“DNA Cannot Cure a Broken Chain”: Supreme Court tightens standards on circumstantial proof, last-seen evidence, and death sentencing in Akhtar Ali v. State of Uttarakhand (2025 INSC 1097)

Introduction

In Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v. State of Uttarakhand (2025 INSC 1097), the Supreme Court of India set aside the concurrent conviction (including a death sentence under Section 376A IPC and provisions of the POCSO Act) of Akhtar Ali (appellant no. 1) and the conviction of Prem Pal Verma (appellant no. 2), arising out of the tragic disappearance and death of a minor girl (“Ms. K”) during a wedding at Sheeshmahal, Ramlila Ground, Kathgodam. The Trial Court (Special Judge, POCSO/FTC, Haldwani) had convicted Akhtar Ali under Sections 376A, 363, 201 IPC, POCSO sections, and Section 66C IT Act; and convicted Prem Pal under Section 212 IPC and Section 66C IT Act (the High Court later acquitted both of the IT Act charge but affirmed the rest, including the death sentence for Akhtar Ali).

The Supreme Court (Mehta, J., with Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol, JJ.) allowed the appeals, acquitting both appellants. The Court found that the prosecution’s case—based purely on circumstantial evidence—suffered from fatal infirmities: absence of a proven motive, collapse of the ‘last seen’ theory, a deeply suspect arrest narrative tied to later-procured call records, dubious “recoveries” (e.g., a hairband), and critically, unreliable DNA/forensic evidence marred by chain-of-custody gaps and internal inconsistencies. The judgment also reiterated that in capital cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the strictest standards of proof and procedural fairness apply, and that DNA evidence, without integrity and consistency, cannot salvage a broken evidentiary chain.

Summary of the Judgment

The prosecution case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence (motive, “last seen”, and forensic/DNA linkage). No eyewitness saw the assault.
While homicidal death by sexual assault and blunt force trauma was established medically, the Court held the prosecution failed to prove:
- Any credible motive beyond a bare allegation of “lust.”
- A valid “last seen” link; key shopkeeper testimonies surfaced only after body recovery and did not place the victim with the accused.
- The integrity and legality of the arrest and mobile-surveillance narrative; CDRs were obtained only in January 2015, undermining the State’s claim that location data led to the Ludhiana arrest in November 2014.
- The authenticity of the “hairband” recovery, marred by undated/irregular memo and no independent witnesses.
- The reliability of DNA findings: semen allegedly present on cervical swab but absent on cervical smear and vaginal samples; no semen of other alleged perpetrators; chain-of-custody gaps; no blood on the victim’s jacket despite massive bleeding; and questions over the DNA analyst’s qualifications.
Non-examination of a crucial witness—Nikhil Chand (victim’s cousin), the first person to disclose the exact location of the body—was a grave investigative omission warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution.
In capital sentencing, trial and appellate courts must exercise the highest degree of circumspection; the “rarest of rare” doctrine (Bachan Singh; Machhi Singh) and the duty to conduct a mitigation-focused sentence hearing (Manoj) were reaffirmed.
Convictions and the death sentence were set aside. Both appellants were acquitted and ordered to be released.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116: The Court applied the “five golden principles” for circumstantial evidence:
- Each circumstance must be fully established;
- The established facts must be consistent solely with guilt;
- Circumstances must be conclusive in nature;
- They must exclude every hypothesis except guilt;
- There must be a complete chain, leaving no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence.
The prosecution failed on multiple limbs: motive, last seen, and forensic integrity, leaving gaps incompatible with a conviction, let alone capital punishment.
Mukesh & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) 6 SCC 1: Cited to recognize the evidentiary significance of DNA profiling (statutorily embedded via Section 53-A CrPC). The Court emphasized that while DNA can be powerful, it must be reliable—collected, preserved, and analyzed with scientific rigor. Here, the internal inconsistencies and custody lapses rendered the DNA evidence untrustworthy.
Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) SCC OnLine SC 677: Reaffirmed that before imposing death, courts must meaningfully evaluate aggravating and mitigating factors, including prospects of reform, in a separate sentencing exercise. The Court faulted the mechanical approach below and reiterated the sentencing safeguards.
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684; Machhi Singh v. State Of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470: The “rarest of rare” doctrine was invoked to underscore that capital punishment demands unimpeachable proof and procedural fairness. With doubts pervading every link, the death sentence could not stand.

Legal Reasoning

1) Motive: not proved

The prosecution’s bare assertion that the accused were “driven by lust” lacked independent corroboration. Evidence from the dumper owner (PW-18) was riddled with improbabilities (engaging an unknown driver without verification; casually paying Rs. 3,000 the next day; delayed disclosure despite participating in searches). The supposed prior familiarity through PW-39 was contradicted by PW-39 himself. The Court held that in a circumstantial case, motive is a significant psychological link; here, it was not established.

2) “Last seen” theory: collapsed

Shopkeepers PW-16, PW-19, PW-20 claimed to have seen the accused near the venue that evening, but their statements were recorded only on 25 November—after the body’s recovery—without explanation, and did not place the victim with the accused. This belated surfacing undermined credibility.
The Court highlighted the pivotal role of Nikhil Chand, the first to disclose the body’s exact location, whose statement was never recorded and who was not examined. Given that several police teams failed to find the body for days, the source of his knowledge was crucial. The non-examination was “intentional and calculated,” depriving the court of a vital link. The Court drew an adverse inference against the prosecution and held the last-seen theory “completely collapsed.”

3) Arrest narrative, mobile surveillance, and “recoveries”: suspect

The STF officer (PW-10) claimed the Ludhiana arrest (27 November) flowed from mobile surveillance of numbers linked to the accused. However, the telecom officer (PW-28) confirmed CDRs were only procured in January 2015, contradicting the State’s theory that contemporaneous location data led to the arrest.
No General Diary departure entry for the Ludhiana mission; no independent local witnesses; “secret informer” identification implausible for a man unknown to the city; arrest-site sketch prepared much later by a non-participant officer. These cumulatively rendered the arrest narrative “ex facie unbelievable.”
The hairband “recovery” at the accused’s instance was disbelieved: no date on memo, police signatures bear 28 November date, no independent witnesses, and the very premise (remembering where a trivial item was discarded in a forest days earlier) was implausible. Both courts below had doubted it; the Supreme Court rejected it outright.

4) Forensic/DNA evidence: internally inconsistent and procedurally insecure

Internal contradictions:
- Semen allegedly present on the cervical swab but absent on the cervical smear slides and in vaginal swab/wash, despite collection from the same anatomical area. The Court found this scientifically implausible, strongly suggestive of tampering/planting.
- Prosecution alleged gang rape by three; yet no semen of the other alleged perpetrators appeared on any exhibit.
- Post-mortem indicated death by massive bleeding within minutes; yet, forensic reports did not find blood/semen on the red jacket worn by the victim, nor bloodstains at the alleged scene—undermining the State’s crime-scene narrative.
Chain-of-custody and credentials:
- Opaque storage and transfer of exhibits; discrepancies in forwarding letters; absence of specimen seals in several key documents; uncertainties surrounding where samples were kept between 26–27 November.
- The DNA analyst (PW-34) had M.Sc. (Botany) and Ph.D.; the Court questioned whether this qualified him as a human DNA expert. While the Court did not discard the DNA report solely on this ground, it signaled a benchmark: expert testimony should reflect appropriate specialization in human DNA profiling.
Result: The Court held the DNA evidence “unreliable” and incapable of completing the chain of circumstances, particularly given the dubious arrest narrative and custody gaps.

5) Capital sentencing: strictest scrutiny required

Reiterating Bachan Singh, Machhi Singh, and Manoj, the Court emphasized that in circumstantial cases—with any reasonable doubt—the death penalty cannot be imposed. The trial court’s same-day conviction-and-sentencing approach, without a robust mitigation enquiry, was criticized in line with Manoj. With the evidentiary chain broken, the death sentence was unsustainable.

Impact

A. For investigation and prosecution

Non-examination of crucial witnesses invites adverse inference. Where a person uniquely discloses the body’s location—especially after multi-day unsuccessful searches—their examination is indispensable. Omission can collapse core links (e.g., last seen).
Mobile surveillance must be contemporaneously documented. If location data underpins an arrest, CDRs and authorizations should be obtained contemporaneously, with GD entries and independent corroboration.
Independent witnesses and timely documentation are pivotal. Arrest/search memos without local witnesses, late-prepared site maps, undated recovery memos, and missing GD entries severely weaken the case.
DNA/forensics do not “self-prove.” Internal consistency (e.g., swab vs smear), logical alignment with medical evidence, intact chain-of-custody, specimen seals, and clear storage logs are mandatory. Any mismatch invites doubt.
Qualifications of the expert matter. Human DNA profiling should be handled and deposed upon by appropriately qualified experts. Courts may question profiles lacking demonstrable specialization.

B. For the judiciary

Sharad Sarda’s five-prong test remains the touchstone; “mere presence in vicinity” and “late surfacing” of witnesses are insufficient for last seen.
DNA is corroborative, not curative. It cannot repair a broken chain or override internal and procedural infirmities.
Death penalty safeguards. Robust, individualized sentencing hearings and meticulous evaluation of mitigating factors are obligatory; any evidentiary doubt is fatal to capital punishment.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Circumstantial evidence: Proof of facts from which the court infers the ultimate fact (guilt). Conviction is safe only if all circumstances, when taken together, point exclusively to the accused’s guilt and exclude any other reasonable hypothesis.
“Last seen” theory: If the accused and the deceased were last seen together at a time proximate to death, and the accused fails to explain, an inference may arise. It demands temporal and spatial proximity; “mere vicinity” is not enough.
DNA profiling: A forensic technique comparing genetic profiles (from semen, blood, etc.) to identify or exclude a person as the source. Reliability hinges on proper collection, preservation, analysis, and expert interpretation.
Chain of custody: The documented, unbroken trail showing who collected, sealed, stored, transported, and analyzed a forensic exhibit, ensuring no tampering or contamination.
General Diary (GD): A police station’s contemporaneous log of significant actions (departures, arrivals, arrests). Missing entries can cast doubt on official narratives.
Adverse inference: When a party withholds crucial evidence or witnesses without explanation, the court may presume that the evidence would have gone against that party.
Section 53-A CrPC: Enables medical examination (including DNA profiling) of an accused in sexual offence cases; underscores the statutory place of DNA in criminal trials.
“Rarest of rare” doctrine: The constitutional standard for imposing the death penalty (Bachan Singh): only when life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed, based on crime and criminal, after full consideration of mitigating factors.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Akhtar Ali serves as a rigorous restatement of fundamental principles governing convictions based on circumstantial evidence, especially in capital cases. It crystallizes a crucial trilogy of safeguards:

Completeness and integrity of the evidentiary chain (Sharad Sarda) — no missing links, no speculative joins.
Reliability and internal coherence of scientific evidence — DNA cannot “cure” a broken chain; it must be internally consistent, chain-of-custody compliant, and presented by suitably qualified experts.
Heightened judicial vigilance in death penalty cases — with meaningful sentencing hearings and deference to doubt.

By drawing an adverse inference for the non-examination of a crucial witness, disbelieving belated “last seen” testimonies, dismantling a suspect arrest and CDR narrative, and refusing to accept inconsistent DNA results, the Court underscores that the criminal process must not sacrifice rigor to result. The ruling sets practical benchmarks for police, prosecutors, and trial courts: meticulously document, independently corroborate, preserve and prove. Above all, when life is at stake, certainty—not conjecture—must anchor the verdict.