Legal Analysis: Mehtab vs. State of Uttarakhand

Citation: 2026 INSC 578 (Reportable)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
Judgment Author: Justice Mehta (Sandeep Mehta, J.)
Date of Decision: May 27, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Criminal Appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court, which had confirmed the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for offences under Sections 302, 376(2)(g) read with Section 34 IPC, while acquitting them of the charge under the SC/ST Act.

Synopsis of the Judgment
The appellants were convicted by the trial court and the High Court for the rape and murder of a 55-year-old woman in a forest area. The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence: (i) the appellants were allegedly seen by two girls (PW2 and PW4) enquiring about the deceased and proceeding towards the forest (last seen together); (ii) pursuant to disclosure statements, a torn shirt pocket matching the shirt of accused No.1 and the salwar and ornaments of the deceased were recovered; (iii) forensic evidence showed blood group 'O' (matching the deceased) on the shirt and pocket, and semen on the vaginal swab. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. The "last seen together" evidence was unreliable due to inconsistencies, failure to hold a test identification parade, non‑examination of a key witness (Neha), and doubtful sketches prepared by an unidentified artist. The recoveries suffered from serious defects in seizure, sealing, and chain of custody. The forensic evidence was inconclusive (no DNA, common blood group). Medical evidence indicated that accused No.1 could not have engaged in sexual intercourse due to a medical condition. The investigation was flawed, and the benefit of doubt was granted to the appellants.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

• Case Title: Mehtab vs. State of Uttarakhand (with connected appeal)

• Criminal Appeal Nos.: 1342-1343 of 2018 and 1340-1341 of 2018

• Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi (Division Bench of three Judges)

• Judgment Author: Justice Sandeep Mehta

• Date of Decision: May 27, 2026

• Citation: 2026 INSC 578 (Reportable)

• Appeal From: Common judgment dated 27.04.2018 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeals (against conviction) and Death Reference No. 1 of 2014, confirming the death sentence and conviction under Sections 302, 376(2)(g) read with Section 34 IPC.

2. Legal Framework

Laws and Provisions Involved:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Section 302 (murder – death sentence), Section 376(2)(g) (gang rape), Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence – accused were acquitted), Section 34 (common intention).

• Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act): Section 3(2)(v) (offence against member of SC/ST – accused were acquitted by the High Court).

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 366 (reference for confirmation of death sentence), Section 374(2) (appeal against conviction), Section 161 (recording of witness statements), Section 313 (examination of accused).

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 27 (discovery of facts pursuant to disclosure statement – recoveries), Section 114 (presumption as to chain of custody), Section 9 (test identification parade – its importance).

Key Precedents Cited and Applied:

• Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of Maharashtra (2020) – Importance of maintaining unbroken chain of custody for forensic evidence; failure to prove custody compromises evidentiary value; unexplained delay in sending samples to FSL raises possibility of contamination.

• Allarakha Habib Memon v. State of Gujarat (2019) – Mere recovery of bloodstained article with matching blood group (common group) is insufficient to link accused with crime without reliable evidence connecting the article to the commission of the offence.

• Mustkeem v. State of Rajasthan (2011) –

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.