In a dramatic turn of events, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a man sentenced to death for allegedly murdering six family members, including his four children and brother. The ruling cited a deeply flawed investigation and a prosecution case riddled with inconsistencies, ultimately concluding that the evidence presented was too weak to sustain a conviction.
“The fabric of the prosecution case is full of holes—holes that are impossible to mend,” the Court declared, dismantling the basis of the conviction.
The prosecution had built its case solely on circumstantial evidence, asserting that the accused had committed the murders over a land dispute. However, the Court found that crucial elements—such as motive, last seen evidence, and forensic recoveries—were not established. The forensic report did not confirm any blood grouping on the alleged murder weapons, further weakening the case.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta found the investigative process alarmingly inadequate. The investigating officer failed to question independent witnesses present near the crime scene and relied instead on accounts from individuals with a vested interest in the case.
The judgment, authored by Justice Mehta, was scathing in its critique of law enforcement. “This case exemplifies a lackadaisical approach by both the investigative agency and the prosecution. A case involving the brutal murder of six innocent people was handled with shocking negligence. No serious attempt was made to gather concrete evidence, interview key witnesses, or establish the accused’s presence at the crime scene,” the ruling stated.
With the prosecution failing to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, bringing a dramatic end to a case that once carried the weight of a death sentence.
