Gambhir Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

2025 INSC 164 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 850-851 OF 2019

GAMBHIR SINGH .…APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ….RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. The law is well-settled that in a criminal case irrespective of

the gravity and nature of charges, the prosecution is under an

obligation to prove the guilt of the accused by leading evidence

which is convincing and links the accused with the crime beyond

all manner of reasonable doubt. In a case based purely on

circumstantial evidence, the onus is upon the prosecution to prove Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SONIA BHASIN

the chain of circumstances beyond all manner of doubt. The law Date: 2025.02.07 18:16:26 IST Reason:

in respect of the same has been crystallized in Sharad

1 Criminal Appeal No(s). 850-851 of 2019

Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra1 wherein it was

held that:-

“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807:

SCC (Cri) p. 1047]

“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

(emphasis supplied)

1 (1984) 4 SCC 116.

2 Criminal Appeal No(s). 850-851 of 2019

3. Keeping in view the above principles, we shall now advert to

the facts of the case at hand. The appellant i.e., Gambhir Singh2

has been convicted and sentenced to death in relation to a ghastly

incident involving murder of his own brother3, sister-in-law4 and

their four innocent children5. The incident took place in the house

of the deceased persons at village Turkiya on the intervening night

of 8th and 9th May, 2012.

4. The case of prosecution in a nutshell is that on 9th May, 2012

at about 6:30 am, Mahaveer Singh (PW-1), being the brother of

deceased Pushpa, received shocking information that his sister,

brother-in-law, nephew and nieces had been hacked to death. On

receiving this information, Mahaveer Singh (PW-1), his family

members, along with other villagers reached village Turkiya, 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.

2 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘appellant-accused’. 3 The brother, namely “Satyabhan”.

4 The sister-in-law, namely “Pushpa”.

5 The children, namely Aarti, Mahla, Gudia and Kanhaiya.

3 Criminal Appeal No(s). 850-851 of 2019

5. Mahaveer Singh (PW-1), the informant lodged a written

report6 with Station House Officer, Police Station Achhnera,

District Agra alleging inter alia that the marriage of his sister

Pushpa had been solemnized about 12 years ago with Satyabhan,

son of Shiv Singh, resident of village Turkiya. From their wedlock

a son and three daughters were born. The appellant-accused,

younger brother of Satyabhan, bore enmity with them due to a

land dispute. On 8th May, 2012, the appellant-accused was staying

with his friend Abhishek at the house of the informant’s sister. On

9th May, 2012 Mahaveer Singh (PW-1) received information that

his sister, brother-in-law, nephew, and nieces i.e., the whole family

of his sister had been done to death. The informant along with his

family members and villagers reached village Turkiya and saw the

dead bodies of his family members lying there. He made enquiries,

on which it came to light that on the previous evening the

appellant-accused along with his friend Abhishek and sister

Gayatri was seen going from village Turkiya in a bewildered

condition. Mahaveer Singh (PW-1) suspected that appellant-

6 Exhibit Ka- 1.

4 Criminal Appeal No(s). 850-851 of 2019

accused and his friend Abhishek may have murdered his sister,

brother-in-law and their four children with sharp-edged weapons.

6. Based on the report given by Mahaveer Singh (PW-1), an FIR

No. 105 of 20127 (Case Crime No. 329 of 2012) was registered at

the Police Station Achhnera, Agra against the appellant-accused,

Abhishek and Gayatri for the offences punishable under Section

302 of Indian Penal Code8. Tasleem Ahmed Rizvi (PW-12),

Inspector of Police9 commenced investigation. Inquest was

conducted on the dead bodies of all the deceased persons10 and

bodies were thereafter, dispatched to the Medical Officer, Dr. Vinod

Kumar (PW-8) for conducting post mortem. The Doctor carried out

the autopsies and noticed injuries from sharp-edged weapons on

each dead body. He issued the post mortem reports for all the dead

bodies.11

7. The Investigating Officer (PW-12) on receiving information

regarding whereabouts of the accused persons, proceeded to

Eidgah Railway Station. He arrested the appellant-accused and

two other co-accused persons i.e., Abhishek and Gayatri on 9th

May, 2012. He recovered a pair of kundal, two bichhua, one

7 Exhibit Ka-18.

8 Hereinafter referred to as “IPC”.

9 Hereinafter referred to as the “Investigating Officer (PW12)”. 10 Exhibit Ka- 6 to Ka- 11.

11 Exhibit Ka- 12 to Ka- 17.

5 Criminal Appeal No(s). 850-851 of 2019

metallic ring, and two ghungaroos from the possession of the

accused-appellant. A passbook of State Bank of India and a cheque

book, both belonging to deceased Satyabhan were recovered from

the possession of co-accused, Gayatri. Further, the identity cards

of deceased Satyabhan and deceased Pushpa and a sum of

Rs.200/- were also recovered from her possession. The clothes and

shoes worn by the appellant-accused and co-accused, Abhishek

were found to be blood-stained and thus, the same were also seized

and sealed. These articles as recovered from the accused persons

were seized and recovery memo12 was prepared.

8. Thereafter, the disclosure statements of the accused persons

were recorded by the Investigating Officer (PW-12) under Section

27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 187213, and thereafter, they were

taken to the crime scene. The weapons i.e. axe (kulhari) and dagger

(katari), allegedly used in the commission of crime were recovered

from a room in the house of the deceased persons where fodder

was kept. These weapons were pointed out by the accused-

appellant (kulhari) and co-accused, Abhishek (katari) in the

presence of the panch witnesses. Since the weapons were found to

12 Exhibit Ka- 22.

13 Hereinafter, referred to as “Evidence Act”.

6 Criminal Appeal No(s). 850-851 of 2019

be blood-stained, the same were sealed and kept in safe custody.14

The Investigating Officer (PW-12) also collected blood-stained soil

and control soil from the place of occurrence and sealed the

same.15 Various other articles were also recovered from the crime

scene.16 Articles recovered from the crime scene viz., the clothes

worn by the deceased and the articles recovered from and at the

instance of the accused persons were all sent to the FSL for

chemical examination. The FSL report17 was received as per which,

human blood was identified on numerous articles, but the blood

group thereof could not be ascertained.

9. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer (PW-

12) submitted a chargesheet18 against the appellant-accused and

the co-accused Abhishek and Gayatri for the offences punishable

under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 404 IPC. The

offences being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the case

was committed and made over to the Court of the Additional

Sessions Judge, Agra19. The trial Court framed charges against the

appellant-accused and the two co-accused persons for the offences

14 Exhibit Ka- 2.

15 Exhibit Ka- 3.

16 Exhibit Ka- 4 and Ka- 5.

17 Exhibit Ka- 24 to Ka- 28.

18 Exhibit Ka- 23.

19 Hereinafter, referred to as the “trial Court”.

7 Criminal Appeal No(s). 850-851 of 2019

mentioned above. The accused persons abjured their guilt and

claimed trial. The accused, Abhishek moved an application with a

prayer to be declared a juvenile. On this application, the trial Court

ordered an enquiry to be conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board

and vide order dated 18th April, 2013, co-accused Abhishek was

declared to be a juvenile in conflict with law and his case was

accordingly separated and was transferred to the Juvenile Court.

Hence, the trial of the Sessions Case was conducted only against

the accused-appellant and co-accused, Gayatri.

10. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses,

exhibited 23 documents and 10 material objects in order to prove

its case. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of

the accused-appellant and co-accused Gayatri were recorded

under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 197320. They

were confronted with the allegations as appearing in the

prosecution evidence which they denied and claimed to be

innocent.

11. Upon hearing the arguments advanced by the Public

Prosecutor and the counsel for defence and after appreciating the

evidence available on record, the trial Court, vide judgment dated

20 For short, “CrPC”.

8 Criminal Appeal No(s). 850-851 of 2019

20th March, 2017 proceeded to hold that the prosecution was able

to prove the case against the appellant-accused beyond all manner

of doubt and accordingly, the appellant-accused was convicted for

the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34

and Section 404 of IPC. However, the co-accused, Gayatri was

acquitted of all the charges by giving her the benefit of doubt.

12. After hearing the appellant-accused and Public Prosecutor in

respect of sentence, the trial Court imposed death penalty along

with fine of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 302 read with Section 34

of IPC and 3 years imprisonment along with fine Rs. 10,000/-

under Section 404 IPC.

13. The reference21 for confirmation of the death sentence

awarded to the appellant-accused, was forwarded to the High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad22 under Section 366 CrPC. The

State preferred an appeal23 assailing the acquittal of co-accused,

Gayatri. A separate appeal24 was also preferred by the appellant-

accused assailing his order of conviction awarded by the trial

Court. The High Court, vide judgment dated 9th January, 2019,

proceeded to dismiss the appeal filed by the State, assailing the

21 Reference No. 07 of 2017. 22 Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”. 23 Government Appeal No. 3574 of 2017.

24 Capital Case No. 1900 of 2017. 9 Criminal Appeal No(s). 850-851 of 2019

acquittal of Gayatri by recording a pertinent finding that the

prosecution had planted the recoveries allegedly made at the

instance of the said accused, and the case against Gayatri had not

been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

14. The appeal filed by the appellant-accused was dismissed. The

reference under Section 366 CrPC was answered in the affirmative

and the conviction of the appellant-accused and the death

sentence awarded to him stood confirmed. The appellant-accused

has filed the present appeal by special leave before this Court,

assailing the judgment dated 9th January, 2019 rendered by the

High Court whereby, the conviction and order of death sentence

passed by the trial Court has been affirmed.

15. Learned counsel representing the appellant-accused urged

that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated. The

prosecution has failed to prove even one of the so-called

incriminating circumstances so as to connect the appellant-

accused with the crime. The prosecution projected three

circumstances for proving the guilt of the appellant-accused, i.e.,

‘last seen’, ‘motive’ and ‘recoveries made at the instance of the

appellant-accused’. However, as per the learned counsel for the

appellant-accused, none of the aforesaid incriminating

10 Criminal Appeal No(s). 850-851 of 2019

circumstances was proved by leading credible evidence. He thus,

implored this Court to accept the appeal and set aside the

impugned judgment and acquit the appellant-accused of all the

charges levelled against him.

16. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State,

vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by

the learned counsel for the appellant-accused. He urged that the

prosecution has proved the charges against the appellant-accused

beyond all manner of doubt. The prosecution witnesses (PW-1 to

PW-5) and other villagers reached the place of occurrence in the

morning after receiving the information of the ghastly incident

involving six murders. They made inquiries from the villagers and

came to know that the appellant-accused had committed the

murder of Satyabhan and his family members owing to a long

standing land dispute. He urged that the appellant-accused and

the deceased Satyabhan were real brothers and were involved in

the murder of their own mother. The land owned by the appellant-

accused was sold to cover the expenses of pleading the case

involving the murder of his mother. The said property had been

purchased by deceased Satyabhan in the name of his wife

(deceased Pushpa). When the appellant-accused was released on

11 Criminal Appeal No(s). 850-851 of 2019

bail, in the case involving murder of his own mother, he insisted

that his land should be returned. Owing to this, disputes ensued

between the two brothers and the appellant-accused vowed to take

revenge and threatened the victim with dire consequences. Owing

to this motive and greed, the appellant-accused brutally murdered

his real brother, sister-in-law and their four children.

17. It was further submitted by the counsel for the respondent

that the prosecution has proved the circumstances of motive, last

seen theory, and recovery of the incriminating blood-stained

weapons and clothes by leading cogent evidence. He thus urged

that the appellant-accused was rightly convicted by the trial Court

and his conviction was justifiably affirmed by the High Court. He

further urged that the case involves gruesome murder of six

persons including four innocent children and thus, the appellant-

accused deserves no leniency on the question of sentence as well.

Hence, he implored this Court to dismiss the appeals and affirm

the impugned judgments and the order of death sentence awarded

to the appellant-accused.

18. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at the bar and have gone through the

impugned judgements. We have also re-appreciated the evidence

12 Criminal Appeal No(s). 850-851 of 2019

available on record with the assistance of the learned counsel

representing the parties.

19. At the outset, we may note that there is no dispute regarding

the cause of death of six deceased persons. The six dead bodies

were subjected to autopsy by Medical Officer, Dr. Vinod Kumar

(PW-8), who has proved all the post mortem reports in detail during

his testimony. The evidence of Medical Officer (PW-8) remained

unchallenged and hence, we have no reason to doubt the opinion

expressed by Medical Officer (PW-8) that the death of the six

victims was homicidal and had been caused by inflicting blows of

sharp-edged weapons.

20. Now, we come to the theory of motive. The only semblance of

motive which the prosecution has tried to attribute to the

appellant-accused by way of incriminating circumstances, is based

on the theory that the land owned by the appellant-accused had

been sold by deceased Satyabhan to his own wife (deceased

Pushpa) for covering the expenses borne in the pairokari of the

criminal case wherein, the appellant-accused and the deceased

Satyabhan were arraigned as accused for the murder of their own

mother. However, on-going through the entire record, we find that

other than a bald aspersion made by Mahaveer Singh (PW-1), the

13 Criminal Appeal No(s). 850-851 of 2019

first informant and the brother of deceased Pushpa in his

deposition, no plausible evidence has been brought on record by

the prosecution to prove the above story so as to establish the

motive attributed to the appellant-accused. Neither the particulars

of the criminal case involving the murder of mother of deceased

Satyabhan and the appellant-accused were placed on record nor

did the prosecution produce the documents evidencing the sale of

the plot of land, owned by the appellant-accused. Resultantly,

there is no escape from the conclusion that the prosecution failed

to lead even an iota of evidence to show that the appellant-accused

was deprived of the plot of land owned by him so as to connect

such transaction with the theory of motive.

21. The remaining part of evidence of Mahaveer Singh (PW-1) is

conjectural and hearsay in nature. In cross-examination, Mahavir

Singh (PW-1) admitted that he did not see anything with his own

eyes. He could not recollect the names of the people/villagers who

told him that they had seen the appellant-accused at the crime

scene.

22. The evidence of Bahadur Singh (PW-2) is also hearsay in

nature. In addition, the witness also stated that the police

apprehended the appellant-accused, Gayatri and Abhishek and

14 Criminal Appeal No(s). 850-851 of 2019

took them to the crime scene from where the appellant-accused

got recovered an axe (kulhari) concealed under the straw kept in

the house. A dagger (katari) was also recovered at the instance of

Abhishek. This witness also gave evidence regarding collection of

the blood-stained soil, blood-stained clothes etc. from the spot.

This witness is the uncle of the first informant, Mahaveer Singh

(PW-1) and thus, it is important to note that he did not utter a

single word regarding the theory of motive as portrayed in the

evidence of PW-1.

23. Shivram Singh (PW-3) deposed as a panch witness of the

recovery memos. He also stated that the appellant-accused got

recovered an axe (kulhari) and Abhishek took out a dagger (katari)

from inside the house and gave it to the Inspector.

24. Mahtab Singh (PW-4) and Raju (PW-5) were the panch

witnesses associated with the preparation of the inquest

panchnamas carried out on the dead bodies of the deceased

victims. Their evidence is of formal character.

25. Dashrath Singh (PW-6) testified that about 3 years ago, he

was sitting at his shop near village Achhnera. One Kedar Singh

was also sitting beside him. In the evening at about 4 to 5 o’ clock,

he saw the appellant-accused along with a boy (Abhishek) and his

15 Criminal Appeal No(s). 850-851 of 2019

sister, Gayatri moving very quickly. They were proceeding towards

Agra from the direction of village Turkiya. The clothes worn by the

appellant-accused and the boy (Abhishek) were ensanguined and

Gayatri was walking at a little distance from them. The witness

claimed that he knew the appellant-accused and Gayatri because

her elder brother i.e., deceased Satyabhan was married in his

family. The witness stated that the next day he received

information from Turkiya regarding the murders and accordingly,

he also reached the place of incident where he came to know that

his brother-in-law, sister, and their children had been murdered.

26. In cross-examination, the witness (PW-6) stated that when he

reached village Turkiya, he saw that a large crowd had gathered.

People from the crowd told him that his brother-in-law, sister, and

their children had been murdered. He also stated that the

appellant-accused met him at 5 o’ clock in the evening. The

witness (PW-6) did not talk to him because the appellant-accused

was not a good person and had blood on his clothes. The witness

could not recollect the date of the incident. Apparently, the

evidence of this witness has been created by the prosecution for

lending credence to its flimsy case, as against the appellant-

accused and to link him with the crime by hook or by crook. We

16 Criminal Appeal No(s). 850-851 of 2019

have strong reasons for holding so. As per the prosecution case,

the incident took place in the intervening night of 8th May, 2012

and 9th May, 2012. Thus, even if the evidence of Dashrath (PW-6)

is to be believed, the same does not give any credence to the

prosecution’s case, since the witness claims to have seen the

appellant-accused, Gayatri, and another person in the evening at

about 4 to 5 o’ clock whereas the murders admittedly took place

much later in the night and the witness heard about the incident

on the next day. Thus, apparently, this witness was created by the

prosecution and his testimony is totally unworthy of credence.

Similar evidence was given by Kedar Singh (PW-7) and his

testimony also deserves to be discarded for the same reasons.

27. In addition, thereto, we may note that the distance between

Achhnera and Turkiya is about 7 to 10 kms as stated by Mahaveer

Singh (PW-1) in his deposition. Thus, the probability of the

appellant-accused traversing this long distance wearing blood-

stained clothes after having committed six murders is virtually

impossible and unbelievable. Evidently, both these witnesses,

namely, Dashrath Singh (PW-6) and Kedar Singh (PW-7), are

cooked-up witnesses whose testimony has been created by the

prosecution to lend credence to its story in a case of blind murder.

17 Criminal Appeal No(s). 850-851 of 2019

28. Raj Bahadur Singh (PW-9) was posted as Sub-Inspector at

Police Station Achhnera on the date of the incident. He

accompanied the Investigating Officer (PW-12) and the other police

officials and proceeded to the crime scene where the panchnamas

were prepared. His evidence is formal in nature.

29. Sitaram Saroj (PW-10) was posted as Sub-Inspector in the

Reserve Police Line, Mainpuri. He participated in inquest

proceedings. He also carried out some formal steps of

investigation. On going through the testimony of PW-10, we find

that the same is formal in nature and not of much relevance for

linking the appellant-accused with the crime in any manner.

30. Sunil Kumar (PW-11) was posted as a Constable at Police

Station Achhnera on the date of the incident. He received the

written report submitted by Mahaveer Singh (PW-1) and registered

the FIR No. 105 of 2012 (Crime Case No. 329 of 2012) at the Police

Station and entered the same in the general diary of the police

station. Thus, the evidence of the said witness is also formal in

nature.

31. The most important and material witness of the prosecution

is Tasleem Ahmed Rizvi (PW-12), Inspector of Police who was

18 Criminal Appeal No(s). 850-851 of 2019

posted as SHO at Police Station Achhnera and conducted the

investigation of the case. The relevant extracts from the testimony

which are essential for appreciating and evaluating the case of the

prosecution are reproduced hereinbelow: -

“On 09.05.12, I was posted as SHO in police station Achhnera. On the basis of the report given by the informant Mr. Mahavir Singh, case crime no. 329/12 under section 302 IPC was registered. I received the copy of the chik, copy report from the police station. On this basis, on that day after registering the report I took the informant statement.

The site of the incident was inspected on the instance of the informant. And on the same day, I made a map of the spot and leaving enough force on the spot for Panchnama; while searching and monitoring the accused, they were arrested from Idgah railway station and also recovered the ornaments of the deceased from them and fard was made. Also recorded the confessional statement of the accused Gambhir, statement of accused Abhishek and statement of accused Gayatri. Thereafter on the instance of the accused in front of the witnesses and the public, recovered the axe and dagger used in murder from the straw room from the house of the deceased Satyabhan, prepared the fard in front of the public and the police and a map of the spot of the verandah was also prepared. On the same day, by taking possession of blood-stained clothes and some food items from the spot, fard was prepared and had also written confessional statements about the recovery of weapons used in murders and sent the dead bodies for post-mortem after conducting Panchnama. On date - 10.05.12, after observing the Panchnama and PMR of the deceased in the form the same was copied and the statements of Panchnama and Fard's testimony were recorded. Statement of Dashrath and Kailash Singh were recorded in GD third dated 11.05. On 15.05.12, the goods of CD-4 were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. On 16.05.12, in CD5, accused Abhishek went to jail and re-recorded the statement and the address was confirmed and the viscera and material of the deceased concerned in the trial were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. After this I was transferred to the police station Achhnera. The subsequent investigation was done by SO Mr Rajiv Kumar Yadav. The site plan of the place of occurrence and the recovery weapons used in murder, is in my writing and signature. Exhibit Ka-20 was marked at the site plan of the incident.

19 Criminal Appeal No(s). 850-851 of 2019

Exhibit Ka-21 was marked on weapon used in Murder. Fard of axe used in murder and a dagger recovered by me at the direction of the accused. Fard of which I had made by dictating it to SI Kiranpal Singh. Fard is present in front of me on the record today. I have my signature on this along with other witnesses. Exhibit Ka-2 has already been marked on the fard in the past. On the same day, 2 kundals of the deceased, 2 bichhuas, 1 chhalla, 2 ghughroo and passbook and check book etc. recovered from the possession of the accused fard of which was prepared by SSI Shri Vindra Kumar Singh was prepared by dictating on which there are my signatures along with signatures of witnesses. Fard is present in front of me on the record, on which Exhibit Ka- 22 was marked. The copy of the fard was given to the accused on which his signature were taken.”

32. On a meticulous examination of the deposition of the

Investigating Officer (PW-12), we find the following inherent

infirmities in his testimony which completely discredits the

prosecution’s case regarding the so-called incriminating

recoveries: -

(i) The Investigating Officer (PW-12) neither proved nor

exhibited the disclosure statement of the appellant-

accused during his deposition;

(ii) 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;

(iii) 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

20 Criminal Appeal No(s). 850-851 of 2019

witness did not even state that he signed and attested the

memorandums under which the recoveries were effected.

Therefore, 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.

33. Furthermore, on going through the entire examination-in-

chief of the Investigating Officer (PW-12), we do not find anything

therein to suggest that the officer, conducted any investigation

whatsoever regarding the theory of motive. The evidence of the

Investigating Officer (PW-12) is totally silent on this vital aspect of

the case. At this stage, we may also refer to the fact that the High

Court while deciding the appeal of the co-accused Gayatri has

observed that the recoveries effected at her instance were planted

and fake.

34. Having considered the material available on record in its

entirety, we find 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

21 Criminal Appeal No(s). 850-851 of 2019

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.

No effort whatsoever was made to collect proper evidence of motive.

The Investigating Officer (PW-12) failed to collect any evidence

whatsoever regarding the safe keeping of the recovered

articles/material objects, till the same reached the Forensic

Science Laboratory. This utter negligence in conducting the

investigation has contributed significantly to the failure of the

prosecution’s case as against the appellant-accused.

35. We further feel that the Public Prosecutor conducting the trial

and so also the Presiding Officer of the trial Court were totally

remiss while conducting the trial. 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.

36. 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

22 Criminal Appeal No(s). 850-851 of 2019

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.

37. 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.

38. Resultantly, the impugned judgments25 are quashed and the

conviction of the appellant-accused as recorded by the trial Court

and affirmed by the High Court is set aside.

39. The appellant-Gambhir Singh is acquitted of the charges. He

is in custody and shall be released from prison forthwith, if not

wanted in any other case.

40. The appeals are allowed accordingly.

25 Dated 20th March, 2017 and 9th January, 2019 passed by the trial Court and the High

Court, respectively.

23 Criminal Appeal No(s). 850-851 of 2019

41. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

………………….……….J. (VIKRAM NATH)

………………….……….J. (SANJAY KAROL) .

………………………….J. (SANDEEP MEHTA) New Delhi;

January 28, 2025

24