Holding

The conviction and death sentence were set aside because the prosecution failed to establish any of the alleged incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.

Summary

The appellant, Gambhir Singh, was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of his brother, sister‑in‑law and their four children. The prosecution relied on three alleged incriminating circumstances – motive, last‑seen testimony and recoveries of weapons – to link the appellant to the crime. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove any of these circumstances, with key evidence being hearsay, conjectural and improperly recorded, and the investigating officer’s testimony riddled with infirmities. It also noted the investigating agency and trial prosecutor acted negligently, violating procedural requirements of the Evidence Act. Consequently, the Court quashed the High Court and trial court judgments, acquitted the appellant, and ordered his immediate release.

Issues considered

The prosecution must prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially when the case is based solely on circumstantial evidence.
Whether the three alleged incriminating circumstances – motive, last‑seen, and recoveries – were sufficiently proved.
Whether procedural lapses in recording evidence under the Evidence Act vitiated the prosecution's case.
Whether the death sentence affirmed by the High Court should stand in view of the evidentiary deficiencies.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313, s. 366
Evidence Act, 1872s. 27, s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34, s. 404

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the sustainability of the order passed by the High Court upholding the order of conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 34 – Murder – Death sentence – ghastly incident involving murder of his real brother, sister-in-law, and their four children and awarded death sentence – Acquittal of the co-accused by giving her the benefit of the doubt – Appeal thereagainst by the State, dismissed – Also, dismissal of the appeal filed by

Subjects

Circumstantial evidenceDeath penaltyConfirmation of death sentenceBeyond reasonable doubtIncriminating circumstancesHearsayConjectural evidenceLast seenTheory of motiveRecoveriesWant of proper evidenceLackadaisical approach on part of investigating agencyNegligence in conducting investigation

Judgment

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1508 : 2025 INSC 164

Gambhir Singh
v.
The State of Uttar Pradesh
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 850-851 of 2019)
28 January 2025
[Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the sustainability of the order passed by the
High Court upholding the order of conviction and death sentence
awarded to the appellant by the trial court.

Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 34 – Murder – Death sentence –
Appellant convicted for the ghastly incident involving murder
of his real brother, sister-in-law, and their four children and
awarded death sentence – Acquittal of the co-accused by
giving her the benefit of the doubt – Appeal thereagainst by
the State, dismissed – Also, dismissal of the appeal filed by
the appellant, upholding the order of conviction and death
sentence – Sustainability:
Held: Not sustainable – Prosecution failed to prove even one
of the three so-called incriminating circumstances, ‘motive’, ‘last
seen’ and ‘recoveries’ in its quest to bring home the guilt of the
appellant – Prosecution failed to lead even an iota of evidence to
show that the appellant was deprived of the plot of land owned by
him so as to connect such transaction with the theory of motive –
Evidence of some prosecution witnesses conjectural and hearsay
in nature – Two prosecution witnesses created by the prosecution
and their testimony totally unworthy of credence – Inherent infirmities
in the testimony of the Investigating Officer completely discredits
the prosecution’s case regarding the so-called incriminating
recoveries – Substratum of the prosecution case regarding the
disclosure statements rendered by the appellant and the recoveries
allegedly made in furtherance thereof remains unproved for want
of proper evidence – Utter lackadaisical approach on part of the
Investigating Agency as well as the prosecution – Investigation
of a case involving gruesome murders of six innocent persons
carried out in a most casual and negligent manner contributing
* Author
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1509

Gambhir Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

significantly to the failure of the prosecution’s case as against the
appellant – Public Prosecutor conducting the trial and as also the
Presiding Officer of the trial court totally remiss while conducting the
trial – Evidence of the material prosecution witness recorded without
adhering to the mandatory procedural requirements of the Evidence
Act – High Court failed to advert to the inherent improbabilities and
infirmities in the prosecution case – Impugned judgments quashed
and the conviction of the appellant set aside – Evidence Act, 1872.
[Paras 20-22, 26, 27, 32, 34-38]

Case Law Cited
Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra [1985] 1
SCR 88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra [1974] 1 SCR 489 : (1973) 2 SCC 793 – referred to.

List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Evidence Act, 1872; Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.

List of Keywords
Circumstantial evidence; Death penalty/sentence; Confirmation
of death sentence; Beyond reasonable doubt; Incriminating
circumstances; Hearsay; Conjectural evidence; Last seen; Theory
of motive; Recoveries; Want of proper evidence; Lackadaisical
approach on part of investigating agency; Negligence in conducting
investigation.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
850-851 of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.01.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in CCN No. 1900 of 2017 and RN No.
07 of 2017

Appearances for Parties
Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, Ms. Aarti U. Mishra, Harsh Som,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Sushil Kumar Tomar, Shaurya Krishna,
Advs. for the Respondents.
1510 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

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 the chain of
circumstances beyond all manner of doubt. The law in respect of
the same has been crystallized in Sharad 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.”

1 (1984) 4 SCC 116.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1511

Gambhir Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

(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)

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.
1512 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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-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

6 Exhibit Ka- 1.
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.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1513

Gambhir Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

persons i.e., Abhishek and Gayatri on 9th May, 2012. He recovered a
pair of kundal, two bichhua, one 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 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

12 Exhibit Ka- 22.
13 Hereinafter, referred to as “Evidence Act”.
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.
1514 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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 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.

19 Hereinafter, referred to as the “trial Court”.
20 For short, “CrPC”.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1515

Gambhir Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

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 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 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

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.
1516 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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 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
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1517

Gambhir Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

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 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 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.
1518 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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
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 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
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1519

Gambhir Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

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.
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 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: -
1520 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“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. Exhibit Ka-21 was marked on weapon
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1521

Gambhir Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

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 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
1522 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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 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
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1523

Gambhir Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

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

Result of the case: Appeals allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain

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