of the victim girl, further
weakens the case of the prosecution.
53. It must be borne in mind that the present case involves the imposition
of the ultimate punishment of death. The law is well settled that 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. In the instant case, 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. In such circumstances, it would be wholly unsafe to uphold
a conviction, much less the extreme penalty of death.
54. Trial Courts, as well as High Courts, are required to exercise the
highest degree of circumspection before awarding the death penalty.
The irreversible nature of capital punishment demands that it be
imposed only in the “rarest of rare” cases, as held by this Court in
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab41, and Machhi Singh v. State of
Punjab42, and only when the prosecution has led unimpeachable,
cogent, and convincing evidence that excludes every hypothesis of
innocence. Even the slightest doubt or infirmity in the prosecution’s
case must weigh against the imposition of such a sentence. Any
hasty or mechanical application of the death penalty, without ensuring
the highest standards of proof and procedural fairness, not only
undermines the rule of law but risks the gravest miscarriage of justice
by extinguishing a human life irretrievably. In Manoj & Ors. v. State
of Madhya Pradesh (supra), this Court emphasised the duty of
courts to consider mitigating circumstances and conduct a detailed
sentence hearing before awarding the death penalty. Therefore,
unless the prosecution’s evidence forms an unbroken and reliable
chain of circumstances pointing only to the guilt of the accused, the
extreme penalty cannot be justified.

41 (1980) 2 SCC 684.
42 (1983) 3 SCC 470.
626 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

55. Since the prosecution has failed to establish the chain of circumstances
against accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali, the very foundation of
the case against accused-appellant No. 2-Prem Pal Verma is also
destroyed. The prosecution itself rested its case against accused-
appellant No. 2-Prem Pal Verma, primarily on the alleged extra-
judicial confession of accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali. Once the
prosecution’s version against accused-appellant No.1-Akhtar Ali is
disbelieved, the derivative case sought to be built against accused-
appellant No. 2-Prem Pal Verma loses all credibility. Consequently,
the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against accused-
appellant No. 2-Prem Pal Verma, beyond a reasonable doubt, and
his conviction cannot be sustained.
56. Given the above infirmities, the so-called links in the chain of
circumstances stand broken. The prosecution has, therefore, failed to
prove the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.
57. The impugned common judgment dated 18th October, 2019, passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital
in Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2016 and Criminal Appeal No. 104
of 2016 and the judgment dated 11th March, 2016 passed by the
Special Judge (POCSO)/ Fast Track Court/ Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in Session Trial No. 09
of 2015, do not stand to scrutiny and the same are hereby set aside.
58. The accused-appellants are acquitted of all charges. They shall be
released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Bail bonds are
discharged.
59. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed.
60. Pending Applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeals allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey