The Supreme Court overturned the death penalty conviction of an accused in a case involving the brutal murder of six family members, including his four children and brother.

The Court cited deficiencies in the investigation and irregularities in the evidence recovery process conducted by the Uttar Pradesh police.

"The fabric of the prosecution case is full of holes and holes which are impossible to mend," the Court said.

The Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish any incriminating circumstances against the accused, including motive, last-seen evidence, and recoveries.

“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.”

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta heard the case. The prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, alleging that the appellant murdered his family members over a land dispute. However, it failed to establish the motive. Additionally, the prosecution did not examine any independent witnesses present near the crime scene, relying solely on testimonies from interested witnesses.

Pointing to the prosecution's faulty investigation, failure to prove motive, last-seen evidence, and flawed recovery, the accused argued before the Supreme Court that his guilt had not been established beyond reasonable doubt.

Setting aside the conviction, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta observed:

“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.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, and set aside the conviction of the Appellant.

Case Title: GAMBHIR SINGH VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH