Padded Evidence Created By Investigating Agency To Bolster Prosecution Case Fatal To Conviction In Circumstantial Evidence Cases: Supreme Court

"We are of the considered view that the alleged recovery and matching of the shirt pocket is nothing but a padded and created circumstance introduced by the investigating agency in an attempt to lend support to the prosecution case." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated May 27, 2026, set aside the death sentences of two men convicted of rape and murder, observing that "padded" evidence and created circumstances by the investigating agency cannot form the basis of a conviction in cases resting on circumstantial evidence.

A three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and Vijay Bishnoi observed that the prosecution failed to establish an "unimpeachable chain of custody" and that the forensic evidence actually undermined the theory projected by the police.

The appellants, Mehtab and Sushil @ Bhura, were tried for the 2012 rape and murder of a 55-year-old woman in Dehradun. The Trial Court convicted them under Sections 302, 376(2)(g), and 201 of the IPC, read with Section 34, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, awarding the death penalty. This sentence was subsequently affirmed by the Uttarakhand High Court in 2018, leading to the present appeals.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the prosecution had established a complete and unbroken chain of incriminating circumstances pointing unerringly toward the guilt of the appellants. The Court was also called upon to determine if the forensic recoveries and the "last seen together" theory were supported by reliable evidence or were vitiated by investigative lapses.

Failure To Conduct Test Identification Parade For Unknown Suspects

The Court noted that the appellants were complete strangers to the material witnesses, Anusuiya (PW-2) and Alka Chauhan (PW-4). Despite the prosecution's claim that the accused were apprehended based on sketches, the investigating agency failed to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) as required under the CrPC.

The bench observed that where the accused are strangers to the witnesses, a TIP assumes considerable significance in providing assurance to the sanctity of the dock identification. The "rank failure" of the agency to hold a TIP materially undermined the credibility of the prosecution's version regarding the identification of the appellants.

"The evidentiary value of the dock identification stands substantially diminished. It is a well settled proposition that where the accused are strangers to the witnesses, a TIP assumes considerable significance in providing assurance to the sanctity of the dock identification."

Inconsistencies In The Genesis Of Investigative Sketches

The Court highlighted glaring contradictions regarding the preparation of the sketches used to trace the suspects. While the witnesses claimed the sketches were prepared on December 30, the Station Officer (PW-16) deposed that they were prepared only after recording statements on December 31.

Furthermore, the identity of the sketch artist was withheld by the prosecution on the "flimsy" ground of safety. The Court found it suspicious that the original sketches were never produced and the photocopies on record did not bear any signatures or contemporaneous endorsements of the witnesses or the artist.

"The absence of any such contemporaneous endorsement lends credence to the defence contention that the sketches were prepared only after the arrest of the appellants."

Forensic Findings Belie Theory Of "Violently Torn" Shirt Pocket

A pivotal piece of evidence relied upon by the State was a torn shirt pocket recovered from the crime scene, which allegedly matched a shirt worn by Accused No. 1. However, the Assistant Director of the FSL (PW-11) admitted in cross-examination that the pocket did not appear to have been uprooted forcibly during a scuffle.

The Court noted that the FSL report revealed the pocket had been removed "carefully stitch by stitch" rather than being violently torn. This finding led the Court to conclude that the recovery was a "padded" and fabricated circumstance introduced by the police to falsely connect the accused to the crime.

"In all probability, the shirt must have been recovered fully intact and the recovery of the detached pocket has been created later in order to lend succour to the otherwise flimsy prosecution story."

Unexplained Delay And Lack Of Chain Of Custody For Forensic Samples

The bench expressed grave concern over the "inordinate and unexplained delay" in forwarding seized articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). While some articles were sent on January 2, 2013, the crucial shirt and torn pocket were only forwarded on January 24, despite being in police custody since early January.

The Court emphasized that in the absence of a duly proved chain of custody, the sanctity and integrity of forensic samples become doubtful. Citing the precedent in Prakash Nishad v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that the possibility of tampering or interpolation cannot be ruled out when samples are not handled with promptitude.

"The delayed forwarding of these crucial articles materially affects the sanctity of the chain of custody and undermines the authenticity and evidentiary value of the alleged recoveries."

Medical Evidence Refutes Alleged Motive Of Sexual Assault

The prosecution's motive—that the appellants committed the crime to satisfy carnal desires—was found to be scientifically unsustainable. Dr. B.S. Aswal (PW-12), who examined Mehtab, testified that due to a specific medical condition, it was impossible for the accused to engage in sexual intercourse.

The Court observed that no DNA examination or scientific profiling was undertaken to identify the source of semen traces found on the vaginal swab. Without establishing a scientific link to the appellants, the presence of semen traces alone could not be treated as a conclusive incriminating circumstance.

"In the absence of any cogent evidence substantiating the alleged motive, coupled with the medical evidence, the prosecution theory that the appellants committed the offence for satisfaction of their carnal desires becomes highly doubtful."

Circumstantial Evidence Must Exclude Every Hypothesis Of Innocence

Reiterating the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, the Court held that in cases of circumstantial evidence, each link in the chain must be firmly proved. The cumulative effect of the evidence must satisfy the judicial conscience that the offence was committed by the accused and none else.

The bench concluded that the prosecution had "miserably failed" to establish any of the incriminating circumstances, such as "last seen together" or the recoveries, in a cogent manner. The evidence suffered from material inconsistencies and procedural irregularities that struck at the very root of the case.

"The appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. As these vital incriminating circumstances have not been proved beyond all manner of doubt, it would not be safe to sustain the conviction of the appellants or the sentence of death awarded to them."

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court. Mehtab and Sushil were acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released from custody immediately.

Date of Decision: May 27, 2026