GAMBHIR SINGH VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 850-851 OF 2019

DATE: 28/01/2025

BENCH: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta

FACTS:

On May 9, 2012, at around 6:30 AM, Mahaveer Singh (PW-1) received shocking news that his sister Pushpa, her husband Satyabhan, and their four children had been brutally murdered in their home in Turkiya village. Upon reaching the house with his family and other villagers, he found all six family members killed with sharp and blunt weapons.

Mahaveer Singh lodged a written report at Achhnera Police Station, Agra, alleging that the appellant-accused (Satyabhan’s younger brother) had a longstanding enmity with the family over a land dispute. On May 8, 2012, the appellant-accused, along with his friend Abhishek, had stayed at the victims’ house. The next morning, Mahaveer Singh was informed about the murders and later learned that the appellant-accused, Abhishek, and their sister Gayatri were seen leaving the village in a distressed state. He suspected their involvement in the crime.

An FIR (No. 105/2012) was registered under Section 302 IPC, and Inspector Tasleem Ahmed Rizvi (PW-12) began the investigation. On the same day, the appellant-accused, Abhishek, and Gayatri were arrested at Eidgah Railway Station. Stolen items, including jewelry and bank documents belonging to the deceased, were recovered from them. Their clothes and shoes were found blood-stained and were seized. The accused later led the police to the recovery of the murder weapons—an axe and a dagger—from a room in the victims’ house. Blood-stained soil and other evidence were collected and sent for forensic analysis, which confirmed the presence of human blood, though the blood group could not be determined.

Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant-accused, Abhishek, and Gayatri under Sections 302/34 and 404 IPC. As Abhishek was found to be a juvenile, his case was transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board. The trial proceeded against the appellant-accused and Gayatri in the Additional Sessions Court, Agra.

The prosecution presented 13 witnesses and 23 documents. Upon evaluating the evidence, the trial court convicted the appellant-accused under Sections 302/34 and 404 IPC and sentenced him to death along with a fine. However, Gayatri was acquitted due to lack of conclusive evidence.

The case was referred to the Allahabad High Court for confirmation of the death sentence. The State also appealed against Gayatri’s acquittal, while the appellant-accused challenged his conviction. On January 9, 2019, the High Court upheld the appellant-accused’s conviction and death sentence but dismissed the appeal against Gayatri’s acquittal, noting that the prosecution had failed to establish a case against her beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellant-accused has now approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s judgment

ISSUES:

The main issue in this case was whether the order passed by the Trial Court which was reaffirmed by the High Court proves the unequivocal quilt of the appellant.  

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

Upon careful examination of the impugned judgment, the Court found that the High Court overlooked inherent improbabilities and infirmities in the prosecution’s case. The case is riddled with inconsistencies that cannot be reconciled, making the conviction unsustainable. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court and the High Court are set aside. The appellant, Gambhir Singh, is acquitted of all charges and shall be released from custody immediately, provided he is not required in any other case. The appeals are allowed.

The Court carefully examined the evidence and submissions presented and found significant flaws in the prosecution's case. The prosecution’s theory of motive was based on an alleged land dispute, but no concrete evidence was provided. The prosecution failed to submit records of the land transaction or details of the previous criminal case that supposedly fueled the appellant's motive. The only testimony supporting this claim was from Mahaveer Singh (PW-1), which was speculative and lacked corroboration. Several prosecution witnesses, including Mahaveer Singh (PW-1) and Bahadur Singh (PW-2), presented hearsay evidence without direct knowledge of the incident. The testimonies of Dashrath Singh (PW-6) and Kedar Singh (PW-7) were found to be unreliable, as their accounts did not align with the timeline of the crime. Their claim of seeing the accused in blood-stained clothes hours before the incident was deemed fabricated and designed to falsely link the accused to the crime.

The Court highlighted the investigation’s shortcomings, including the failure to examine key witnesses from the vicinity of the crime scene, the lack of evidence proving the safe custody of seized materials before forensic examination, and no effort to establish a direct link between the accused and the recovered weapons. Furthermore, the forensic report did not confirm whether the blood on the weapons matched that of the victims, further weakening the prosecution's case. Additionally, the Court noted that the Public Prosecutor and the trial judge failed to ensure adherence to procedural safeguards under the Evidence Act. Important prosecution witnesses were examined in a casual manner, undermining the reliability of their testimonies.

The High Court, in its judgment, failed to address major inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, including the lack of substantive evidence on motive, the last-seen theory, and weapon recoveries. The case presented by the prosecution was full of contradictions and improbabilities that could not be reconciled. Given these fundamental weaknesses, the Court ruled that the conviction and death sentence of the appellant could not be sustained. The judgments of the trial court and High Court were set aside, and the appellant, Gambhir Singh, was acquitted of all charges. He was ordered to be released from custody unless required in another case. The appeals were allowed accordingly.

ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court's decision to acquit the appellant, Gambhir Singh, underscores the fundamental principle that a conviction must be based on clear, reliable, and legally admissible evidence. The Court meticulously examined the prosecution's case and found significant gaps, inconsistencies, and procedural lapses that rendered the conviction unsustainable. The prosecution’s reliance on a weak motive theory, uncorroborated hearsay evidence, and unreliable eyewitness testimonies severely weakened its case. Additionally, the forensic evidence failed to conclusively link the accused to the crime, as there was no confirmation that the bloodstains on the recovered weapons matched the victims. The failure to establish a direct connection between the accused and the alleged crime, along with the prosecution’s inability to prove the safe custody of crucial evidence, raised serious doubts about the fairness of the trial. Furthermore, the trial court and High Court overlooked these deficiencies, resulting in an erroneous conviction that could not be upheld under the law.

This ruling highlights the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards and evidentiary standards in criminal trials, particularly in cases involving severe punishments like the death penalty. The Court’s emphasis on the unreliable nature of witness testimonies and investigative lapses reinforces the principle that mere suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for legal proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision also serves as a reminder that courts must independently assess the credibility of prosecution evidence rather than mechanically affirming lower court judgments. By setting aside the conviction, the Supreme Court not only corrected a miscarriage of justice but also reaffirmed the necessity of a fair trial as a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence. The ruling ensures that judicial decisions must be based on unimpeachable evidence rather than assumptions or procedural oversights, reinforcing the judiciary’s role as the guardian of individual rights.