Summary and Analysis of Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar vs State of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 1097

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Name: Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar & Anr. vs State of Uttarakhand
Citation: 2025 INSC 1097
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Hon'ble Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta
Date of Judgment: September 10, 2025
Nature of Judgment: Appeal allowed; Convictions and Death Sentence set aside; Appellants Acquitted.

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment pertains to a wide array of legal provisions from different statutes under which the appellants were convicted by the trial court. The key sections involved are:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
  Section 376A: Punishment for causing death or resulting in persistent vegetative state of the victim.
  Section 363: Punishment for kidnapping.
  Section 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence.
  Section 212: Harbouring an offender.
  Section 120-B: Punishment of criminal conspiracy.
  Section 302: Punishment for murder.

• The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act):
  Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8: Pertaining to penetrative sexual assault, aggravated penetrative sexual assault, and their punishments.
  Sections 16, 17: Pertaining to abetment of an offence.

• Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act):
  Section 66C: Punishment for identity theft.

3. Basic Judgment Details

This case arose from the brutal sexual assault and murder of a minor girl (referred to as Ms. K) on the evening of November 20, 2014, in Haldwani, Uttarakhand. The appellants, Akhtar Ali (Accused No. 1) and Prem Pal Verma (Accused No. 2), were convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court. Akhtar Ali was awarded the death penalty for offences under Section 376A IPC and relevant sections of the POCSO Act, along with other sentences. Prem Pal Verma was convicted for harbouring the offender (Section 212 IPC).

The Uttarakhand High Court partially upheld the convictions. It confirmed the death sentence for Akhtar Ali and the seven-year rigorous imprisonment for Prem Pal Verma under Section 212 IPC, but acquitted both of charges under the IT Act.

The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the common judgment of the High Court dated October 18, 2019.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

The Supreme Court's judgment is a meticulous analysis of a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and acquitted both appellants. The core of the judgment rests on the failure of the prosecution to establish a complete and unbreakable chain of circumstances, as required by law for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence.

The Court's reasoning can be broken down into the following key areas of scrutiny:

A. Failure to Establish Motive: The prosecution alleged the motive was to satisfy lust. However, the Court found the evidence to establish this motive was weak and unreliable. The testimony of Shankar Datt Padalia (PW-18), who claimed to have hired Akhtar Ali on the day of the incident, was deemed "fishy" and "palpably doubtful." The Court found it improbable that an expensive dumper would be entrusted to an unknown person based on a mere recommendation. Furthermore, the witness's claim of giving Akhtar Ali Rs. 3000 the next day without noticing any panic in his behaviour was inconsistent with the guilt of a person who had just committed a heinous crime. The Court concluded that the prosecution "utterly failed to attribute any clear or convincing motive."

B. Collapse of the 'Last Seen' Theory: The prosecution relied on witnesses (PW-16, PW-19, PW-20) who claimed to have seen the appellants in an inebriated state near the crime scene around the time the victim went missing. The Supreme Court found fatal flaws in this theory:

• The statements of these witnesses were recorded belatedly on November 25, 2014, after the victim's body was found, raising suspicion that they were "a product of subsequent padding."

• None of these witnesses actually stated that the victim was seen with the appellants. Their testimony only placed the appellants in the general vicinity, which is insufficient to sustain a last-seen theory in a case of this gravity.

• Most critically, the prosecution failed to examine Nikhil Chand, the victim's cousin, who was the first person to inform the police about the location of the dead body. The Court held this was a "grave omission" and a "calculated" failure. Nikhil Chand's knowledge of the body's location, which eluded extensive police searches for days, was a pivotal link. The failure to examine him deprived the defense of the chance to test his knowledge and compelled the Court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court held that this omission alone caused the last-seen theory to "completely collapse."

C. Dubious Arrest and Investigation: The Court found the circumstances of Akhtar Ali's arrest in Ludhiana on November 27, 2014, to be "surrounded by grave doubt" and "something out of fiction."

• The story of tracing him via mobile surveillance was falsified because the Call Detail Records (CDRs) were applied for and procured only in January 2015, long after his arrest.

• The mobile numbers allegedly used by Akhtar Ali were registered to other individuals (Lakshmi and Md. Iqbal), who were never examined as witnesses.

• There was no entry in the police station's General Diary regarding the departure of the arrest team to Ludhiana, and the arresting officer (PW-10) had no prior authorization to make the arrest.

• The alleged recovery of the victim's hairband at Akhtar Ali's instance was also deemed "ex facie dubious" and "unworthy of credence" by the Court.

D. Unreliable DNA and Forensic Evidence: This was a central pillar of the prosecution's case, which the Supreme Court thoroughly dismantled.

• Suspicious Findings: The DNA report showed Akhtar Ali's semen on the cervical swab, undershirt, and underwear of the victim but no semen was found in the vaginal swab, vaginal wash, or on the cervical smear slides. The Court found this "selective presence" scientifically improbable and defying anatomy, as semen would first be deposited in the vaginal tract before reaching the cervix. This inconsistency suggested tampering or planting of evidence.

• Chain of Custody and Expert Credibility: The credentials of the DNA analyst, Dr. Manoj Kumar Agarwal (PW-34), were questioned. He held an M.Sc. and Ph.D. in Botany (the study of plants), with no proven expertise in human DNA profiling. The Court noted that while this wasn't the sole reason for discarding the report, it added to the doubt.

• Context of Illegal Detention: The Court concluded that if the arrest itself was illegal and stage-managed (as it found), the process of drawing samples from the accused could not be regarded as voluntary or reliable. The cumulative circumstances gave rise to a "strong inference of tampering with the forensic samples and planting of semen."

E. Supreme Court's Directions and Final Analysis: Applying the famous "golden principles" for circumstantial evidence from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra (1984), the Court held that the chain of circumstances was not just broken but "shattered."

• The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence was unreliable, contradictory, and raised more questions than it answered.

• The Court emphasized the irreversible nature of the death penalty, stating it must be imposed only in the "rarest of rare" cases upon "unimpeachable, cogent, and convincing evidence." Any doubt must weigh against its imposition.

• Since the case against Prem Pal Verma was derivative and primarily based on the disbelieved extra-judicial confession of Akhtar Ali, his conviction also could not stand.

Conclusion: 

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments of the courts below, and acquitted both appellants of all charges. They were ordered to be released immediately unless required in any other case.