Supreme Court Overturns Death Sentence in POCSO Case, Clarifies ‘Rarest of Rare’ Doctrine
September 11, 2025
Bench Emphasises Unbroken Chain of Evidence Over Crime Gravity
Slightest Doubt Weighs Heavily Against Capital Punishment in Circumstantial Cases
By Our Legal Reporter
New Delhi: September 11, 2025: The Supreme Court of India on September 10, 2025, set aside the death sentence of Akhtar Ali, who had been convicted for the sexual assault and murder of a minor girl in Uttarakhand in 2014. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, making it unsafe to uphold the capital punishment.
Akhtar Ali was initially tried by a Special Judge in Nainital and convicted under Section 376A of the Indian Penal Code and relevant provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Alongside him, co-accused Prem Pal Verma was convicted under Section 212 IPC and sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment. A third accused was acquitted at trial.
The Uttarakhand High Court upheld both the conviction and the death sentence on October 18, 2019. This ruling affirmed the trial court’s March 11, 2016 order despite concerns about gaps in the prosecution’s case.
Challenging these judgments, Ali and Verma filed appeals in the Supreme Court. They argued that the evidence against them was neither consistent nor conclusive, and that the irreversible nature of the death penalty demanded the highest standard of proof.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta heard the appeals. The judges meticulously reviewed the record, focusing on whether every link in the circumstantial evidence chain had been firmly established.
The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution failed to prove any clear motive for the crime. It found the “last seen” theory—which placed Ali with the victim before her disappearance—contradicted by other testimonies. Scientific and DNA evidence, too, was marred by inconsistencies and serious loopholes.
Citing landmark rulings in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983), the court reiterated that capital punishment is an irreversible step and must be reserved for the “rarest of rare” cases. The mere gravity of an offence, however horrific, does not, in itself, justify the death penalty.
The judgment underlined that in every case resting on circumstantial evidence, each link must be complete and conclusive. Any gap or doubt in this chain renders the evidence legally insufficient to support a conviction, particularly one carrying the death sentence.
The bench stressed that even the slightest doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused when capital punishment is under consideration. “The slightest doubt must weigh against the imposition of the death penalty,” the court declared, reinforcing the protective bias inherent in criminal jurisprudence.
Referring to Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), the Supreme Court noted that trial courts and High Courts are required to hold detailed sentencing hearings and consider all mitigating circumstances before awarding the death penalty. Unimpeachable evidence is non-negotiable.
According to the prosecution’s theory, Ali and Verma, along with the acquitted third person, allegedly kidnapped the girl from a wedding function in Kathgodam. The victim’s body was discovered five days later in a remote area, and foul play was immediately suspected.
The defence countered that the case was tailored to fit investigative gaps rather than built on solid proof. They pointed out that no credible evidence supported the claim of kidnapping at gunpoint, that the key witness who found the body was never examined, and that no forensic material linked the accused to the crime scene.
The Supreme Court found merit in these arguments. It held that the prosecution’s theory of motive was speculative, the mobile surveillance logs failed to conclusively connect Ali to the crime, crucial witnesses remained unexamined, and the DNA evidence could not be relied upon.
Concluding that the evidentiary chain against Ali and Verma was broken, the bench acquitted both appellants and ordered their immediate release unless they were required to be detained in any other case.
The verdict clarifies that the “rarest of rare” doctrine hinges not only on the brutal nature of an offence but equally on the certainty and reliability of proof. Without incontrovertible evidence, even the most heinous crimes cannot attract the death penalty.
The rarest of rare doctrine emerged from the twin judgments of Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh, which introduced a three-tier test: the “crime test,” “criminal test,” and the final assessment of whether the case falls into the rarest category warranting death. Subsequent rulings have refined this framework.
Legal experts say this judgment will guide lower courts to apply the doctrine more judiciously. They expect that trial judges will exercise greater caution and ensure that every circumstantial link is beyond doubt before imposing the ultimate punishment.
Civil rights advocates welcome the decision as a safeguard for individual liberty. They believe it will deter frivolous or weak prosecutions from seeking capital punishment in borderline cases and promote due process.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Akhtar Ali v. State of Uttarakhand now stands as binding precedent on the application of the rarest of rare doctrine in POCSO and other capital offence cases. Courts across India will look to this judgment when weighing evidence in death penalty matters.
As the country continues to grapple with heinous crimes against children, this landmark verdict balances society’s demand for justice with the constitutional mandate that safeguards human life against judicial error.
ALSO READ POPULAR ARTICLES
Supreme Court Refuses Plea to Cancel India-Pakistan Asia Cup 2025 Match
Delhi HC Battle Over Sunjay Kapur’s Rs 1,900 Crore Asset Transfer
Supreme Court Unveils Four-Step Test to Quash Frivolous Criminal Cases
Supreme Court Acquits Woman Heated Neighbourhood Quarrels Not Abetment to Suicide
Top 5 Landmark Judgments & Their Practical Impact (with Summaries)