A Death Sentence Built on Tainted Science and Missing Links Cannot Stand: Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Rape-Murder of Minor

“The prosecution must prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt—when it doesn’t, even the most heinous charges must fall”— In a compelling judgment that reaffirms the principles of fair trial and evidentiary integrity, the Supreme Court of India overturning the conviction and death sentence handed to Akhtar Ali, while also acquitting co-accused Prem Pal Verma, in a sensational case involving the rape and murder of a minor girl.

A three-judge Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta categorically held that the entire prosecution case collapsed under the weight of “serious investigative lapses, inadmissible scientific evidence, and incomplete circumstantial chain.” The case, which had initially resulted in the imposition of capital punishment, was described by the apex court as one where “doubt had not merely crept in—it had taken centre stage.”

“When Scientific Evidence Is Fabricated, It Ceases to Be Evidence—It Becomes a Weapon of Injustice”

At the heart of the prosecution’s case was DNA evidence allegedly linking Akhtar Ali to the crime. But the Supreme Court’s scrutiny exposed gaping holes in this scientific narrative. The Court found that the DNA profile of the accused was found in the cervical swab but conspicuously absent in the vaginal swab and smear slides, despite all being taken from the same anatomical area.

The Court remarked: “Such a selective presence of semen in one biological sample but not in another from the same site is scientifically implausible, and it renders the entire DNA analysis suspect.”

Even more damning was the Court’s assessment of the so-called DNA expert, who held a Ph.D. in Botany and had no specialised training in human DNA profiling.

“Botany is the study of plants, not people. The reliance placed on a botanist to conduct forensic profiling in a case of this magnitude shocks the conscience of the court.”

The Court concluded that the DNA evidence was unreliable, unscientific, and possibly planted, further noting that arrest procedures and chain of custody were marred by manipulation and secrecy.

“Last Seen Theory Cannot Be an Afterthought Introduced Post-Mortem”

Another critical plank of the prosecution case—the ‘last seen’ theory—was also dismantled. Witnesses claimed they had seen the accused near the victim on the night of the incident, but their statements were recorded only after the discovery of the body, which raised red flags.

The Court held: “The belated introduction of witnesses after the recovery of the body points strongly to post-facto tailoring. None of the witnesses saw the victim with the accused. They merely saw the accused nearby—this is not a link in a chain; it is a floating thread.”

The Supreme Court emphasized that the failure to examine Nikhil Chand, the cousin who first informed police about the location of the dead body, constituted a “grave omission” and suggested a deliberate suppression of vital evidence.

“Nikhil Chand was the first to discover the body after five days of fruitless search by multiple police teams—his source of knowledge was never questioned. This omission strikes at the very root of the prosecution’s case.”

“A Death Sentence Without Hearing on Mitigation is Not Just a Legal Error—It is a Constitutional Violation”

The trial court had imposed the death penalty on Akhtar Ali on the same day as conviction, without a separate hearing on mitigating factors—a blatant violation of the constitutional procedure laid down in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

The Supreme Court strongly condemned this lapse: “The irreversible nature of capital punishment demands that sentencing be a separate, careful, and constitutionally compliant process. The mechanical imposition of death is not justice—it is a judicial abdication.”

The Court reiterated that the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine cannot be invoked unless there is complete and unblemished evidence, and the potential for reform has been meaningfully evaluated. Neither was done in this case.

“Circumstantial Evidence Cannot Be a Tapestry of Assumptions—It Must Be a Chain of Certainties”

Underscoring the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court emphasized that in a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, the chain must be unbroken, every link must point only to the guilt of the accused, and no alternative hypothesis must remain unexplored.

In this case, the Court found that:

• Motive was speculative

• Last seen theory was unreliable

• Scientific evidence was legally and medically unsound

• Key witnesses were not examined

• Arrest and recovery were questionable

• Death sentence was imposed without a mitigation hearing

The Court declared: “Every link in the chain was either broken, missing, or manufactured. Conviction on such a foundation cannot stand—much less a sentence of death.”

Conviction Set Aside, Accused Acquitted of All Charges

After a thorough and scathing analysis of the trial court and High Court judgments, the Supreme Court concluded:

“The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgments are hereby set aside. The accused-appellants are acquitted of all charges and shall be released forthwith.”

Justice was ultimately served—not by endorsing the prosecution’s narrative—but by upholding the Constitution's command that no one shall be deprived of life or liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Date of Decision: 10 September 2025