In a landmark ruling that underscores the stringent standards required for convictions in circumstantial evidence cases, especially those involving the death penalty, the Supreme Court of India today acquitted Akhtar Ali alias Ali Akhtar alias Shamim alias Raja Ustad and Prem Pal Verma in the horrific 2014 kidnapping, rape, and murder of a young girl in Haldwani, Uttarakhand. The three-judge bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta, set aside the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court and upheld by the Uttarakhand High Court, ordering the immediate release of the appellants.
The case, which dates back to November 2014, had gripped the nation due to its gruesome nature and the involvement of child protection laws. The victim, referred to as Ms. K in court documents, was a minor girl who went missing during a family wedding at Sheeshmahal in Ramlila Maidan, Kathgodam. According to the prosecution’s narrative, the girl was last seen playing in the wedding pandal around 7:45 pm on November 20, 2014. Her father (PW-1) lodged a missing person report the next day under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Kathgodam Police Station.
Four days later, on November 25, 2014, the girl’s body was discovered near the Gaula River in a forested area opposite Sheeshmahal. The post-mortem examination conducted by Dr. C.P. Bhaisora (PW-7) revealed pale organs with early signs of putrefaction, concluding that the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage from severe injuries to the vaginal and perianal regions, inflicted through sexual assault and blunt force trauma. This led to the addition of charges under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 376 (rape), 302 (murder), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC, along with provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
The investigation, led by Vipin Chandra Pant (PW-40), relied heavily on circumstantial evidence. Key elements included witness statements from local shopkeepers like Kishan Singh Bora (PW-16), Bal Krishan (PW-19), and Shahadat Ali (PW-20), who claimed to have seen Prem Pal Verma drinking liquor and buying chocolates near the venue. Mobile surveillance traced a suspect to Ludhiana, Punjab, leading to Akhtar Ali’s arrest on November 27, 2014. Items recovered included a railway ticket, an identity card, a mobile phone, and a blanket allegedly used in the crime. Akhtar Ali’s confession implicated Verma and another individual, Junior Masih alias Foxy, who was later acquitted.
In the 2016 trial at the Special Judge (POCSO)/Fast Track Court in Haldwani, Akhtar Ali was convicted under Sections 376A (rape causing death), 363, and 201 of the IPC; Sections 3/4, 5/6, and 7/8 of the POCSO Act; and Section 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000. He was sentenced to death for the rape-murder charges. Prem Pal Verma was convicted under Section 212 (harboring offender) of the IPC and Section 66C of the IT Act, receiving seven and three years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively. Both were acquitted of conspiracy and other related charges.
The Uttarakhand High Court, in its October 18, 2019, judgment, partially upheld these convictions, affirming the death sentence for Akhtar Ali while acquitting both of IT Act charges. Appeals by the victim’s family and the state against acquittals were dismissed.
In today’s Supreme Court verdict (2025 INSC 1097), the bench meticulously dissected the prosecution’s case, highlighting multiple failures. Justice Mehta, authoring the judgment, noted that the evidence rested purely on circumstantial links, which were incomplete and unreliable. The court criticized the lack of proof for motive (alleged lust without corroboration), infirmities in the “last seen” theory due to unproven proximity of time and place, and the dubious scientific evidence.
Particular scrutiny was given to the DNA report, which purportedly matched samples from the victim’s body to Akhtar Ali. The bench questioned the qualifications of the DNA expert (PW-34), a botanist with no specialized training in human DNA profiling, and pointed out procedural lapses in sample collection and chain of custody. Mobile surveillance claims were debunked, as call detail records were obtained post-arrest and failed to link Akhtar Ali to the SIM cards in question. The omission of key witnesses, including Nikhil Chand—who first informed police of the body’s location—and mobile subscribers, further weakened the case.
Emphasizing the “rarest of rare” doctrine from landmark cases like Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983), the court stressed that death penalties demand unimpeachable evidence excluding all hypotheses of innocence. “Where two views are possible, the one favorable to the accused must be adopted,” the judgment read. The bench also referenced Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, underscoring the need for mitigating factors and fair sentencing hearings.
Since the case against Verma hinged on Akhtar Ali’s extra-judicial confession—which was disbelieved—the convictions against him collapsed as well. The court declared both appellants acquitted of all charges, setting aside the lower courts’ judgments and directing their release unless required in other cases.
This acquittal has sparked mixed reactions. Legal experts hail it as a safeguard against miscarriages of justice in high-stakes cases, while victim rights advocates express dismay over the unresolved quest for justice in child crimes. The ruling may prompt reviews of similar circumstantial evidence-based convictions, particularly under POCSO, and highlights the need for robust forensic protocols.
The family of the victim, who traveled from Pithoragarh for the wedding, has yet to comment. Uttarakhand authorities have not indicated if they will seek a review. As India grapples with rising child sexual offense cases—over 50,000 reported annually per NCRB data—this verdict serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in balancing retribution with evidentiary rigor.
Case Details: AKHTAR ALI @ ALI AKHTAR @ SHAMIM @ RAJA USTAD v/s State of Uttrakhand | 2025 INSC 1097
Click HERE for full judgment
Lawcutor 