Fabric Of Prosecution Case Full Of Holes Impossible To Mend: SC Sets Aside Death Sentence Of Man Accused Of Killing His Brother, Sister-In-Law & Their 4 Children

The Supreme Court has set aside the death sentence of a man who was accused of killing his brother, sister-in-law, and their four children.

The Court was deciding Criminal Appeals filed by the accused man who was convicted and sentenced to death by the Trial Court and the same was confirmed by the Allahabad High Court.

The three-Judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “On a careful perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that the High Court has failed to advert to these inherent improbabilities and infirmities in the prosecution case. The fabric of the prosecution case is full of holes and holes which are impossible to mend. Thus, the impugned judgments do not stand to scrutiny and deserves to be set aside. As a consequence, the conviction of the appellant-accused and death sentence handed down to him can also not be sustained.”

The Bench said that an utter negligence in conducting the investigation contributed significantly to the failure of the prosecution’s case as against the accused.

AOR Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay represented the Appellant/Accused while AOR Sarvesh Singh Baghel represented the Respondent/State.

Facts of the Case

The Appellant-accused was convicted and sentenced to death in relation to a ghastly incident involving murder of his own brother, sister-in-law, and their four innocent children. The incident allegedly took place in the house of the deceased persons in 2012. As per the prosecution case, the Informant being the brother of the deceased woman, received shocking information that his sister, brother-in-law, nephew and nieces had been hacked to death. On receiving this information, he and his family members along with other villagers reached the village where his sister used to reside along with her husband and four children.

They proceeded to the house and saw that all the six members of the family had been killed in a heinous manner with blows of sharp and blunt weapons. Hence, the Informant lodged a report stating that the accused bore enmity with the deceased couple due to a land dispute. Resultantly, an FIR was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Trial Court imposed death penalty along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- on the accused. The reference for confirmation of his death sentence was forwarded to the High Court and the same was affirmed. Therefore, the case was before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “The Investigating Officer (PW-12) neither proved nor exhibited the disclosure statement of the appellant accused during his deposition. … The Investigating Officer (PW-12) did not distinctly identify the accused persons at whose instance, the particular weapon, i.e., axe (kulhari) or dagger (katari), was recovered. … There is no indication in the testimony of Investigating Officer (PW-12) that he took the signatures of the accused persons on the recovery memos. Not even this, the said witness did not even state that he signed and attested the memorandums under which the recoveries were effected.”

The Court said that the substratum of the prosecution case regarding the disclosure statements rendered by the Appellant-accused and the recoveries allegedly made in furtherance thereof remains unproved for want of proper evidence.

Furthermore, the Court remarked that the present one is a case involving utter lackadaisical approach on part of the Investigating Agency as well as the prosecution.

“The investigation of a case involving gruesome murders of six innocent persons was carried out in a most casual and negligent manner. The Investigating Officer (PW-12) did not examine even a single of the villagers living adjacent to the crime scene for establishing the presence of the appellant-accused at or around the crime scene, corresponding to the time of the incident”, it added.

The Court also observed that the evidence of the material prosecution witness in a case involving gruesome murders of six persons including four innocent children was recorded in a most casual and lackadaisical manner, without adhering to the mandatory procedural requirements of the Evidence Act.

“In the result, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove even one of the three so-called incriminating circumstances i.e., ‘motive’, ‘last seen’ and ‘recoveries’ in its quest to bring home the guilt of the appellant-accused. Even if, for the sake of arguments the evidence of recovery of weapons were to be accepted, the fact remains that the FSL report does not give any indication regarding the grouping of the blood found on the weapons and hence, the recoveries are of no avail to the prosecution”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals, quashed the impugned Judgment, and acquitted the accused.

Cause Title- Gambhir Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 164)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, Advocates Aarti U. Mishra, and Harsh Som.

Respondent: AOR Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Advocates Sushil Kumar Tomar, and Shaurya Krishna.

Click here to read/download the Judgment